Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, earlier this evening, Senator Reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the unemployment insurance legislation. Negotiations are ongoing to come to an agreement to have that vote tomorrow. Senators will be notified when the vote is scheduled.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Randy Pausch, who died this past July 25 from pancreatic cancer. Dr. Pausch was a rare hero who rose above his illness and fought to the end for increased public awareness of this devastating illness. In doing so, Dr. Pausch captured the attention of the country, inspiring people with his extraordinary grace, courage, and love of life. Dr. Pausch was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, in my home State of Pennsylvania. He was an accomplished researcher and dedicated teacher. Many people know what Randy did because of his famous ``Last Lecture,'' which he delivered at Carnegie Mellon in September of last year. The video of the lecture became an inspirational phenomenon on the Internet. Literally millions of Americans wrote and blogged about the transformational impact Dr. Pausch's lecture had upon them and their lives. Recently, ``The Last Lecture'' was turned into a best- selling book. The lessons from Dr. Pausch that have inspired so many people are simple, but ones we all too easily can forget. He reminds us about achieving childhood dreams and maintaining a sense of childhood wonder. He also encourages his listeners to work hard, tell the truth, be earnest, help others, apologize for mistakes, listen to advice, and never, ever give up. He helps us remember how important it is to simply enjoy life and that each day is a gift. As his disease progressed, Dr. Pausch was also an impassioned advocate for pancreatic cancer research. He testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, saying: We don't have advocates for this disease because they don't live long enough. We don't have a Michael J. Fox because people die too fast. Pancreatic cancer is absolutely ruthless. Part of my job is to put a face on the disease. So said Dr. Pausch so poignantly about this disease, because indeed pancreatic cancer is ruthless. It is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States of America. Seventy-five percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within 1 year of diagnosis. The 5-year survival rate is barely 5 percent. The survival rate for pancreatic cancer today is the same as it was 30 years ago. Randy was only 45 when he died of pancreatic cancer on July 25 of this year. He left behind his wife Jai and their three children, Dylan, Logan, and Chloe. Dr. Randy Pausch lived life to the fullest in every sense of that word, in every sense of that phrase. He was a loving husband and father, a dedicated educator, and an impassioned advocate. While his life was cut short by pancreatic cancer, his legacy for living is one we should all cherish. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in commemorating the life of Dr. Pausch with the resolution that I and others have introduced. This resolution calls upon communities across this country to recognize November as National Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, and urges greater public awareness and resources for prevention, early detection, and treatment of this disease. Let us, with this resolution, recognize the extraordinary gift that Dr. Pausch's life was to humanity and strive to make progress with this deadly, ruthless disease. I commend Senator Clinton for her leadership on this issue and for introducing this resolution. I am joined as a cosponsor by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. For their help, we are greatly appreciative. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2040, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to convey some brief remarks regarding my views on the United States-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement. I cast a ``yes'' vote on this agreement, but not without some serious reservations regarding the likely damage this agreement will do to the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. I had the opportunity to visit India earlier this year, spending a day meeting senior government leaders in New Delhi and another day in Hyderabad, where I witnessed first hand the dynamic entrepreneurism that has recently transformed India into an economic powerhouse, albeit with still extreme poverty. Let me be clear: The United States and India, sharing a common commitment to democracy and personal freedoms, are natural allies. I congratulate President Bush for building upon the initial steps taken by his predecessor, President Clinton, in nurturing closer ties between our two great nations and laying the building blocks for an enduring strategic partnership. India's exclusion from global trade in civil nuclear energy, a direct consequence of its 1974 nuclear weapons test utilizing equipment and materials imported for a civilian energy program, represented a continuing thorn to an otherwise blossoming United States-Indian relationship. Right or wrong, it was always the United States that was viewed as the leading advocate of the firewall between India and global nuclear trade--even though India never signed the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, NPT. So I understand why a resolution to this issue was necessary if the United States and India were to achieve a genuine partnership that could endure in coming decades. My strongest criticism of the United States-India nuclear cooperation agreement is that, in exchange for a historic exception to the principle that those states that refuse to abide by the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty cannot enjoy the fruits of global civilian nuclear trade, the United States did not ask enough in return from the Indian Government. We could have pressed New Delhi to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and forswear all future nuclear weapons tests. But we did not. We could have urged New Delhi to agree to a national moratorium on production of nuclear fissile material, linking that moratorium to a similar pledge by Pakistan. But we did not. I worry over the message this agreement sends to states like North Korea and Iran. Are their leaders to believe that, with the passage of time, one day the international community will also accept their nuclear weapons programs as a de facto reality and move to accommodate such programs? How do we convince the international community to demonstrate solidarity against Iran's violations of the NPT while giving a pass to India's refusal to abide by this very same treaty? Of course I am not equating the two states--India is a democratic regime, a friend of the United States, and a force for stability in the world. There is no comparison. But I am concerned when we begin to divide the world into ``good'' proliferators and ``bad'' proliferators--instead, we need to send the message that all nuclear proliferation harms our security and increases the odds that a nuclear weapon will one day be used and kill millions. Nevertheless, at every step of the process over the last 3 years, administration officials often appeared excessively sensitive to the need to smooth over domestic political concerns in India while downplaying concerns expressed by nonproliferation experts. So I congratulate Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for their persistence in ensuring this final agreement is a real improvement over initial administration proposals. The legislation before us clarifies some of the deliberate ambiguities contained within the Article 123 United States-India agreement and the international exemption for India provided by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The United States-India civil nuclear initiative is a flawed agreement. Nonetheless, I am casting a ``yes'' vote for this legislation for two primary reasons. First, in many respects, the damage to the global non-proliferation regime has already been done. The decision taken last month by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to provide a universal exemption to permit India to participate in civil nuclear trade means that, even if the United States Congress were to reject this agreement, other nations like Russia and France are free to initiate their own civilian agreements with India. The net result of a United States rejection would likely only ensure that United States companies--and United States workers--will be unable to participate in the fruits of civilian nuclear trade with India. Second, a ``no'' vote on this agreement will be unfairly construed as a rejection of a broader strategic alliance between the United States and India. Through his rhetoric and actions, President Bush unwisely has transformed this nuclear cooperation agreement into the centerpiece of our bilateral relationship with New Delhi. In doing so, he has ignored the broad range of areas on which the United States and India can and should cooperate--ranging from science and technology to economic and business partnerships. In the security realm, our two nations should be doing more together on counterterrorism, especially in the wake of the devastating attacks in India over the past year. I strongly believe in the promise of the future partnership between our two great nations. I am voting in favor of this agreement, despite its serious nonproliferation flaws, because I do not want to jeopardize that emerging alliance that can bring so many benefits to both of our peoples.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, thank you very much. I rise today to talk for a few moments about the emergency economic stabilization bill. First of all, I commend the work of a number of people here, but in particular Chairman Dodd, who did not want this assignment, had a tough assignment to work with people in both parties in both Houses to get this done. We have a lot more work to do after this, but I commend him for his work and for his leadership under very difficult circumstances. There are a lot of ways to describe the challenge we face in America today economically and many ways to describe what we have to get done, what we are going to vote on tonight. I think if you could boil it down to one word or a couple of words, it would be--one word would be ``credit,'' or lack of credit. I think that is the basic problem. The freezing or seizing up of credit markets is not some far-off economic concept. That means small businesses in Pennsylvania and across the country cannot have access to credit to meet payroll and to hire people and to grow the economy. Probably half of our economy is small business, if not more. It means that families, when they go to finance an education, higher education, or when they go to purchase an automobile or something for their home, they cannot get access to credit. We live on credit, and thank God we have it. But that system we rely upon, that families rely upon, is put at risk now because of what has happened lately. We can spend a lot of time figuring out why this happened, and we should after the debate is over. But right now, we have to act. One headline does not tell the whole story, but it gave me a sense of what was going on. This is from USA Today on Monday, September 29. The headline reads: ``Tight credit costs small-business owners.'' In one headline, I think it encapsulated the challenge this problem is for our economy. I think I am seeing it not just in headlines and anecdotes about what is happening to people who own small businesses across the country; we are all seeing it, as well, in the unemployment rate, in the job loss across America, which I would argue, as bad as it is now--and a lot of families have been living in this recession. I don't care what the economists say, when you are paying higher prices for gasoline and food and education and health care and everything in the life of a family goes up, you are in a recession. I think in the last couple of weeks we have seen a terrible downturn in the job market. In Pennsylvania, for example, between July and August of this year--and this does not even include September, where the numbers will be a lot worse--just in 1 month, we lost 31,000 jobs in Pennsylvania. This is not just in Philadelphia, with a little more than 21,000 jobs lost, or in Pittsburgh, with 7,700 jobs lost; I am talking about smaller communities as well. In Johnstown, PA, a small labor market on this list, they lost 500 jobs in 1 month. In Altoona, PA--again, right next door to Johnstown, a small market--500 jobs lost in 1 month. Again, none of this includes the month of September. So we are seeing it everywhere in our State. If small businesses cannot grow and cannot have access to credit, they are not going to create the jobs we need. One more statistic, and then I will wrap up. The Pennsylvania foreclosure rate in August 2007 versus August 2008 went up 60 percent. So even in a State that has been relatively--relatively--free of some of the trauma that Nevada and California and Florida and some other States have been hit with, even in Pennsylvania that foreclosure rate is going up at a rate much higher than the national average. So what is this bill about? We have heard a lot about the description of it. I do not believe it is a bailout. We can debate what that means. I do not believe it is. I think it is a bill to stabilize our economy and our businesses and our families. But there are a lot of taxpayer protections built into this legislation that were not there when we started: taxpayer warrants, as Senator Jack Reed talked about today; reimbursements, so at the end of the road 5 years from now, if taxpayers have not gotten what they deserve, these companies that might benefit will have to reimburse; very tough oversight, several levels of oversight. We do not have time to go into all of them, but there is a special inspector general to crack down on what is happening when this program is implemented. There are limits on CEO and executive pay. It is the first time in American history that we have limited or put some restrictions on that pay. There are foreclosure prevention strategies, an expansion of the HOPE for Homeowners. This is good legislation which we are making even stronger. Finally, what we have to do after this is over, as important as this legislation is, is we have to get to work on regulation. We have to not just implement the right policies to regulate in a way we did not regulate before in America, but also, once those regulations are in place, we need to have people in Washington who are willing to crack heads--figuratively, of course--on those who abuse the public trust, those who abuse the rules and get people into mortgages, for example, they cannot pay for. Finally, we have to make sure, in the months ahead and the years ahead, we invest in the long-term economy, invest in health care and education, the skills of our workers, to build a strong economy not just for this year and next year but for the next generation. But in the end, this legislation we are voting on tonight is about credit. We are either going to do something about it and allow people to have access to credit or not. I think we have to act, and we have to act promptly. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. Since 1984, Congressionally- designated National Heritage Areas have fostered partnerships between the public and private sectors for undertaking preservation, educational, and recreational initiatives in diverse regions throughout the country. Through these efforts, National Heritage Areas have helped to protect our Nation's natural and cultural resources while promoting local economic development. Today, I am proud to join my colleague from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to propose a bill that would grant national recognition to the Susquehanna Gateway region, an area that has played a key role in the development of our nation's cultural, political, and economic identity. While the region boasts an impressive catalogue of historic and scenic resources, perhaps two examples in particular best underscore how the distinct traditions and natural landscape of the Susquehanna Gateway offer an insight into the broader American experience. For centuries, the Susquehanna River, which forms a natural border between Pennsylvania's York and Lancaster Counties and represents the heart of the proposed National Heritage Area, has been at the center of agricultural, industrial, and recreational activity in the Mid-Atlantic United States. The river provided colonial settlers with a trading route to Native American communities. It was an important shipping lane for timber, iron, coal, and agricultural products throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. With the decline of industry and commercial shipping in the region, the river today has assumed a new identity as a center of recreation for millions of boaters, fishermen, hunters, birders, and others. In tracing these developments, we recognize that the story of the Susquehanna River Valley reflects much of the American story. Passing the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act will allow more Americans to discover and better appreciate this narrative. No less than in this tremendous natural resource, the Susquehanna Gateway region's national significance is rooted in its populace. As the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was founded in the spirit of providing refuge to those suffering religious and cultural persecution, so did York and Lancaster Counties offer a home to German Baptist immigrants who created Amish and Mennonite farming communities. By their example of humility, hard work, environmental stewardship, and respect for others, these ``Plain'' people continue to inspire millions of Americans. Designating the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area is the proper way to acknowledge their contributions to the story of American agriculture and its transformative influence on the natural landscape. Finally, I would like to recognize the leadership of Mark Platts, President of the Lancaster-York Heritage Region, and his colleague Jonathan Pinkerton, Deputy Director. Through their tireless efforts, they have developed a feasibility study for the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area that meets the National Parks Service's ten interim criteria for designation of a National Heritage Area. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act soon so that the region can begin to play a national role in sharing America's story. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that, in the midst of this devastating economic crisis, continues to plague more and more Americans every day--hunger. Although hunger in this country may not be as obvious as it is in other nations, it nonetheless exists and has devastating consequences for those it affects. It weakens the body, making it more susceptible to illness. It impedes child development and reduces a child's ability to learn. It saps valuable energy, resulting in lowered productivity and less earning potential. In short, hunger has a devastating effect on those it touches. In 2006 alone, the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that when the figures for 2007 and 2008 are released, the number of Americans living with hunger will be even greater. Unfortunately, for these millions of Americans facing hunger, the ability to afford the food they so desperately need has not become any easier over the past year. According to the Department of Labor, the cost of food at home rose 7.1 percent from July 2007 to July 2008. But, for the nearly 28 million Americans receiving food stamps, the effects of food price inflation during that time period were even more devastating. From July 2007 to July 2008, the cost of the ``Thrifty Food Plan''--the Government's estimate of what constitutes a nutritious, minimal cost meal plan--rose by 10 percent. As a result, the benefits currently provided to food stamp participants are not enough to even cover the cost of this minimally adequate diet. Each summer, the United States Department of Agriculture sets new food stamp benefit levels based on the average of the previous year's food price inflation. However, these new benefit levels are not implemented until the first day of October each year, by which time they already lag behind current prices. For instance, when updated food stamp benefit levels were provided to an average family of four in October 2007, they were already lagging $12.20 behind the monthly cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. By July of this year, that same family of four was receiving $56 per month less than they needed to afford the cost of this minimal diet. for such low-income families, already facing rising home energy and transportation costs, and having non-negotiable expenditures like rent or mortgage payments and child care expenses needing to be paid, food purchases are often the only area of the monthly budget where cuts can be made. But, food price inflation is not only affecting the price families are paying for food at home. It is also affecting the prices schools are paying for foods provided through child nutrition programs like school breakfasts, lunches, and after-school snack programs. While the Federal Government does reimburse schools for the costs of providing these programs to children from low-income families, with ever rising food prices, these reimbursements are not enough to cover the expenses of providing these meals. Like food stamps, school meal reimbursement rates are updated every summer to account for inflation. But, by the time the school year begins, these reimbursements already lag behind the true cost of producing the meal. In fact, a recent survey by the School Nutrition Association found that 88 percent of responding school districts indicated that Federal reimbursement rates were not sufficient to cover the costs of producing a meal during the 2007/08 school year. As a result, 73 percent of these school districts said they plan to increase the price other students pay for food services in this coming school year to make up for the increased costs. Congress can and must do more to ensure that Federal nutrition assistance programs can adequately cover the costs of food for those most in need. That's why today I'm pleased to introduce the National Hunger Relief Act of 2008. This act will make critical changes needed to help low-income families and schools cover the costs of purchasing healthy, nutritious foods. Under this act, when setting benefit levels for food stamps, Congress would anticipate the food price inflation that will occur in the coming fiscal year, and would act to offset it by setting a higher benefit rate for October 1 than is currently provided. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, recipients would receive 102 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. By fiscal year 2012, this benefit rate would be ramped up to 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. This change would be consistent with the way food stamp benefits were regularly adjusted for food price inflation for many years prior to 1996. By providing this higher benefit rate, food stamp benefits would be adequate to meet rising food prices over the course of the following year. As a result, low-income families participating in the food stamp program would have the necessary resources to purchase the foods their families need and be able to ensure that their families do not suffer from the adverse effects of hunger. To solve the problem of inadequate reimbursement rates for certain child nutrition programs, this bill would provide for semi-annual reimbursement rate adjustments. In addition to the current annual update in July to reimbursement rates for school meal programs, reimbursement rates would also be adjusted for inflation each January. As a result of this change, reimbursement rates for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Special Milk Program, the Child and Adult Day Care Program, and the Summer Food Service Program would more accurately reflect the costs that schools or service providers incur to provide foods through these programs. This, in turn, would help to keep the prices charged for foods provided to other children at schools more in line with the costs of procuring and providing those foods. I am introducing this legislation today because it is critically important to begin the dialogue on finding ways to ensure that our nutrition assistance programs can continue to prevent hunger by providing necessary nourishment to Americans of all ages. However, I also recognize that we have a challenge to ensure that these nutrition assistance programs can operate in the most efficient and cost- effective manner possible while adequately serving the more than 35.5 million Americans who continue to be plagued by the threat of hunger. Over the coming months, as we continue to work on ways to eradicate hunger in this Nation and begin to consider the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, I will continue seeking out ways to make reforms to this and other nutrition assistance legislation to ensure that--at the end of the day--these programs can continue to effectively reach those most in need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania. Since 1984, Congressionally- designated National Heritage Areas have fostered partnerships between the public and private sectors for undertaking preservation, educational, and recreational initiatives in diverse regions throughout the country. Through these efforts, National Heritage Areas have helped to protect our Nation's natural and cultural resources while promoting local economic development. Today, I am proud to join my colleague from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to propose a bill that would grant national recognition to the Susquehanna Gateway region, an area that has played a key role in the development of our nation's cultural, political, and economic identity. While the region boasts an impressive catalogue of historic and scenic resources, perhaps two examples in particular best underscore how the distinct traditions and natural landscape of the Susquehanna Gateway offer an insight into the broader American experience. For centuries, the Susquehanna River, which forms a natural border between Pennsylvania's York and Lancaster Counties and represents the heart of the proposed National Heritage Area, has been at the center of agricultural, industrial, and recreational activity in the Mid-Atlantic United States. The river provided colonial settlers with a trading route to Native American communities. It was an important shipping lane for timber, iron, coal, and agricultural products throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century. With the decline of industry and commercial shipping in the region, the river today has assumed a new identity as a center of recreation for millions of boaters, fishermen, hunters, birders, and others. In tracing these developments, we recognize that the story of the Susquehanna River Valley reflects much of the American story. Passing the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act will allow more Americans to discover and better appreciate this narrative. No less than in this tremendous natural resource, the Susquehanna Gateway region's national significance is rooted in its populace. As the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was founded in the spirit of providing refuge to those suffering religious and cultural persecution, so did York and Lancaster Counties offer a home to German Baptist immigrants who created Amish and Mennonite farming communities. By their example of humility, hard work, environmental stewardship, and respect for others, these ``Plain'' people continue to inspire millions of Americans. Designating the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area is the proper way to acknowledge their contributions to the story of American agriculture and its transformative influence on the natural landscape. Finally, I would like to recognize the leadership of Mark Platts, President of the Lancaster-York Heritage Region, and his colleague Jonathan Pinkerton, Deputy Director. Through their tireless efforts, they have developed a feasibility study for the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area that meets the National Parks Service's ten interim criteria for designation of a National Heritage Area. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass the Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area Act soon so that the region can begin to play a national role in sharing America's story. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that, in the midst of this devastating economic crisis, continues to plague more and more Americans every day--hunger. Although hunger in this country may not be as obvious as it is in other nations, it nonetheless exists and has devastating consequences for those it affects. It weakens the body, making it more susceptible to illness. It impedes child development and reduces a child's ability to learn. It saps valuable energy, resulting in lowered productivity and less earning potential. In short, hunger has a devastating effect on those it touches. In 2006 alone, the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that when the figures for 2007 and 2008 are released, the number of Americans living with hunger will be even greater. Unfortunately, for these millions of Americans facing hunger, the ability to afford the food they so desperately need has not become any easier over the past year. According to the Department of Labor, the cost of food at home rose 7.1 percent from July 2007 to July 2008. But, for the nearly 28 million Americans receiving food stamps, the effects of food price inflation during that time period were even more devastating. From July 2007 to July 2008, the cost of the ``Thrifty Food Plan''--the Government's estimate of what constitutes a nutritious, minimal cost meal plan--rose by 10 percent. As a result, the benefits currently provided to food stamp participants are not enough to even cover the cost of this minimally adequate diet. Each summer, the United States Department of Agriculture sets new food stamp benefit levels based on the average of the previous year's food price inflation. However, these new benefit levels are not implemented until the first day of October each year, by which time they already lag behind current prices. For instance, when updated food stamp benefit levels were provided to an average family of four in October 2007, they were already lagging $12.20 behind the monthly cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. By July of this year, that same family of four was receiving $56 per month less than they needed to afford the cost of this minimal diet. for such low-income families, already facing rising home energy and transportation costs, and having non-negotiable expenditures like rent or mortgage payments and child care expenses needing to be paid, food purchases are often the only area of the monthly budget where cuts can be made. But, food price inflation is not only affecting the price families are paying for food at home. It is also affecting the prices schools are paying for foods provided through child nutrition programs like school breakfasts, lunches, and after-school snack programs. While the Federal Government does reimburse schools for the costs of providing these programs to children from low-income families, with ever rising food prices, these reimbursements are not enough to cover the expenses of providing these meals. Like food stamps, school meal reimbursement rates are updated every summer to account for inflation. But, by the time the school year begins, these reimbursements already lag behind the true cost of producing the meal. In fact, a recent survey by the School Nutrition Association found that 88 percent of responding school districts indicated that Federal reimbursement rates were not sufficient to cover the costs of producing a meal during the 2007/08 school year. As a result, 73 percent of these school districts said they plan to increase the price other students pay for food services in this coming school year to make up for the increased costs. Congress can and must do more to ensure that Federal nutrition assistance programs can adequately cover the costs of food for those most in need. That's why today I'm pleased to introduce the National Hunger Relief Act of 2008. This act will make critical changes needed to help low-income families and schools cover the costs of purchasing healthy, nutritious foods. Under this act, when setting benefit levels for food stamps, Congress would anticipate the food price inflation that will occur in the coming fiscal year, and would act to offset it by setting a higher benefit rate for October 1 than is currently provided. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, recipients would receive 102 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. By fiscal year 2012, this benefit rate would be ramped up to 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in the previous June. This change would be consistent with the way food stamp benefits were regularly adjusted for food price inflation for many years prior to 1996. By providing this higher benefit rate, food stamp benefits would be adequate to meet rising food prices over the course of the following year. As a result, low-income families participating in the food stamp program would have the necessary resources to purchase the foods their families need and be able to ensure that their families do not suffer from the adverse effects of hunger. To solve the problem of inadequate reimbursement rates for certain child nutrition programs, this bill would provide for semi-annual reimbursement rate adjustments. In addition to the current annual update in July to reimbursement rates for school meal programs, reimbursement rates would also be adjusted for inflation each January. As a result of this change, reimbursement rates for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Special Milk Program, the Child and Adult Day Care Program, and the Summer Food Service Program would more accurately reflect the costs that schools or service providers incur to provide foods through these programs. This, in turn, would help to keep the prices charged for foods provided to other children at schools more in line with the costs of procuring and providing those foods. I am introducing this legislation today because it is critically important to begin the dialogue on finding ways to ensure that our nutrition assistance programs can continue to prevent hunger by providing necessary nourishment to Americans of all ages. However, I also recognize that we have a challenge to ensure that these nutrition assistance programs can operate in the most efficient and cost- effective manner possible while adequately serving the more than 35.5 million Americans who continue to be plagued by the threat of hunger. Over the coming months, as we continue to work on ways to eradicate hunger in this Nation and begin to consider the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, I will continue seeking out ways to make reforms to this and other nutrition assistance legislation to ensure that--at the end of the day--these programs can continue to effectively reach those most in need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a bill my distinguished colleague, Senator Cardin of Maryland and I introduced last week. S. 3509 addresses the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Iraq and potential security breakdown resulting from the mass displacement of Iraqis inside Iraq and as refugees into neighboring countries. If passed, this bill will help the United States address the needs of millions of Iraqis who have been forced to flee from their homes. The heart of the bill requires the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive regional strategy to address this humanitarian crisis. Senator Cardin and I are joined in this effort by our colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Voinovich, who have cosponsored the bill. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement to have this legislation placed on the Foreign Relations Committee business agenda this week. We may not have enough time left this year to bring this bill to the floor. I hope that is not the case--and if so, it is my hope that the State Department recognizes the need to formulate a strategy and take prompt action itself. It has been 5 years since the fall of Baghdad, and although this administration refuses to acknowledge it, Iraq and her neighbors are in the midst of a humanitarian crisis that threatens to undermine the stability of the Middle East. Wherever one stands on the future of the U.S. combat presence in Iraq, we have a moral responsibility to those innocent Iraqis who have been driven from their homes and fear for their lives and their children's lives every day. As I noted during my floor statement marking World Refugee Day this past June, Iraqis are now one of the largest displaced populations in the world. According to host countries hosting Iraqi refugees, up to 2 million Iraqis have fled their homes for neighboring country in order to avoid sectarian and other violence. According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, there are over 2.7 million internally displaced persons in Iraq. Iraqi refugees are overwhelming the basic infrastructure of Iraq's neighbors, especially in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. This raises troubling concerns about the region's stability and shifting sectarian balances. No one in the region, and I must stress this, no one including host countries and refugees themselves expect Iraqi refugees to return anytime soon. This means we will be dealing with the exodus of displaced Iraqis for some time to come. Despite this administration's position that security conditions are improving in Iraq and life is normalizing, there are no signs of imminent return. I saw firsthand the humanitarian and security implications of this crisis during my trip to the region last year. Beyond the obvious humanitarian and moral dimensions, this crisis has grave implications for our national security interests in the Middle East. We often talk about our military surge in Iraq. What has been missing for far too long now has been our humanitarian surge to address basic needs--access to food, health care, shelter, drinking water, and education. This needs to be at the heart of any campaign to win ``hearts and minds.'' Strong U.S. leadership is critical in bringing the Iraqi Government, regional neighbors, and the international community to the table to discuss and implement concrete measures. To date, Congress has not passed any comprehensive legislation addressing this humanitarian crisis. My bill, S. 3509, would prompt the next administration to act quickly and make the displacement of millions of Iraqis an urgent foreign policy priority. The heart of the bill requires the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive regional strategy that addresses the mass displacement of Iraqis. The strategy would: address the serious challenges facing Iraqi refugees; address the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to help meet the urgent needs of its citizens in the region; include an assessment of how much assistance is needed to help meet these needs; include an assessment of what conditions are necessary for the voluntary, safe, sustainable return of displaced Iraqis; include a description of the steps the U.S. Government has taken and will take to engage the international community to implement the strategy; and include plans to assess the impact of the strategy. S. 3509 also includes reporting requirements from the State Department and the Government Accountability Office so that Congress is informed on how the administration is moving forward on the Iraqi humanitarian crisis. Mr. President, I believe this bill will help define a roadmap for the United States and the international community on how we are meeting our basic obligations towards helping vulnerable Iraqis displaced as a result of the 2003 war. It will once again promote responsible American leadership abroad. I want to thank the following groups who have supported S. 3509 thus far: America's Development Foundation; Campaign for Innocent Victims in conflict, CIVIC; CARE; Catholic Relief Services; CHF International; Church World Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; EPIC: Promoting a Free & Secure Iraq; Friends Committee on National Legislation; International Medical Corps; International Relief and Development; International Rescue Committee; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns; Mercy Corps; NETWORK; Presbyterian Church, USA, Washington Office; Refugees International; Save the Children; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 967, S. 531.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged and the Senate now proceed, en bloc, to the consideration of the following resolutions: S. Res. 601, National Save for Retirement Week; S. Res. 623, Anniversary of the Lander Trail; S. Res. 650, National Good Neighbor Day; S. Res. 667, Prostate Cancer Awareness Week.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Lieberman amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 868, S. 2606.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I understand there are three bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I know it is getting late in the evening, and we are at the end of a long day for a lot of people in our country. I want to talk about not just the economic crisis our families and our country are living through right now, but also what we have seen over the last couple of years, and certainly in the last 7 to almost 8 years now. I think it is instructive to look at where we were 7 years ago and where we are today. By virtually every indicator, it is a much tougher world for a lot of families, especially working families and poor families. On the one hand, you have an increase in the number of Americans living in poverty; by one estimate, more than 5.5 million more people. So now that number goes above 38 million Americans. Health care, there are so many different ways to look at it. I know in my home State of Pennsylvania, since 2000, family premiums--the cost of health care for a family--are up by almost 50 percent, between 45 and 50 percent. If you look at it in another way, in terms of overall health care, we have seen these national numbers of 47 million Americans uninsured right now in the country. Some say it dropped to 45 million. Whatever that number is--whether it is 45 million or 47 million--it is way too high. I think the current administration has done nothing to address that-- no leadership by the President, no prioritization of that issue as a compelling national issue. There are 9 million American children with no health insurance, and the President vetoed the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which, as the Presiding Officer knows, got almost 70 votes in this Chamber more than once. There are so many different ways to look at these numbers. In the last year, over 605,000 Americans lost their jobs. The mortgage crisis, the foreclosure crisis is in the lives of so many families. I live in a State which, if you compare it to other States, relatively, has not had as much of a problem as some States such as California or Nevada or others. But in the month of August of this year--August of 2008--versus August of 2007, if you compare it month to month for those 2 years-- August 2007 to August 2008--the foreclosure rate in Pennsylvania is up some 60 percent, much higher than the national rate. So even in a State which has not felt the same effects, relatively, as these other States, now the foreclosure crisis is closing in on places and on families in Pennsylvania. In so many indicators, we can see it. We can see it obviously on Wall Street in the headlines. I do not need to repeat what we have seen in the newspaper. But I think when we look at our own communities, we can see the same is true. I am not going to read all of this document. I am going to have it printed in the Record. I am going to read the headline and ask that the document be made a part of the Record: ``Recent major Pennsylvania plant closings and/or layoffs.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. This is a brief summary of plant closings that involve hundreds of jobs in particular communities: Luzerne County--the county right next to my home county--451 employees at Geisinger Health System losing their jobs; 331 employees at the Fairchild Semiconductor International plant being laid off. That was announced in July. In Lehigh Valley, at Mack Trucks: more than 800 jobs being lost in our State and moving to another State. In Montgomery County--a very prosperous county in southeastern Pennsylvania--a corporation there laying off 120 employees. In Bucks County, a company there laying off 145 employees. In Berks County, Hershey Incorporated laying off 274 employees. That is just in the southeast. Then you go to central Pennsylvania. In York County, a plant there-- Harley Davidson, in fact--laying off 300 employees; a plant in Fulton County--a very small county in Pennsylvania--laying off 375 employees. It goes on from there: hundreds and hundreds of people losing their jobs, just in some communities in Pennsylvania, just this year. So that is exhibit A in terms of job loss in Pennsylvania. But also I think it gets back to this whole question of about what the Congress can do. We look at what has been happening on Wall Street--the loss of wealth, the loss of confidence--but what is happening on Wall Street mirrors what has happened in the lives of a lot of families. When you lose your house--and because of foreclosure, you are forced out of your home--you lose not only your home, the place you live, the place your family lives--a sense of your own, and the reality, I should say, of your own net worth--but as much as all that, you lose your dignity. So many families have lost that dignity. I think as much as we in the Congress, for the next couple of weeks and months, even leading into a new administration, will debate policies that pertain to financial markets--what about credit, what about capital, all these terms, ``liquidity,'' the things we are hearing a lot about as they pertain to Wall Street--and regulation is going to be an important part of what we do--but as we debate all of those issues, I think we have to get back to the fundamentals about why we are living through this nightmare. Part of it is the failure of this administration to do something in an aggressive way about regulation. Part of it is greed. But what resulted from that greed and from that inability to regulate markets and to oversee mortgages in an appropriate way is the fact that we have foreclosures. So if the Congress wants to respond to this in a positive way, to get something done, we have to do something about foreclosures, to bring that number down, to keep people in their homes and thereby to strengthen neighborhoods and our economy overall. If we keep neighborhoods strong, keep people in their homes, it will affect the whole world's financial markets and certainly our economy. So what do we do? Well, I think what we can do--there will be a lot of proposals about how to get there--but just broadly--and I will conclude with these thoughts--to get there broadly what we have to do is to say: If in the July legislation--which was not everything that all of us wanted; I know the Presiding Officer and I probably wanted a lot more in that bill than we got, but what we did in that bill was to create an opportunity for 400,000 people to stay in their homes by getting the borrower and the lender in the same room, so to speak, to work out a modification, to work out some arrangement to keep that family in that home. What we have to do is take that 400,000 and expand it exponentially to at least a million and, beyond that, if possible, to do everything possible to keep those families in their homes. If there is nothing else the Congress does for the next couple of months but focusing on the prevention of foreclosures, we will have contributed significantly to preventing some of the trauma we see on Wall Street and, as we have been hearing over and over again, on the Main Streets of America in the lives of our families. There are a lot of ways to do that. One of those strategies is making sure that the prevention of predatory lending is a higher priority. But I think focusing on individual mortgages and the relationship between an individual lender and that homeowner is going to be critical to this. So we have to expand what we have already done and do more on keeping people in their homes. We will talk more about it. But do you know what. All the answers to these questions do not simply reside in what we talk about in the Senate or what happens in the House or here in Washington. A lot of good ideas are coming from our communities. I point to one example. In Philadelphia--one of the places in Pennsylvania where the foreclosure rate has been far too high, even though other places have escaped it so far--in the city of Philadelphia, the court system, Judge Darnell Jones, and others, the mayor of the city, Michael Nutter, a very effective and capable mayor, came together with activists and people who understand how to keep people in their homes and said: Let's develop a program at the local level, and let's try to implement it. They developed the Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Pilot Program. I have spoken about this before. But it is a kind of example we should expand upon and use as an example to keep people in their homes. In a word or two, it is an early intervention program. Instead of letting these mortgages go so far out of control where someone cannot stay in their home, they intervene earlier. The courts are able to facilitate loan workouts and other solutions to keep homeowners and their families in their homes. It is an effort, as I said before, by the city and the mayor's office, Mayor Nutter, of being able to bring together housing advocates, volunteer attorneys, lenders, and servicers who all share the same goal of keeping people in their homes. Now, the interests of these groups are divergent, but they have set aside those differences, and they realize that stemming the tide of foreclosure helps everyone. It obviously helps the homeowner and the family and the community. But it also helps lenders and, in a very substantial way, our economy. So that is one example. We will talk more about it later in detail. But we need to enact policies that make sure those kinds of good examples coming from our communities become part of national policy. If we do that--if we are able to keep more and more, instead of 400,000 people staying in their homes, we make that 1 million, or even higher than that; if we do that, I think we can begin to stabilize the root cause of a lot of our problems. In addition to that, we have to do more in regulation. We have to do much more in holding government agencies accountable that should have been the cop on the beat, so to speak, when it comes to what happens to lending practices and to mortgage practices. So there is much to do, but I think the best thing we can do is focus on the root cause of this, which is foreclosures and the prevention of those foreclosures through counseling, through good programs, and through bringing people together at a time of real stress in the life of families. I think we can do that. I think we have done that in the past. I think it is a bipartisan wish. What we are going to need here is leadership beyond the finger-pointing that we often see here in Washington. So if we bring that spirit to this priority of stabilizing our economy, I think we can move forward and have a much stronger economy. If we choose not to and choose to focus on issues that will divide us when it comes to foreclosures, I think we are going to be off on the wrong track.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 3001, as passed by the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, be printed.