Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049 be withdrawn.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to the order governing the consideration of H.R. 6049, the votes with respect to the amendments occur upon the use or yielding back of time specified for debate with respect to each amendment.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I now ask for their second reading en bloc, and I object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on where America stands in the global war on terror. This week, of course, marks the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on our country. While our allies in Europe have suffered terrible acts of terrorism in subsequent years since September 11, 2001, our Nation has been blessed with no attacks since that time. Yet that single fact should not obscure the reality that America remains dangerously vulnerable to future attacks and that the very policies pursued by President Bush have made our Nation less secure. Today, the President announced that he will redeploy 8,000 soldiers out of a total of 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq over the remainder of this year and early next year. The scheduled replacements for those 8,000 forces will instead head to Afghanistan to respond to the sharply deteriorating circumstances there. I am pleased the President has started to come to grips with the severity of the threat we face in Afghanistan and the need to devote more U.S. troops and resources to what remains the central front in the war on terror. But let's be serious. Shifting 8,000 American troops to Afghanistan is wholly inadequate when we see Taliban extremists using sanctuary bases in Pakistan to increase attacks on U.S. and NATO forces there, when we see the Karzai government struggling to maintain the confidence of the Afghan people, and when we see the Taliban gaining new recruits by the day. Against all evidence, President Bush continues to view Iraq as the central front on the war on terror. We have heard him say that over and over again. He refuses to acknowledge al-Qaida established a presence in Iraq only as a by-product of our invasion in 2003. He ignores recent intelligence reports that al-Qaida leaders are sending senior level commanders and new recruits into Afghanistan, not Iraq. President Bush disregards the fact that al-Qaida has reconstituted its global headquarters to plan future worldwide attacks of terrorism in the frontier regions of Pakistan, ungoverned territories that remain off- limits to Pakistani military. After September 11, 2001, this President vowed al-Qaida would never again enjoy sanctuary to target the American people. Yet we are seeing it happening again before our very eyes. So, unfortunately, President Bush will end his Presidency in the same manner he started--with a disastrous miscalculation of the threat posed by al-Qaida and the necessary tools to combat Islamic extremism. When the President took office in January of 2001, he and his senior advisers dismissed the focus on terrorism held by the preceding administration, refusing to believe a superpower such as the United States could be threatened by nonstate actors. That mindset allowed the administration to ignore repeated warnings by the intelligence community that al-Qaida was preparing for a major attack on the United States. Following the 9/11 attacks, the President rightfully moved to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after they refused to turn over senior al-Qaida leaders. Yet the administration failed to recognize that only a long-term investment of troops, developmental assistance, and economic benefits was essential if Afghanistan was to not once again collapse into a failed state. Instead, the President shifted his focus to Iraq, redeploying such critical assets as Special Forces units and unmanned aircraft to the Persian Gulf to prepare for what was an inevitable war. Five years later, we are still living with the consequences of this administration's rush to war in Iraq. Afghanistan teeters on collapse, with the drug trade resurgent and Taliban forces controlling more and more territory. Pakistan remains dysfunctional, with a difficult transition of power occurring now and an extremist insurgency taking root in its border regions. Iran has grown immeasurably stronger over the past 5 years, taking advantage of America's inattention to move forward on its nuclear program and support extremist groups throughout the Middle East. And what we can never forget, the men who perpetrated the most deadly attacks on American soil remain free 7 years after the fact. This is not only a slap in the face to the families of the 3,000 Americans murdered on September 11, it remains a continuing danger as al-Qaida plots new attacks on our Nation. In his speech today at the National Defense University, the President made the following assertion: Together, with our allies, we made substantial progress towards breaking up terrorist networks--and we will not rest until they are destroyed. We have heard similar statements from President Bush and senior administration officials dating back to 2002--that America is taking the fight to al-Qaida and winning the war on terrorism. The only problem is the administration has never defined what victory means nor provided a set of benchmarks to allow the American people to judge whether we are making real progress. For that reason, I am joined today by Senator Hagel in introducing an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to require the executive branch to produce, on a semiannual basis, a comprehensive report on the status of our Nation's efforts and the level of resulting progress to defeat al-Qaida and related affiliates in the global war on terrorism. The Congress receives numerous reports on the status of our efforts in individual theaters, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have never received a basic update from the administration on what the United States is doing to ensure that al-Qaida never again succeeds in launching the type of devastating attacks such as those we suffered 7 years ago this week. This amendment, if adopted, would allow the Congress and the American people to hold administration officials--this or future administration officials--accountable when they claim we are winning against al-Qaida. Let me briefly conclude by returning to a topic on which I have spoken previously on this floor--the danger of nuclear terrorism. Tomorrow, a high-level panel convened by the Partnership for a Secure America, consisting of some of the men and women who served on the 9/11 Commission, will release a report card on America's efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and prevent a catastrophic act of terrorism involving such weapons on American soil. Press reports indicate the final grades will not be good. Our Government will receive an overall grade of C, with sharp criticism focused on our lack of a coherent governmentwide strategy, our acute vulnerability to an act of bioterrorism, and our continuing failure to secure loose fissile materials and nuclear stockpiles around the world. Four years ago, this President declared in a campaign debate that he agreed with his opponent that the prospect of a nuclear weapon destroying an American city is the single greatest threat to U.S. national security. Yet while there have been useful efforts in recent years, it remains clear the U.S. Government has not marshaled all of its resources to combat this threat. For instance, we have spent more funds securing our aviation system against another hijacking than preventing a future act of nuclear terrorism. However, I fear when al- Qaida strikes our Nation the next time, they will not be using their old playbook. America stands today less secure than it should be. Our massive military presence in Iraq, now approaching its seventh year, has strained our most precious resources--our men and women in uniform. It has reduced our flexibility to respond to various other threats throughout the world, including Russia's recent military incursion into Georgia, and emboldened other enemies--Iran most notably. We have failed to finish the job we started in Afghanistan. For too long, we tolerated a dictator in Pakistan on the basis that he was best equipped to serve as an ally in the war on terrorism, only to find out al-Qaida had reconstituted its central headquarters in that very nation. The President and those who seek to continue his policies indefinitely will make speeches all week long that we are winning the war on terror. But they make those statements in direct contradiction to the assessments of our intelligence community, and they fail to offer the evidence to back up their assertions. Enough is enough. We cannot afford to continue the same misguided policies that have made America less safe for another 4 years. Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr President, today I congratulate the Martin Guitar Factory, in Nazareth, PA, on celebrating 175 years of successful guitar making. C.F. Martin & Co. has continually produced the highest level of craftsmanship, design, quality, and tone for the acoustic guitar for over a century and a half. Established in 1833, the Martin Guitar Factory has been at the leading edge of guitar manufacturing for six generations. The founder of Martin Guitar, Christian Frederick Martin, Sr., was born in 1796 in Germany and began the craft at the young age of 15. Since the guild system in Germany limited the opportunities for guitar production, C.F. Martin, Sr., decided to emigrate to the United States in the 1830s. Martin Guitar set up shop in New York City for 6 years before finally settling in the Lehigh Valley in 1839. After a century and a half of success in guitar manufacturing, C.F. Martin & Co. continues to produce the finest quality American acoustic guitars today. Each year, Martin Guitar manufactures and ships approximately 170,000 guitars all over the world and welcomes over 21,000 visitors to its factory in Nazareth, Northampton County. Martin Guitars have been played by some of our Nation's greats, such as Elvis and Johnny Cash, and are still being played today by Eric Clapton, Beck, Willie Nelson, and John Mayer, to name just a few. In addition to Martin Guitar's accomplishments and I believe this is key, the company has demonstrated incredible staying power through six generations. C.F. Martin & Co. is the oldest surviving manufacturer of guitars in the world and is thus an extraordinary model to other businesses. I am proud to say that C.F. Martin & Co. has long been and will remain a vital staple of the Lehigh Valley. Special recognition for this anniversary belongs to the sixth generation chairman and CEO Mr. Christian F. Martin IV, and the hard- working staff of Martin Guitar, for continuing the long standing tradition of crafting America's finest acoustic guitars. It is with great pride that I congratulate the Martin Guitar Factory on 175 outstanding years of achievement.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for reminding me what I promised I would do. Mr. President, I want to talk about this issue in terms of short term and long term because one thing that has been missing from this debate, frankly, on both sides, is sometimes not nearly enough honesty--a lot of charges and countercharges, a lot of finger pointing, and not enough progress. I think for one party or the other in the Senate to blame the other is not productive, nor is it accurate. So let's talk about short term and long term. There are some things we can do short term to help this problem. No one here has a magic wand to say if we take this action, gas prices are going to go down in the next couple of weeks. Anyone who says that is probably not telling the truth--maybe not even over the course of a couple of months. But there are some things we should try to help in the short term before we abandon that and say all we can do is look to the long term, which we all know is renewable energy and all of these strategies. But let's talk about the short term. I think yesterday a number of Senators--I think the total is 36; I will stand corrected if I am wrong about that--at least 35 or 36 Senators wrote to the President of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the July 31 letter to the President regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, thank you very much. Energy Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about an issue we have talked a lot about in the Senate for weeks and now months, literally, and we have not reached a resolution on it. It is the question of energy and gasoline and what has been happening to our economy, what has been happening to our families. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am not here to do that today. But I do think that anything we talk about--and certainly anything we legislate on--has to pass two tests. One test is, will it provide short-term relief to families or short-term help to the economy? And, will it help long term? If it does not pass the short- term and/or the long-term test, we should not be doing it. That is kind of the frame of what I want to use to talk about some of the issues I am going to raise this morning.

Mr. CASEY. Sure.

Mr. CASEY. I won't read the whole letter, and I won't read all the signatures. But here is how the letter starts. The first line of the letter reads: Dear Mr. President: We are writing today-- Meaning yesterday-- to urge you to use your emergency authority to immediately release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It goes on later in that paragraph to say: A similar announcement made by your father, President George H.W. Bush, in 1991 led oil prices to decline within a day of the announcement, even though the actual release of oil did not occur for two weeks. So when that happened in 1991, oil prices went down very rapidly. The same happened with this President Bush in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. So what we ask is that the President--he does not need Congress; he does not need to get a consensus in Washington--the President has the authority today to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So the letter, toward the end, says: We ask that you take immediate action to begin to implement this modernization of the Reserve by releasing 70 million barrels of light, sweet crude oil, about 10 percent of the current Reserve inventory. So I am quoting in part from the letter, but the point is, the President of the United States today--today--has all the power and the authority to take that action. Will it be a magic wand? No. Will it immediately lower prices? Probably not. But it has the potential because of the precedents of what happened before--the recent history on this--to bring down prices. So that is something that is short term that the President could do right now. I hope he would do that. But let's talk about long term. One thing we all agree upon, both sides of the aisle, we can fight and we can point fingers and we can have arguments and debates--and it is OK to debate--but one thing we all agree on, no matter what party we are in--and this is something the American people understand in their gut; they get this and they understand this--we have to take steps now that we should have taken 10 years ago or maybe 20 or 25 years ago that we did not take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to get to this question of renewables. We had that chance a couple of times in the last 18 months. We had that chance just a few days ago, but it was blocked. A lot of people in this body voted for it. We did not get enough votes, but here is what was blocked. Let me run through a quick list because sometimes when these votes occur and the vote is announced we forget what was voted on. Here is what was blocked a couple days ago: a new consumer tax credit for the purchase of plug-in electric vehicles, to move that tax credit from $3,000 to $5,000, plug in electric vehicles, that was blocked; a 1-year extension of a wind power tax credit, that was blocked; a 3-year extension of biomass, geothermal, and other renewable energy tax credits, that was blocked; an extension of the 30-percent investment tax credit for solar energy, that was blocked; an extension of the 10- percent investment tax credit for fuel cells, that was blocked; a 5- year extension of the tax deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings--we know we have to do that--that was blocked; a 3-year extension of the tax credit for energy-efficient appliances, that was blocked. So on issue after issue that gets to this question of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, getting off of oil generally--not just foreign oil but getting off of the dependence on oil--working on all of those renewable energy strategies that everybody in the country knows we have to do, they were blocked a couple days ago, and we should remind people who are paying attention to this issue that actually happened. We have a debate currently about speculation. I am not going to spend a lot of time on that. It is not a magic wand. I have said that before. But it is one of the ways--probably more long term than short term, but it is one of the ways we have to provide some relief long term. So these are strategies that, whether it is speculation, cracking down, and providing more sunlight--that is all we are asking for, is to say: If you want to make a lot of money in the market, and we have a commodity futures entity that regulates your conduct, we want to give them the authority to provide sunlight to that transaction. That is all we are asking. That is all we are asking on speculation. So speculation passes maybe both but at least one of the short-term/ long-term tests--one of that two-part test. This letter to the President on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--that certainly passes the short-term test that we can get some short-term help. It is not all the relief we want, not a magic wand, but it can provide some help. So what else do we need to talk about? We have been talking and talking a lot about drilling. Let's put some facts on the table. Some of these facts have not been on the table. It is important to do that. I know there are a lot of people out there saying: If we could just drill, we could have some relief provided. I would argue--and I think there is a lot of evidence to show this--that the drilling argument put forth by the other side does not pass the short-term test and does not pass the long-term test. It does not pass either test, and we know that. Here is what should be on the table in terms of facts. All these years since the President has been in office, the price of gasoline has gone up, and in my home State of Pennsylvania people are paying more in a year--almost $2,800 more--for gasoline than they were when the administration started. OK. That is just a fact. We know the price of gasoline has gone up. Everyone understands that. But while the price of gasoline was going up over the last couple years, guess what else was going up. This has not been talked about much. There has been a 361-percent increase in oil drilling. So we have increased oil drilling a lot. Some might argue we have never drilled more. There has been a 361-percent increase in oil drilling since the President came into office, and yet the price of gasoline has gone up at the same time. So this idea that oil drilling has been restricted or limited is contrary to the facts. So how can that be? If the other side keeps talking about ``drilling leading to relief,'' how can it be that we have had that increase, and whether you measure it by the increase in drilling or the leases, we have had a dramatic increase in the number of leases. So that is fact No. 1, a 361-percent increase in oil drilling since the administration started. Here is another fact: Seventy-nine percent of America's recoverable oil reserves are already open for drilling. Seventy-nine percent are open--open for business right now. So there is plenty of drilling going on; in fact, it has accelerated. Yet the price of gasoline has gone up. Regarding the 24-percent versus 3-percent argument that I and others have made, the Washington Post had a chart on Sunday, July 27, page A- 8, and I have the chart right here, a chart in red. It reads very simply: The percent of the world's oil consumed by the United States in 2007: 24.4 percent. So we are consuming more of the world's oil. It is up to 24 percent. So if you want to drill your way to that 24 percent of the world's oil--because that is what the other side is saying--then we must be, I guess, hoping to produce enough to get there. Well, we know America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, so no matter what we do on drilling, even if we add to the massive increase we have had in drilling, it is not going to get us to the 24.4 percent consumption. That is why we have to get renewables. So when people across America say we can't drill our way out of it, that is not just a nice little phrase, it is the truth. You can't get to 24.4 percent if you only have 3 percent of the reserves, no matter what you do on drilling. Finally--and I won't spend a lot of time on this, but it is relevant to the discussion--one party involved but that hasn't checked in on the debate to give us a little help is the oil companies. Members of the House and Senate are debating and sometimes fighting, the American people are arguing about this, and all the while this debate is going on, guess who is getting our tax money--tens of billions--and guess who is also doing pretty well on their quarterly profits. Big oil. I have said it before and I will say it again. President Kennedy was right. Once in a while, we have to ask ourselves, what can we do for our country? I have to ask Mr. Big Oil: What are you doing for your country? While we are having this debate and while everyone is frustrated by gas prices--and rightfully so--what is big oil doing? Well, here is what they are doing. ExxonMobil released their quarterly profits: in one quarter, almost $12 billion in profits, and we are giving them tax breaks. So they get all the drilling they need, they are getting our tax money, their quarterly profit is $11 billion, and they are not checking in. They are not saying, you know what--or we are not saying to them with legislation--we want to do it, I want to do it, but we don't have enough votes on the other side to do it. We are not saying: You know what, Mr. Big, with big oil profits, you have enough. You have enough tax breaks, you have enough places to drill. You have enough profits. You have enough. It is time for Mr. Big Oil to give a little, to help us a little as we debate this, because until they check in and until they help the American people, or until we force them to help the American people, we are going to be missing a lot of opportunities. I will conclude with this. I think we should continue this important debate. I am happy the majority leader, who I think has shown great leadership on this issue, has continued to work in a bipartisan way and wants to have a summit, a meeting with both parties. That is important to get something done. I think we can. If we don't start dealing with facts and start dealing with that test, what will help us short term but, more importantly, what is going to help us long term--and that is renewables--until we get to the question of renewables and until more people on the other side start voting to incentivize the creation of renewable sources of energy, we are not going to make much progress. So I think we need to focus on that test and we need to make sure we are working in a bipartisan way to try to bring some relief to American families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Chair. 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION AND HUMAN

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Today we recognize the contributions of two members of that original committee, the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. Both made and continue to make contributions in the war on hunger. It was 40 years ago that CBS television aired a landmark documentary entitled, ``Hunger in America.'' This documentary exposed the magnitude of hunger that existed all across the Nation. For the first time, Americans got a closeup look at the true faces of hunger--pregnant women and children who were malnourished, infants dying of starvation, starving tenant farmers living just miles from this Nation's Capitol. Their stories and their faces moved the Congress to try to end hunger. It was just last month that I was privileged to have the opportunity to sit down with Senator McGovern to talk about the challenge of combating hunger still today. As we were sitting talking, he related to me a story, 40 years later, that still has had a profound effect on him all these years later. The evening of that CBS television documentary broadcast I spoke of, the evening that was on, Senator McGovern and his family were gathered around the television set watching the documentary. Senator McGovern still vividly remembers the effect one particular image from this documentary had on him at that time. The image was that of a school-age boy leaning against a wall while most of his classmates ate lunch. The interviewer in the documentary asked the boy how he felt standing there, day after day, watching the other children eat. His answer was not that he was angry or bitter but, rather, that he was ashamed. At that moment, Senator McGovern recalls telling his family that he, George McGovern, as a Senator, and not that boy was the one who should have been ashamed. I think what that shows is the humility and decency of George McGovern, first of all. But I think what he tried to convey to me in our conversation was that young person's response in that documentary--a person who was a victim of not having enough to eat-- that response had such a profound effect on Senator George McGovern that he returned to the Senate the very next day and began working on a resolution to establish a committee to address hunger in this country. Forty years ago today, that resolution was, indeed, enacted, establishing the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Senator McGovern chaired the committee from the time of its inception in 1968 until 1977, when the committee was absorbed into the Agriculture Committee, the committee we know today as the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, chaired by Senator Tom Harkin. Senator McGovern was committed to exposing the failure of Federal food assistance programs at that time and making reforms to ensure that these programs were reaching those most in need. But knowing this was a goal he could not achieve on his own, he reached across the aisle to form a key partnership with Senator Bob Dole, a partnership and an abiding friendship, I might add, that continues to this very day. Despite their differences, both these men share the conviction that ending hunger is a moral imperative. Working together, Senators McGovern and Dole set out to end hunger in America. Their work helped educate the Congress, the Federal Government, and the Nation at large about the sheer magnitude of hunger in the United States. Over the next decade, they and other members of this unique Senate committee developed a bipartisan response to hunger and laid the foundation of our current food assistance programs. Among their chief successes was reforming the Food Stamp Program, culminating in the passage of the Food Stamp Reform Act of 1977. This act made the program more efficient and more accessible to those most in need by finally eliminating the requirement that Americans pay for a portion of their own food stamps. They expanded the National School Lunch Program and made the School Breakfast Program, the Childcare Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program permanent programs in our Government; and they established the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known today by the acronym WIC. Forty years later, the programs that Senators McGovern and Dole championed and shepherded through the Senate have succeeded in eliminating the most serious chronic malnutrition in the United States. Today, nearly 28 million Americans receive food stamps, more than 17.5 million low-income children receive free or reduced school meals, and more than 8 million women and children receive WIC benefits. The legacy of Senators McGovern and Dole is truly a testament to what can be achieved when we work in a bipartisan fashion on shared priorities that address the basic needs of the American people. These two men came from vastly different ends of the political spectrum and vehemently disagreed on many other issues, but they came together and both agreed that hunger was and is an issue that transcends partisan politics. The bipartisan spirit with which these two men collaborated to fight hunger has certainly served as a model and a inspiration to me and I know to many others in Congress. Following their example of bipartisanship, this year on the farm bill we were able to provide a record level of nutrition funding to reform and strengthen Federal nutrition programs. We were able to make key improvements to the Food Stamp Program itself, and we were able to strengthen the domestic food assistance safety net by providing significant increased funding to increase commodity purchases for local area food banks. But we all know the war on hunger requires constant vigilance and we must recognize that unmet needs still exist in America. Despite the existence of Federal food programs, hunger continues to be a serious problem plaguing more than 35.5 million Americans, including 12.6 million children. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of hunger. Even mild malnutrition can have adverse impacts on health, development, behavior, school attendance and performance and self-esteem as well. In the coming year, we will have an opportunity to have a direct impact on combating child hunger with reauthorization of the National School Lunch Act. This legislation, which is set to expire September 30, 2009, authorizes all Federal child nutrition programs. One of the most important reforms that can be enacted is to expand the school breakfast program. With 30 million children a day participating in the school lunch program, only one-third or 10 million children receive a school breakfast. We must find innovative ways to reach more of these children to get them breakfast. There is a direct link between school breakfast and academic achievement, and if the United States is going to compete effectively in a new world economy, we must educate our children and to do that we must provide the best possible nutrition at school. We must also recognize that many low-income working parents with children are struggling to afford even the low fees charged for reduced-price school meals. According to the School Nutrition Association, approximately 1 million children in this country are eligible for reduced-price meals and yet are not participating in the program due to the cost barrier. We must devise ways to ensure these children, too, are receiving proper nutritional assistance at school and do not fall through the cracks. But providing adequate nutrition to the children during the school year is only part of the answer. Congress also needs to implement changes to ensure that the millions of children who rely upon school meals are not left behind during the summer. Currently, only 2 in 10 children who benefit from school meals also receive meals during the summer months. We must find ways to make programs such as the Summer Food Service Program more accessible to children, not only in metro areas but in rural areas as well. Data from the USDA's Economic Research Service shows that as far back as at least 1970, the percentage of children living in poverty in rural areas consistently exceeds that of children in metro or urban areas. A bill I have introduced with Senator Specter, my colleague from Pennsylvania, S. 1755, the Summer Food Service Rural Explanation Act, would lower the threshold for feeding sites in rural areas to qualify for this program. We hope to help to ensure the availability of summer meals for more of these children living in poverty who happen to live in rural areas. We know that hunger itself does not take a vacation, and we owe it to these children to ensure that the Food Assistance Program does not take a vacation either. Finally, Congress must continue to improve the quality of all nutrition assistance programs. One of the great ironies of the current challenge is to recognize that hunger and obesity can exist at the same time. While we recognize we are facing huge Federal deficits, we must refuse to let funding challenges serve as an impediment to these critical changes. There is not a more important domestic social objective facing us in the coming years than to provide adequate nutrition to children across America. Finally, Senators Dole and McGovern blazed a path 40 years ago when they joined to help fight the war on hunger. They put aside partisanship to bring light to the darkness of hunger. Now is time for a new generation of leaders to pick up that mantra on behalf of the more than 35.5 million faces of American hunger. I therefore call upon my friends in Congress, both Chambers, both sides of the aisle, to join me and millions of advocates across this country in a mission to end hunger. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a member of my staff, Caryn Long, be granted the privilege of the floor for purposes of this speech.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue which has gotten some attention in our country, but with so many economic problems that face the American people and our families, it probably has not gotten enough attention in Washington. That is the issue of the outbreak of foodborne illnesses and other problems that have arisen in the last couple weeks and months with regard to our food supply. As of July 21, 1,256 people in 43 States, the District of Columbia, and Canada have been affected since April with the very same strain of a rare foodborne bacteria, Salmonella Saintpaul. At least 231 individuals have been hospitalized for treatment. Sadly, the deaths of two individuals in Texas have also been connected to the outbreak. But many people who get sick from food do not even seek medical attention. So many illnesses linked to this outbreak have gone undiagnosed. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that for every one illness diagnosed and attributed to Salmonella, 38 more cases actually occur. That means the number of illnesses caused by this outbreak could actually number in the tens of thousands. According to the CDC, this is the largest ongoing outbreak of foodborne illness in the United States in at least a decade. It has now been more than 7 weeks since the FDA first warned consumers against eating certain types of tomatoes. But since June 2, the numbers of individuals sickened by this outbreak steadily have continued to rise. Many of these subsequent illness reports were due to delays in testing and reporting by States. But a shocking 600-plus people have had illnesses that began after--after--the FDA announced that tomatoes were linked to the outbreak. As a result of the FDA's warning, the U.S. tomato industry has likely sustained well over $100 million in collateral damages. Many tomato growers and wholesalers fear that, like spinach, demand for the products may be affected for years to come. And now, more than 7 weeks and many tens of millions of dollars later in losses, FDA says it is ``highly unlikely'' tomatoes were even involved in the outbreak. Instead, new test results have lead FDA to now conclude that jalapeno peppers are to blame for this multi-State outbreak. But even this linkage has not given us the answers needed to put an end to this outbreak. FDA has issued a recall for jalapenos grown in Mexico and distributed through a company in Texas. But it is unlikely that jalapenos from this small company can account for more than 1,200 illnesses. While FDA has continued to investigate other parts of the distribution chain, they still do not know where the contamination happened. The FDA and the CDC have candidly stated that there is a very real possibility that we may never determine--never determine--the root cause of this outbreak. As unsettling as that is, what we have uncovered is equally unsettling. Our Government has no way to trace food products from the farm to our dinner plates, no way to trace food products. In an era where we can instantly detect and report stolen credit identities, where we have the technology to instantly pinpoint a person's location, where we can track an online shopping order from the production process all the way through delivery to our doorstep, we have no way to trace and determine where our food came from. There are currently no laws or regulations requiring a national system for traceability of U.S. foods. While many in the food industry do employ voluntary record-keeping systems, there is no consistency from one system to the next. Instead, members of the U.S. food industry--from the farmers to the processors to the distributors to the vendors--use differing systems to capture differing types of data regarding their products. Because this data lacks consistency, it becomes difficult to link or share this data among the various partners in the U.S. food industry. Much of this data trail is not even computerized. Instead, it remains in antiquated paper files, and it makes FDA's and CDC's job of tracing the cause of this outbreak even more difficult and time-consuming. Compounding these difficulties, many produce items are mixed with products from various other sources, and then they are repackaged. Some food products even leave the country before being returned for sale in this country, and along the way, these types of products lose any type of information that might help us identify their source. This lack of traceability of information about our food is unacceptable in this day and age and in this country. Implementing a natural system of food traceability would allow us to more quickly identify the source of contamination in an outbreak of food-borne illnesses, and it would allow us to more quickly act in the interests of public health to notify consumers about unsafe products they may have in their kitchens. In a recent AP poll, 86 percent of the people in the United States said produce should be labeled so it can be better tracked to its origin. It is time for industry and the Government to take action to give consumers this information. However, implementation of a national traceability system is only half the battle. There are still 76 million cases of food-borne illnesses in this country every year. Those illnesses send an estimated 300,000 Americans to the hospital each year, and they kill--they kill-- an estimated 5,000 individuals yearly. Many of these deaths occur in young children, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses. I believe the Senate must begin looking at ways to modernize the U.S. system of food inspection. We must provide the agencies that regulate food safety with additional authority to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply, and we must increase resources to the Federal Food and Drug Administration so they can hire more personnel and so they can invest in improvements to their systems of inspecting domestic and imported food products. We must mandate science-based regulations to ensure the safety of food products that carry the most risk, and we must improve coordination between the USDA, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and the various other Federal and State agencies charged with regulating food safety. Americans have every right to expect a safe food supply, and we in the Senate owe it to them to make needed improvements to this system before another outbreak sickens thousands more of our citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for making the important points he made on the question of energy and how difficult this challenge is for the country and that the sloganeering will not do it. He made a very compelling argument about that, which we need to hear in the Senate. I wish to talk today for a few moments about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known by the acronym LIHEAP--L-I-H-E-A-P. For those who follow the Senate and watch or listen, you know we use a lot of acronyms. I know they can get a little tiresome. But this particular acronym stands for a program that works. There is no debate about that. There is no question about whether this program works. It has worked for years. It has support in both parties--not enough support, I don't think, on the other side of the aisle. I will get to that in a moment. But when we talk about that acronym LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, we are talking about a program which this winter can literally mean--and will literally mean--life or death for some Americans. There is no drama and overstatement in that whatsoever because unless we do the right thing on LIHEAP this year, people are going to freeze to death. It is as simple as that. I commend a lot of my colleagues: Senator Sanders has been a stalwart on this issue, who has spoken on the floor and been a leading advocate; Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and so many other colleagues from the Northeast-Midwest coalition who have fought for increased energy assistance funding every year. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill. It has a very simple title but very important: Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. That is what the act is. The bill meets a critical and fundamental need by providing an additional $2.53 billion in Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program assistance for this fiscal year. It raises the funding to the fully authorized level of $5.1 billion. For Pennsylvania, that means that if this bill is passed, our State will get an additional--an additional--$210 million. If there is ever a time the people of our State will need it, it will be this winter. Similar to a lot of States in the Northeast, we have long winters. We have a lot of vulnerable people: the second highest population over the age of 65, a very large rural population that will be adversely impacted if we do not get help and extra money for LIHEAP. We have in our State home energy assistance grants that help vulnerable people, the needy. Almost 33.5 percent of the grants help older citizens. Almost 30 percent of the grants help disabled Pennsylvanians. And 18.5 percent of the grants help young children. These are people who need the help the most. They are vulnerable in the cold months that are just around the corner for all of America and for Pennsylvania. These are the people who made up the 1,000 who died of hypothermia in their homes between 1999 and 2002--1,000 people dying of hypothermia in just about 3 to 4 years. All of those deaths--every one of them--was preventable. LIHEAP is the cornerstone to providing assistance that keeps people healthy and safe. LIHEAP is widely recognized as effective and successful, which is why the bill we are considering, and that I am a cosponsor of, is cosponsored by 49 Senators in total from both sides of the aisle. We still have some problems, which we will talk about later. The bill is necessary because LIHEAP has been chronically underfunded--historically, at a rate of less than half the amount authorized. For people out there who watch our discussions, we know it is easy to authorize. It is harder to make sure you appropriate what you authorize. This is one of those examples where the authorization looked real good, but the appropriation does not meet the authorization part of our legislation. So the need has never been greater. We have all talked a lot about the struggle of working families who are forced to choose between the need for heat and the need to eat. But the situation has gotten much worse. This is not news to people who are living through this and struggling in the nightmare of foreclosure, the difficulty with watching wages flatten out, even as you are working harder, and your food prices are going up, your gasoline prices are going up, college tuition is going up, health care payments are going up. I could add more to that. Families are being forced to choose between heating and air-conditioning, food, medicine, gasoline, and mortgage payments--all those difficult choices that our families are making. Today, 15.6 million American families are at least 30 days behind on paying their utility bills. In Pennsylvania, terminations of home utility services are up over 51 percent. According to a USA Today article, one of our energy companies in Pennsylvania has disconnected 168 percent more--168 percent more--homes than at this time last year. So we have a major challenge in our State. The good news is that in Pennsylvania we have had over 400,000 families--households, I should say, in Pennsylvania--that have received assistance from LIHEAP this year. But that is less than half of the 800,000 that are eligible. There are 800,000 households in our State that are eligible. So we are happy LIHEAP has done such a good job of helping 400,000 households, but we have a doubling of that to 800,000 that are, in fact, eligible. For those receiving assistance in Pennsylvania, the average grant was $239, and it covered much less than a quarter of their need. So when people hear these big numbers, they will say: Oh, my goodness, the Federal Government wants to increase the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $2.5 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? Spread that out person by person. When it comes down to Pennsylvania, we are talking about assistance, at last count--this number is a few years old, but it is not much higher than this--of $239. So if we increase it by several billion nationally, that means individual Pennsylvanians will get some help, but they are not going to be getting hundreds and hundreds of dollars more. They are going to be getting more than that $239 or $250 or $260 in help. So it is not a lot when it comes to that person. But it means a lot to that individual person and their family. Here is the scenario: In the dark of night, in the cold of winter, I do not want to have a Pennsylvanian or an American in their home freezing to death because a couple people in Washington did not think that $2.53 billion was the right way to spend money--when we have an administration which sent a budget here for 2009 which had $51 billion in tax cuts for people making over $1 million and up. So for anyone listening, if you are a millionaire, a multimillionaire or a billionaire or beyond that, this administration sent us a budget this year that gave that tiny sliver of America a $51 billion tax break. Don't tell me we cannot afford a little bit of an increase for low- income home energy assistance, especially when older citizens are faced with the--``squeeze'' does not even begin to describe it--vice grip on their head, the nightmare of trying to pay for gasoline and food and oil in their tank, literally, to heat their homes. So we can afford this. Ten times over we can afford it. I wish to conclude. When we have the situation of an older citizen or a young child who is living in a home that is not heated, or living without adequate nutrition, that child, as well as that older citizen, is harmed. The rate of growth and development are jeopardized. A child is sicker, they miss more school, and they do not do as well in class. A large percentage of LIHEAP energy assistance goes to not only older citizens but those with a disability. This is important because someone who is frail is more likely to be impacted by exposure if they are unable to pay to heat or cool their home. So I hope we pass this legislation before we leave in August. Why should we wait? No one needs to have a crystal ball to know that in the cold months ahead of us, a lot of vulnerable people are going to be put at risk. So this is our chance to do something--not just to talk about it but to do something--that will provide immediate assistance to the most vulnerable in our society. So I ask my colleagues to support the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, which will help our families. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the housing crisis which has gripped the United States for many months now, more than a year, but especially to talk about the bipartisan work done in the Senate and across the Capitol in the House. I commend the work of Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby from the Senate Banking Committee, as well as Chairman Frank on the House side, for their efforts to put together a bipartisan piece of housing legislation which will have the effect of stemming the tide of foreclosures and bring some measure of relief to families. We know the data, the statistics, which bear repeating. Every weekday in America, only because courthouses are not open on Saturday and Sunday, some 8,500 families begin the foreclosure process or take some step in the process of being thrown into that nightmare. Every day that happens. No day does it not happen. We are thinking today about those families and their problems and their lives. We think about the necessity of this legislation on a lot of days, but today the New York Times reported the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate went, from last week, from 6.44 percent to 6.71 percent, in a matter of days going up by that much. For a lot of those families, interest rates are going up. The misery and the nightmare of foreclosure is overwhelming them. It is incumbent upon the Senate and the House and the administration to do something about it, not just to keep talking about it but to do something about it. Fortunately, there are people who have done that. One of the elements to this, of course, is dealing with the crisis which has gripped the two largest providers of mortgages, two entities in our system that provide as much as $5 trillion--it is hard to comprehend that number--of our mortgages, Fannie and Freddie, as we know them by their commonly known names, using that terminology. In the first quarter of this year, 70 percent of all new mortgages were provided by Fannie and Freddie. These two government-sponsored enterprises, described as mortgage giants, have a tremendous impact on our mortgage market but also have a tremendous impact on our economy here at home and around the world. We cannot let them fail. Some people will talk about what Secretary Paulson has proposed and others about Fannie and Freddie, and they will say how much does it cost. That is an appropriate question. There are a series of questions I have asked that I will get to in a moment. The other question we need to ask is: What is the cost of letting them fail? That is why this bipartisan effort has been so important. I commend Secretary Paulson for doing an extraordinarily difficult job under difficult circumstances. He has worked hard. He has tried to find common ground. I haven't always agreed with him. I am sure he has not always agreed with me and every Member of the Senate and the House, but I think he has worked hard with both parties to try to work something out. It is very simple. If Fannie and Freddie are going to come to the Congress and say, we need your help, we need a line of credit, and we need to have the authority to purchase equity, then we say, last time we checked, we were elected by taxpayers. So if you are going to ask us for help, we are going to ask you questions and demand that you put on the table and we put into any agreement the kind of principles any taxpayer should have a right to expect. That is the exchange. They want help, and we will give them help. We think it is important to make sure they don't fail. But if they are going to get the help, they have to put some principles in place. So Fannie and Freddie, those major organizations--institutions--have to bring some measure of accountability to their own practices. I looked at a chart yesterday. I am using round numbers here, but they are not off by very much, to generalize. If you look at the top people at Fannie and Freddie, about 13 people, when you add up bonuses and salaries and other incentives, it is about $76 million in 2007. So if 13 people are getting $76 million in 1 year, you better believe taxpayers have an interest in this. I think Fannie and Freddie have still a ways to go. Even if the House does their job today and passes this legislation, even if the Senate passes it, Fannie and Freddie have to prove to taxpayers, these two mortgage giants have to prove to taxpayers that they are going to be accountable, that it is not just symbolic. They have to put practices in place and measures in place. I have asked for that. I have said both of them should pursue litigation, if it takes that, to recover excess bonuses. They should make sure that when they make any agreement on stock purchases or any other benefit to their executives, that they have to consider steps that will hold them accountable, in addition to all the other safeguards taxpayers have a right to expect, if taxpayers are going to help them. Again, I support making sure we don't let these two fail, but taxpayers have an interest here. One of the other features of the bipartisan legislation is that in order for Fannie and Freddie to work well, to be effective in the mortgage market, we have to have a tough, independent regulator for both. That is what we worked out in the Banking Committee. The Presiding Officer knows of our work. We have worked that out as part of the legislation. It is critically important the American people know that part of the non-Fannie and Freddie part of this housing legislation is a provision that speaks to how we regulate their activities. In addition to working on any kind of help that we are going to give Fannie and Freddie, the Banking Committee and people in this Chamber have a real concern about making sure we have a strong, independent regulator in place. Two more points, one of which is on community development block grants. Thank goodness that apparently Secretary Paulson and others, I and others have called upon the President to lift his veto threat and to stop using help for local communities as an impediment to signing housing legislation which is needed to stop those 8,500 foreclosures every day of every week. Apparently, from what we hear today, the President has, in fact, lifted his veto threat. Thank goodness for the housing market. But also thank goodness for families across America, especially those who might be 1 of those 8,500 every day of every week in the near term, before families fall into that dark hole, that nightmare we hope this legislation will help. Community development block grants are one way to help here. There is no reason why local communities, those local officials who are closest to the problems and closest to the people, there is no reason why they shouldn't get the help they need through this legislation. There are a lot of other provisions we could talk about in the legislation, but I wish to commend the work done by the committee, the Banking Committee, by Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and Chairman Frank on the House side. This, in the end, is not about some esoteric Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac issue. It is not about some distant theoretical housing issue. This is about real lives and real families. Many of them are not just struggling with impending foreclosure and the devastation that can bring; this is about families also who are paying the highest gasoline prices we have ever seen in American history, paying higher health care costs, paying college tuition costs, paying the higher cost of food. This is one of many problems that has been heaped upon middle-class and low-income families. This legislation will provide some relief. I am thankful the House is working on it today. I look forward to prompt passage in the Senate and having President Bush sign it into law. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the legislation that is before us, on the question of dealing with energy and in particular the price of gasoline. We have had months now of nonstop talk in Washington about gas prices. Across the country, in my home State of Pennsylvania and in the Presiding Officer's home State of Delaware and in so many other places around the country, people are frustrated. They do not feel Washington has been responsive to the concerns they have, and it is about time we did a lot less talking and do some acting and some legislating. It is for that reason I stand before you to talk about this issue in a broad sense, but in a particular sense, in terms of the legislation we have a chance to vote on this week or next week and certainly no longer than that. I wish to commend Senator Reid, the majority leader, and Senator Durbin, the assistant majority leader, and others for bringing a number of measures to the floor aimed at addressing the high prices of gasoline. Since we started working on gas price legislation 2 months ago, prices in Pennsylvania have risen 40 cents, from $3.60 to $4.00. The average Pennsylvania family now is spending $2,792, almost $2,800 more on gasoline than they were just 7 years ago, at the beginning of the current administration. On top of that, people in Pennsylvania, who are the second largest users of home heating oil in the whole country, are eyeing the approaching cold-weather months and wondering how they will be able to afford to heat their homes, especially older citizens and low-income people living in rural areas, where they have to travel far distances to go to the grocery store or to go to work or to live their lives. A few weeks ago, I met with some home heating oil retailers from northeastern Pennsylvania, in my home area. That is where I live and that is where they live. Now, these are retailers, not some people in Washington but retailers in northeastern Pennsylvania, and their No. 1 request was to end excessive oil speculation. These retailers are on the frontlines of this oil crisis, and they see families struggling to pay all their bills. One of the people I met with was Ron Kukuchka, and he told me the story of a customer last winter who stood in his store and literally counted out three piles of cash: The first one was for this woman's home heating oil, the second was for her prescription medication, and the third pile of cash she had to put on the table, literally, was for food. At the end of her counting, she had $30 to pay for the next month's rent. Tammy May, a woman from Pleasant Gap, PA, was quoted in the paper last week--and I read her brief statement to Chairman Bernanke in talking about the issue of recession and the economy--and this is what Tammy May said. And keep in mind this isn't some Washington analyst, some politician or someone here debating this issue. This is the reality Pennsylvania families are facing. Tammy May said: The house payment is first, then day care, then we worry about gas, then food. That is the life of Tammy May, and that is the life of too many American families. It is unconscionable--it defies description to even say it--it is unconscionable to allow this to happen to families living in the richest country in the world. Is it any wonder people across this country are fed up, and in some cases angry, about no action in Congress? So once again, a lot of people in this Chamber, but especially I think on this side of the aisle, are trying to pass a bill to deal with the high price American families are paying at the pump while we continue to work as a nation to implement long-term energy solutions. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008, because I think it is a proposal with the potential to impact gas prices. It is not a magic wand, it is not some quick fix for gas prices, but it has the potential to have a positive impact on this issue. Here is some testimony to that effect. Last month, the managing director and senior oil analyst of Oppenheimer & Company said: The surge in crude oil price, which more than doubled in the last 12 months, was mainly due to excessive speculation and not due to an unexpected shift in market fundamentals. So says an analyst at Oppenheimer & Company. And the CEO of Marathon Oil, not some Democrat who is trying to make a point or some Washington political scientist, the CEO of Marathon Oil said: $100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market. It has to be speculation on the futures market that is fueling this. So for those who want to make the case that speculation is irrelevant to this debate, I think there is more than ample evidence to suggest they are wrong, and there is other evidence to suggest they are deliberately misleading people. Let's be honest about it. Unfortunately, the counterproposal in this Chamber and down the street in the House is to simply drill our way to energy independence. We know that will do nothing to lower gas prices. The Bush administration's own Energy Information Association has clearly stated that if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf ``any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.'' Insignificant. Again, that is the Bush administration's energy information office. Aside from the larger issue of world oil prices and limited American oil reserves, there are practical reasons that drilling would not work. The world's fleet of drill ships, which are used for exploratory drilling of new oil and gas wells, are booked solid for the next 5 years--5 years. Even if we waived every environmental law, oil companies would be unable to start pumping oil for years. President Bush has acknowledged that increased domestic drilling would not lower gas prices at the pump. It is merely, in his words, ``psychological.'' Psychological. Well, psychology is not going to solve our energy problem, and neither will gimmicks and some of the things that have been pushed in this Chamber recently. A series of goals to reduce gasoline consumption through efficiency and alternative fuels is our only hope, and the only way to achieve those goals is to map out a strategy, and then, as the advertising tells us, do it. Do it and pass legislation. That is what the people in Pennsylvania and all of America are expecting and demanding of Congress--leadership to chart a course that gives us real solutions, along with some immediate relief. The bill we are debating will bring some sunlight--it is not a magic wand--to the futures market so regulators will have the information they need to rein in excessive speculation and detect price manipulation. Will this bill solve all our energy problems? No, it will not. But it has the potential to provide relief to families who are paying to line the purses of the futures market middlemen while we implement a long- term solution to end our reliance on oil, and in particular to end our reliance on foreign oil. So I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I hope we can work in a collaborative way across the aisle and across the Capitol, in the House of Representatives, to lay out real solutions for the problem that is facing American families. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a joint resolution of which I am a cosponsor, the joint resolution disapproving the rule requirements in the CMS letter that was sent in August of 2007, sent on a Friday during recess. It earned the nickname ``the midnight massacre'' because of the nature of the way that was sent. But I think a better way to describe this, in terms of the impact it has on children, is a ``thief in the night.'' What we are talking about is an effort by a Federal agency to deny health coverage for children under the guise of some bureaucratic inside-the-beltway rationale. What this directive does is set unfairly high bars for States, which the Federal Government knows they cannot reach, and is purposefully, I think, denying children health care. It also sets a waiting period for children and their families in States. At the same time, when the Federal Government makes all kinds of accommodations for the powerful, they let children and their families wait for health care coverage. This directive bypassed Congress and violated the law. It excluded States, and it is not any kind of clarification, as the administration has asserted. Hundreds of thousands of children will lose their health insurance coverage. Several States have already been affected. In my home State of Pennsylvania at least--if not more--2,000 children will lose their health insurance coverage. It also undercuts an agreement in Congress to do something about this and to keep this Children's Health Insurance Program in place until March of 2009. This is very simple. We are talking about children who are poor, who come from poor families or middle-income families. Children's health insurance is a program that works. We have had a decade of experimentation. It works very well. It is efficient. It is effective. It delivers health insurance for children, and there are a lot of families out there, a lot of mothers out there, who can do everything for their children; they can provide nurture and care and safety. One thing a mother cannot provide for her child is health care, unless she gets some help, just a little bit of help from the Federal Government, with all the power. So I would say to the administration, turn back against this bureaucratic, inside baseball, ``thief in the night'' and make sure these children get the coverage they deserve, just like the rest of us in Congress. We get pretty good health care coverage. It is about time more people in the Senate, in the House, and down the street in the administration stood up for children and did away with this directive.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, thank you very much. We have before the Senate in the next couple of days a number of important pieces of legislation, but one of the debates going on right now in the Senate and beyond across the country is the response by the Senate and by the administration on housing. In particular, we have a raging debate about what to do about the two so-called mortgage giants, Freddie and Fannie, as we know them by their acronyms. There is no question that these two entities play a substantial role in what has been happening to our housing market. By one estimate, they hold half of the value of all the mortgages in the United States of America--trillions and trillions of dollars--by one estimate as much as $5 trillion. We have to apply a lot of scrutiny and exercise the kind of due diligence as it pertains to the administration's proposal to shore up Fannie and Freddie. It is vitally important. However, I think the Congress has to be able to do two or three things at once. We have to be able, as we are applying the kind of due diligence and the kind of review the taxpayers expect us to provide--and we should do that. There is a long way to go. We can't just sign off and say the Treasury Department and the administration or any other entity can do whatever they want and we will just rubberstamp it. We have to make sure the taxpayers' interests are protected, but while we are doing that, we have to get housing legislation passed. As the Presiding Officer knows, not just because of the families in Ohio and Pennsylvania and across the country who are suffering from the root of our economic trouble, which is one word, ``housing,'' or the problems with housing--as he knows, this legislation has been held up. There are some in Washington who are using this debate about scrutiny of the Fannie and Freddie proposal, scrutiny about taxpayer interests, which are legitimate and real, using that debate as a way to slow down the bipartisan housing legislation. I think we have to make sure we commit ourselves to a path over the next couple of days and do it with a sense of urgency about what is happening in America today because no matter what we do on due diligence with regard to the mortgage companies, if we don't provide relief to families across America on the question of housing, we will not be doing our jobs. I think the people across this country, just as they hope we do on gas prices--they certainly believe that on the price of gas, or any other prices rising for them, especially on the question of housing-- expect us to get something done. So far, there are people in this body who want to slow things down. So I think we can provide the kind of oversight and due diligence for this proposal with the mortgage giants. We can provide that oversight but at the same time move forward with housing legislation. The fact is, for a lot of Americans, this is not some remote, theoretical question. Every day in America--every weekday, because the courthouses are not open on the weekends--every weekday, by the latest estimates, 8,400 to 8,500 enter the nightmare of foreclosure. We can debate a lot of theoretical issues, but unless we focus on that central reality for families in America, we are going to miss the boat. So all of those families every day--8,500 families every day--are entering the nightmare of foreclosure. I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown, Senator Schumer, and I, the three of us, a long time ago, way back in the spring of 2007--more than a year ago--put on the table the Borrowers Protection Act, which was a way to deal with this problem early, to say to mortgage originators and mortgage brokers: You are not being regulated. You are causing a good bit of this problem, if not most of the problem. We are going to regulate your conduct so that if you have a mortgage transaction and you are a broker and you are part of that and there is a homeowner, a family sitting in front of you, we are going to make sure you escrow for taxes and insurance, for example. It is not a radical idea, but they were not doing it. We are going to provide more scrutiny of the kind of activity that you have as a mortgage broker. We are going to make sure if a mortgage broker wants to make money and wants to bring families into a transaction that they have more disclosure; that they tell that family sitting in front of them more information about the mortgage documents, about the interest rate, and what this family is signing up for. That legislation has been in front of the Senate for far too long now. That kind of bipartisan approach to this crisis is what we need more of. I have worked with Senator Martinez on the other side of the aisle on appraiser independence. We have too many appraisers in these high-end mortgages that were in some cases committing fraud and in other cases not providing enough information. We have to make sure when someone does an appraisal, they are truly independent. What our legislation called for was having two appraisals to force appraisers to be more independent. Senator Specter and I have worked together in Pennsylvania to promote a great idea in the city of Philadelphia. Sometimes all the great ideas aren't in Washington, as we well know. A judge in Philadelphia, Judge Darnell Jones, a distinguished jurist came up on his own, working with people in the city, and then supported by Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia with funding, with a program that says: We may not be able to legally force people in the marketplace to do certain things, if you have a contract between a lender and a borrower, but we can at least say that before a foreclosure moves forward, you have to have some mediation, some discussion, some meeting between the lender and the borrower. The borrower has to do something. They can't just hope for the best. They have to be able to commit themselves to paying back the mortgage, and the lender has to give as well. These kinds of ideas in the city of Philadelphia and across the country should inform what we do here. So Senator Specter and I have worked to promote foreclosure mitigation. The Presiding Officer knows foreclosure counseling is not just a good thing to do; it is not just a couple of hundred million dollars that we have been able to put into legislation and become part of our law--and we need more money--but the Presiding Officer knows how important that money is to get dollars into the hands of people and entities across the country, most of them nonprofit organizations that understand not just how to work with the borrower, to work with the family when they are signing those complicated documents that mean they have to enter into an agreement where they have to pay money back over a long period of time. It is very complicated. Even if you are sophisticated in finance matters, it is pretty complicated. This foreclosure counseling money will give dollars to entities across the country to work with families, gain the families' trust, and then work with the borrowers when they are entering into transactions. We have to do more with foreclosure counseling. So I think on a whole series of fronts, there is bipartisan work being done in the Senate. There are good ideas on the table from communities across the country and from people in Washington. We have to continue to work together in a bipartisan way. The worst thing we could do is stop the train from moving down the track on getting housing legislation passed because we are having a debate about how much scrutiny or oversight or review there is to a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac proposal, the kind of review we should apply to do it. We can do both at the same time. Once in a while the Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. This is one of those instances where, with the families out there who are suffering under the weight of this housing problem, this subprime problem that has been hanging over the country and affecting international markets and international transactions right now, it is one of those instances where we have to do everything we can to push this forward. If you are standing in the way of getting housing legislation passed and you are using the figleaf or the argument that somehow we have to apply more scrutiny to Fannie and Freddie, I don't think you are being straight with the American people. We can do both at the same time. We can serve the interests of taxpayers on this proposal and apply all the scrutiny and due diligence we should, but we also have to get something done on housing because the mortgage companies are going to do fine no matter what. Fannie and Freddie will do just fine, thank you very much. But if we don't get housing legislation passed, the people who will suffer, as they have already suffered, are families, borrowers, real people out there in places such as Ohio and Pennsylvania and across the country. So I will yield the floor but just reiterate that I urge people on both sides of the aisle to continue to work together, but we cannot leave here this summer without dealing with major housing legislation, which is already in front of us and which is already bipartisan. We can't leave here without doing that. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I know my time is limited, Mr. President.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Mikulski, that will provide immediate assistance to our Nation's volunteer firefighters who have been severely affected by the rising cost of gasoline and diesel fuel. This bill, the Supporting America's Volunteer Emergency Services Act, or SAVES Act, will establish a new grant program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help qualifying volunteer fire companies cope with the strain that today's gas and diesel prices have put on their already tight operating budgets. According to the United States Fire Administration, over 22,141 fire companies, 89 percent of all fire companies in the United States, are volunteer or majority volunteer companies. 39 percent of our country's population, some 117 million people, relies on these volunteer forces to protect their homes and businesses. In recent months, I have heard from fire chiefs across Pennsylvania about the effect that high gas and diesel prices are having on their daily operations. Some have expressed serious concerns that fuel costs are preventing them from responding to emergency calls with the amount of equipment recommended by their National Fire Protection Association guidelines. This poses a serious risk to public safety. Congress has an obligation to address this issue, for we simply cannot afford to let high gas prices stand in the way of firefighters' ability to provide local families and businesses with the help they need. I was lucky to have 6 fire chiefs from York County, Pennsylvania, on hand today to help me bring attention to this issue. These gentlemen, Deputy Chief Barry Emig of the York Area United Fire and Rescue, Deputy Chief Joe Madzelan of the Manchester Township Fire Services, Chief William Carlisle of the Fairview Township Fire Department, Assistant Chief Trever Rentzel of the Manchester Union Fire Company, chief Tony Myers of the Shrewsbury Fire Department, and Chief John Senft of York City Fire and Rescue, have helped me and others understand the impact that high fuel prices have made on each of their departments' bottom line. I want to thank them for going above and beyond the call of duty to help me in this effort. The program created under the SAVES Act would set a baseline gas and diesel price using 2007 price data. Each year, volunteer companies that wished to participate would submit their annual fuel receipts. They would then be eligible to receive 75 percent of the difference between how much they paid for gas and diesel that year, and how much that same amount of fuel would have cost at 2007 prices. This straightforward, commonsense approach will help to ensure that volunteer fire companies do not have to restrain their response to emergency calls. I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Mikulski for agreeing to serve as original cosponsors of this important legislation. In addition, I appreciate the leadership of Congressman Jason Altmire in offering companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in helping to pass the SAVES Act immediately so that our volunteer fire companies can receive some much-needed relief on their next trip to the pump. 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 introduce legislation, along with my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Mikulski, that will provide immediate assistance to our Nation's volunteer firefighters who have been severely affected by the rising cost of gasoline and diesel fuel. This bill, the Supporting America's Volunteer Emergency Services Act, or SAVES Act, will establish a new grant program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help qualifying volunteer fire companies cope with the strain that today's gas and diesel prices have put on their already tight operating budgets. According to the United States Fire Administration, over 22,141 fire companies, 89 percent of all fire companies in the United States, are volunteer or majority volunteer companies. 39 percent of our country's population, some 117 million people, relies on these volunteer forces to protect their homes and businesses. In recent months, I have heard from fire chiefs across Pennsylvania about the effect that high gas and diesel prices are having on their daily operations. Some have expressed serious concerns that fuel costs are preventing them from responding to emergency calls with the amount of equipment recommended by their National Fire Protection Association guidelines. This poses a serious risk to public safety. Congress has an obligation to address this issue, for we simply cannot afford to let high gas prices stand in the way of firefighters' ability to provide local families and businesses with the help they need. I was lucky to have 6 fire chiefs from York County, Pennsylvania, on hand today to help me bring attention to this issue. These gentlemen, Deputy Chief Barry Emig of the York Area United Fire and Rescue, Deputy Chief Joe Madzelan of the Manchester Township Fire Services, Chief William Carlisle of the Fairview Township Fire Department, Assistant Chief Trever Rentzel of the Manchester Union Fire Company, chief Tony Myers of the Shrewsbury Fire Department, and Chief John Senft of York City Fire and Rescue, have helped me and others understand the impact that high fuel prices have made on each of their departments' bottom line. I want to thank them for going above and beyond the call of duty to help me in this effort. The program created under the SAVES Act would set a baseline gas and diesel price using 2007 price data. Each year, volunteer companies that wished to participate would submit their annual fuel receipts. They would then be eligible to receive 75 percent of the difference between how much they paid for gas and diesel that year, and how much that same amount of fuel would have cost at 2007 prices. This straightforward, commonsense approach will help to ensure that volunteer fire companies do not have to restrain their response to emergency calls. I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Mikulski for agreeing to serve as original cosponsors of this important legislation. In addition, I appreciate the leadership of Congressman Jason Altmire in offering companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in helping to pass the SAVES Act immediately so that our volunteer fire companies can receive some much-needed relief on their next trip to the pump. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.