Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have limited time, and I know my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, did an excellent job of outlining his amendment. I will skip much of what I was going to read in my statement. Basically, what we are talking about is a time out. We are giving the Congress the opportunity to review the inspectors general report before the Congress chooses to authorize limited immunity for the telecom firms. It is actually very simple. Basically, what we are saying is, the amendment simply allows the Congress to say: Wait a minute. Hold on. We should take a deep breath before we decide to authorize a Federal district court to grant telecom firms legal immunity for their actions related to the administration's warrantless surveillance program. Let's figure out what this program entailed. Let's figure out what happened. Let's figure out what the telecom firms actually did, what they actually did when it came to wiretapping and surveillance. So under this amendment, the pending lawsuits would remain stayed while the inspectors general complete their report. If the firms did nothing wrong, as they have proclaimed, they will be vindicated by the final inspectors general report. Then the Congress will have the confidence to grant these firms the immunity for which they ask. So I think many Members of this body would have buyer's remorse if they voted for limited immunity without the understanding of what the President's surveillance program did and did not do. This amendment would prevent that buyer's remorse by allowing the Congress to better understand the conduct of the telecommunications firms before we decide to grant sweeping legal immunity for such conduct. I encourage my colleagues, all Members of the Senate, to vote for this amendment. It strikes the right balance. It is about accountability. It is also about the rule of law. It is a reasonable balance to strike on very important issues, the issues of security and how we are going to implement any kind of program which involves wiretapping and surveillance.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning, prior to our break for the Fourth of July holiday, to talk about Medicare and in particular some of the activity on the floor in the last couple of weeks, but especially last night. I wanted to highlight some of the provisions of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 because sometimes, when something gets voted on here, whether it is the bill or a measure to get us to the bill, it can go right by a lot of us and certainly can go right by the American people without enough focus on some of the provisions of the bill and some of the detail. I think it was a real missed opportunity, and I will talk about that in a moment, but now just some of the highlights. First of all, with regard to physicians in America, the bill eliminates the pending 10-percent cut in Medicare payments to physicians for the remainder of 2008 and provides a 1.1-percent update in Medicare physician payments for 2009. It provides a 2-percent quality reporting bonus for doctors who report on quality measures through 2010 and provides financial incentives to providers to encourage the use of electronic prescribing technology. I don't think anyone in America needs to be reminded of how important this is, not just to make sure our Medicare system works well because of the positive impact this could have on doctors, but also anything we can do to encourage the use of information technology or other kinds of technology to make our system more efficient and more safe is critical. So that is one part of the physician section of this bill. For hospitals in particular and especially in my home State of Pennsylvania, there are so-called section 508 benefits. I will give a quick summary of what that means. This bill would extend 508 benefits to hospitals so they can continue to pay doctors and other providers in accordance with wages from surrounding areas. For northeastern Pennsylvania especially, this is a critical provision. Basically, and I am generalizing here, sometimes what happens is you have regions of a State that are categorized or given definitions that don't apply, and the reimbursement level goes down, and therefore the wages are impacted and they have trouble recruiting skilled personnel for positions in those hospitals. So we need a long-term fix for this situation. What this bill would do is continue to extend some help we have given in the past, but we do need a long-term fix, and we are working on that. For now, we need to provide this wage assistance to hospitals--and many hospitals in Pennsylvania have been hit hard by this--so they do not lose critical personnel to surrounding areas. It is a very competitive business, the business of recruiting qualified medical personnel. That is the physician section. The second section--and I am going to review just two or three more-- the beneficiaries. There is a lot to talk about here, but this bill adds a critical benefit for low-income older citizens, who are among the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. It extends and improves low-income assistance programs for Medicare beneficiaries whose income is below $14,040. This includes the so-called Qualified Individual Program, which pays Part B premiums for low-income beneficiaries with incomes between $12,480 and $14,040. This provision is important to beneficiaries. The bill would increase the amount of assets low-income beneficiaries can have and still qualify for financial help with Medicare costs. The Presiding Officer knows from his own work in the State of Ohio and the people he represents that as we went through the farm bill, one of the points we focused on with regard to food stamps was that some people who get a benefit from food stamps were adversely affected because things such as childcare expenses--so essential for a family-- were being included as part of their assets, and it made it harder for them to get food stamp benefits. The same kind of principle is at stake here, where too often the eligibility determinations for low-income beneficiaries are unfair. This would improve that. Another area I wish to talk about are pharmacies. The bill requires Medicare to pay pharmacies on time--as they should anyway. Isn't that an interesting provision? These pharmacies have to pay out on prescriptions, and they need reimbursement quickly so they can stay in business. Many of them are the only pharmacies serving their communities in small towns. When people think of my State, they think of big cities such as Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or Erie or Scranton or Harrisburg or Allentown. But in between, we probably have more small towns than most States in the country. In those smaller communities, that pharmacy is sometimes the only option for many families--and not just rural families but many families who just live in small towns. It is certainly reasonable to expect these pharmacies to be reimbursed within 14 days, and that is what this bill does. It forces the Federal Government to do what it should do, which is to pay pharmacies on time. Medicare Advantage. That is something we are going to be talking more about, but that is a subject of significant debate in the country. This bill deals with that issue directly. It also deals with rural providers and other beneficiaries. The bill protects access to care in rural America by extending and building upon expiring provisions, including improving payments for sole community hospitals, critical access hospitals, and ambulances. It extends expiring provisions that preserve payment equity for rural physicians and rural hospitals that run clinical laboratories. I could go on from there, but I won't. This isn't just about some Medicare concerns we have in our cities, this is about rural America and access to care in rural America. And Pennsylvania has as much of a rural population as virtually any State in the country. We are at least in the top five, at last count. So all of this is a way to summarize the bill and not do justice necessarily to the detail of the bill. This was a bill that was worked on here, worked on in the Finance Committee for many weeks, and worked on in the House in consultation with the Senate. The chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, and his team and people on that committee worked very hard, and I will tell you, to have it stopped, as so many things have been blocked around here--when I look at the total votes, Democrats did their job. We voted, every one of us, in unison to get this legislation moving forward. Yet, if you look at the total, on this vote last night there were eight Republicans who voted to move the bill forward. When you consider what is at stake--I mean, we listened to the arguments from the other side, but when you talk about making sure physicians are treated fairly so they can treat older citizens in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and across the country; when you talk about reimbursement in the case of hospitals in northeastern Pennsylvania, where they are competing for skilled personnel, yet we are not going to move something forward that can help them on their wages so they can have the best possible care for older citizens--in my home area of northeastern Pennsylvania, we have the highest percentage of people over 65 of anyplace in the country. We need help with this wage index problem to recruit the best personnel. When you talk about beneficiaries, these are very vulnerable low- income beneficiaries, some of whom do not just have to worry about their Medicare benefits, but they are standing in lines to get food from food pantries. The Presiding Officer has talked about this a lot over the last year. The price of everything in their lives has gone up--gasoline and food, they are worried about Medicare, they are worried about their children and their grandchildren. And we can't vote to move something forward? It is outrageous that we have this split where you get all these Democrats voting for it and only eight Republicans. Finally, when it comes to pharmacies and rural providers, my goodness, if we can't move legislation forward to make sure the Federal Government pays pharmacies within 14 days, what are we doing? We can't get the votes to move forward. People across America and families on Medicare are worried. They are worried about Medicare and how it is going to impact their lives. I want them to be aware of what happened here. Democrats voted in unison to move this forward, to make these changes to the Medicare Program. The other side did not. It is a very simple equation. I know we will vote on this again, and I hope our colleagues on the other side, when they consider what is at stake for rural America--for small towns across the country and for very vulnerable people--I hope they would take that into consideration and vote the right way for older citizens and for those families. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. I will withhold.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a problem so many of our families are facing and so many of our businesses, and that is the problem of rising gas prices. Unfortunately, we have seen an increase of at least $1 at the pump in just 1 year. Like a lot of my colleagues in the Senate, I just received a letter from a woman in Pennsylvania, 86 years old, from Bucks County, PA, and she talked about, in her letter, the Great Depression, when she was describing how people had nothing and how worried she is about our current economic crisis, especially in light of these gas prices. She reminds us that, just as in the Great Depression, we need to have commonsense solutions to dig ourselves out of the economic trauma so many families face. Today, whether it is on gas prices, the cost of health care, or the mortgage foreclosure crisis that has gripped the country, we do need commonsense solutions. We don't need more gimmicks, we don't need more partisan bickering, we need commonsense solutions. And those solutions on gas prices are not a magic wand. No piece of legislation in the Senate will bring down gas prices immediately. We know that. Anyone who says otherwise is not speaking the truth. But there are things that we can do to at least begin the process, or go down that road, I should say, of bringing those prices down. We have to move in a direction that focuses on short-term solutions as well as long-term--short term and long term. We will talk about those in a couple of moments, but, in particular, I think we should focus on one problem where I think there is even some bipartisan agreement on, and that is speculation in the oil futures market. We have never seen it like it is now, where profiteers from places in this country but also from around the world, literally make money, in some cases millions of dollars, every time that price of gasoline goes up. So we have to bring some discipline and some accountability and some transparency to the marketplace. And speculation is one area where we need to have legislation. That would help more short term than long term. How about big oil? They have a role to play. By one estimate, the five biggest oil companies, over 5 years, have seen their profits go up by five times. I don't think there are many families in America who have seen their bottom line, their family income, go up by five times over 5 years, and big oil has seen that. Just since 2001, their profits have increased over $600 billion. Now, if their profits are going up at that rate since 2001, and if the price of gasoline under this administration went up from $1.46 or $1.47 to $4--and on top of all that, in addition to those oil company profits, the previous Congress gave them $17 billion in tax breaks--something is wrong. This is beyond inequitable; it is just bad policy. It is not working. What we are seeing is the status quo. We keep giving oil companies tax breaks hoping their hearts are big enough to help us and it will all work out, but that hasn't happened, and it will never happen in light of what we have seen in recent history. So it is about time for big oil to do what President Kennedy implored us to do many years ago, and that is to do something for their country at this time of record profits for them and pain at the pump and this economic squeeze that so many families and small businesses face. What can we do? A couple of things. First, we could enact legislation such as the legislation I proposed in 2007, way back in the spring of 2007. My bill was the Energy Security and Oil Company Accountability Act. It would do basically two things. I will describe it very quickly. First, end those tax breaks for big oil. They have gotten enough and we have not seen any results for those tax breaks. End those breaks and other credits our Government gave them and use those savings to our Government not just to sit there, but use those savings to invest in research and development on alternative fuels and the infrastructure we need to bring alternative fuels to the marketplace and to help us with our energy challenges. That is No. 1: End the breaks. No. 2, under my legislation, impose a windfall profits tax on big oil and use that savings to redirect those dollars for relief for our families, especially low-income families who are trying to make ends meet. They are trying to pay for health care, they are trying to pay for a mortgage, trying to pay for higher education, and on top of that they are paying $4 or more at the pump. It is time oil companies helped us in this process. My legislation would do those two things. I was happy the major part of my legislation from 2007 made its way into what Democrats in the Senate proposed a couple of weeks ago, legislation that was blocked and obstructed by the Republicans in the Senate. The Consumer First Energy Act would do a number of things. I will describe that quickly. First, getting back to our point about speculation, this legislation, the Consumer First Energy Act, would finally at long last do something about market speculation. Why should we sit back and say: Gas prices are too high; it is too bad; there is nothing we can do about it. There is something we can do about it. One part of the solution, one part of the commonsense approach--and I think my colleagues on the other side would agree with this for the most part--is we should bring more transparency to these transactions. This raw speculation is all over the world, but it is even here in America, where profiteers are making money while the price of gasoline goes up for our families. They are literally trading in the dark. You know the old expression that sunlight is the best disinfectant to corruption--which is one of the best ways to describe what is happening here. To take the corruption out of that marketplace, we need to apply some sunlight to those transactions. If the transactions are OK and people want to make a lot of money, why shouldn't we have information about those transactions? Apply some sunlight and transparency to those transactions. If people are going to make money, they ought to do it in the light of day, not under cover of darkness. If it is so good to do and they want to make money, these profiteers, and do well in the marketplace, we ought to require them to have more stake in the transaction, more skin in the game, so their margins, what they have to put down, should be a much higher number. If they want to make money, we want more transparency on those transactions and we want them to put down more money. If they do that, they will have the opportunity to make money. The first thing this legislation does is crack down on speculation. The legislation the Senate Democrats offered, the Consumer First Energy Act, also made it very clear that, at long last, in American law, price gouging is illegal. It is at best murky right now. We have to be very clear about what price gouging is and what it is not, and make it illegal. The other thing this legislation did was adopt the idea I had, and many others had--I am not the only one--on the issue of the windfall profits tax, saying to oil companies: You can have profits; there is nothing wrong with that; but if you are going to have record profits while American families do not have their income going up, you have to help us. You have to do, as I said before, something for your country, Mr. Oilman, Mr. Oil Company. You have to do something to help your country. If you are diversifying and helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, if you are giving us options to reduce our dependence and have a long-term energy strategy, then maybe the profits tax on your company wouldn't be as high. But if you are going to turn a blind eye to this problem and say you are going to make record profits and not help, we are going to impose a tax on you and make sure you are doing your share--especially when the oil companies have made $600 billion since 2001. There are other parts of the Consumer First Energy Act I will not go into in the interest of time. But there are things we can do. These are short-term strategies. But the long-term solution here we know is committing ourselves to future of energy independence. That means investing dollars, using the Tax Code, using incentives to do what Americans do best. When Americans have an opportunity to use their brainpower and their innovation and their ingenuity to help on a problem, we have to make sure our Government is backing them up. We are not doing nearly enough to invest in the new technologies-- whether it is clean coal technology or whether it is investing in biofuels, all kinds of alternatives, and renewable sources of energy. Our Government is not doing enough to incentivize the marketplace to come up with a solution long term so we do not face this problem in the future. Before I conclude, I want to address a couple of arguments. One of the arguments we hear time and again is about drilling. Over and over we hear about drilling from some people here in Washington, some people here in this body. I do not think many people believe the basic argument that we can drill our way to energy independence. No one believes that. But the argument is made over and over again. I think in the interests of putting facts on the table, we ought to put a few on the table right now. Here are some facts important in this debate about ``we can just drill our way out and all our problems will go away with lower gas prices.'' Fact No. 1, the percent of America's recoverable oil reserves already open for drilling--79 percent. Fact No. 2, America has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. That is not nearly enough to impact world oil prices. We have 3 percent of the reserves, yet we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. There is no way, no matter what we do on drilling, that we can drill our way out of this. Fact No. 3, oil companies already have access to 45.5 million acres of Federal land to drill for oil and natural gas. They should tell us why they are not drilling in those areas. Oil companies, fact No. 4, are only drilling on 21 percent of the leases they currently have offshore in Federal waters. Why is that, Mr. Oil Company? Why are you not drilling on more than 21 percent? The last fact: Oil companies have refused to invest in refining capacity. They have lost 4 percent of refining capacity since 2001. Since 2001--remember those profits I talked about? Since you were making, oil companies, $600 billion in profits since 2001, why did you lose 4 percent of refining capacity? Why are you crying crocodile tears right now that you need more land when you have all those acres? These are questions the oil companies should answer. These are facts that are not making their way into the debate. I think we have not a magic wand to propose, but we have short-term relief we can provide and long-term strategies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; to literally not just commit ourselves to an energy future that is good for our families and for our country but is about national security in the end. Unless we can do that over time, and unless we commit ourselves to these strategies, we are not only going to be dependent on other countries for our oil but we will be less and less safe because of that dependence. I think it is critically important that we take action instead of blocking legislation, as happened earlier this month on so many of these short- and long-term solutions. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. The problems plaguing Afghanistan are well documented: a resurgence of pro-Taliban forces, a burgeoning narcotics trade, rampant government corruption, insufficient resources for reconstruction, stalled development, fragile political and security institutions, and sheer, mind-numbing poverty. I spent a day in Kabul last month, where I had the good fortune of visiting with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and even during this short amount of time, the magnitude of the challenges we face there was clear. But what I also discovered is that despite these awesome challenges, there is a strong spirit amongst Afghans and coalition troops to persevere in the face of overwhelming odds. Afghans do not want the Taliban to come back. They may be disappointed by the results of President Karzai's government and broken promises by the international community. But they have been fighting for over 30 years for peace and stability. And they are not going to stop now. Not when they are this close to achieving those goals. So it is now up to us to demonstrate true global leadership and finish what we started in 2001. This means, as the Afghanistan Study Group so aptly said, replacing the ``light'' footprint approach this administration has taken with respect to Afghanistan with the ``right'' footprint approach. There is a common sentiment here in Washington that what is needed the most in Afghanistan is resources. If only we had more money, more troops, and more trainers on the ground, we would see more positive results. It is true that we need to devote more resources to Afghanistan. That is why I was pleased to see that the recent international donors conference in Paris secured about $20 billion in commitments from more than 60 countries and international institutions, including a previous pledge of $10.2 billion from the United States. And that is why I applaud Secretary Gates' and Secretary Rice's repeated efforts in Brussels and other European capitals to secure additional Allied troops for the coalition in Afghanistan, troops that are free to wage combat where they are needed. We do need more to accomplish our mission. But I do not want to engage in the transatlantic blame-game of which country could be doing more because it glosses over the underlying fault lines that have plagued our strategy in Afghanistan from day one. Ultimately, the real problem is not just one of troops or money or resources. Rather, our mission in Afghanistan is in jeopardy because we still have not defined our long-term U.S. strategic objective in Afghanistan and, by implication, across South Asia. We have not linked our relevant military security operations to a political strategy, and, most importantly, we have not made a long-term strategic commitment to Afghanistan in the eyes of the Afghan people. We have decoupled Pakistan from Afghanistan instead of formulating a strategy that would address the inherent and historic relationship between the two nations. It is time to reformulate our basic fundamentals on how to approach this war. First and foremost, any strategy for turning the tide in Afghanistan must incorporate what is happening in Pakistan. To date, this administration has not fully appreciated Pakistan's security paranoia and the duplicity it has generated. Fueled by a credible fear that the U.S. will once again leave Pakistan in the lurch, as it did in the seventies and nineties, credible evidence exists that Pakistani security forces have renewed their ties to the Taliban to preserve their options. We must redraw our map of this war to include the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. Army COL Thomas Lynch, a leading Afghan expert, has declared: The future of Afghanistan can be lost in Afghanistan, but it can only be won in Pakistan. GEN Dan McNeill, who briefed both Senator Levin and me when we were in Afghanistan--he recently left after 16 months of service commanding NATO's international security force--warned that success in Afghanistan would be impossible without a more robust military campaign against insurgent havens in Pakistan. Second, we must take advantage of the opportunity to work with Afghan security forces. They remain nascent and fragile at this moment, but they have significant potential with the proper investment of training, manpower, and equipment. As our military leaders in Afghanistan told me last month, the Afghan army is made up of proud soldiers who want to fight for their nation and who have a can-do spirit. But we must provide them the tools they need. We cannot underestimate the importance of properly training the Afghan security forces. Last week, a GAO report said: Without capable and self-sustaining Afghan army and police forces, terrorists could again create a safe haven in Afghanistan and jeopardize efforts by the United States and international community to develop the country. In particular, as Senator Levin and I recommended upon our return from Afghanistan, we need to assist the Afghan army to take over responsibility for border security functions in the territory adjoining Pakistan. Today, a lightly armed Afghan border police patrols this vital region, and this border police remains underequipped and underarmed. This is unacceptable. The United States and NATO allies should work together with the Afghan army to assume that critical national security function. Finally, our strategy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan must focus on sustained development assistance. Former U.S. commander, GEN Karl Eikenberry, used to say, ``The Taliban begins where the roads end.'' Despite a massive influx of money into Afghanistan, we are not moving quickly enough to demonstrate to the Afghan people concrete results that improve their lives--building roads, schools, and hospitals. We need to decouple our military activities from reconstruction assistance and bring our development experts from the U.S. Agency for International Development to the table where they belong. Our development approach thus far has overrelied on private contractors whose goals, missions, and timelines do not correspond with our own. I have one more paragraph. We have to recognize that this battle against extremism is not going to be won in 2 or 4 or 10 years. It is not going to be won on the military battlefield. It is a generational challenge, a battle for the ages that will require significant resources in basic human development. Extremists exploit poverty, ignorance, and anger. The task before us is to defuse the igniters of that anger before they explode in the form of another failed state in Afghanistan or a terrorist attack in the United States. We have a great history in this country of helping rebuild societies from ashes. It is time for a new Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, one that links the necessary resources with the right institutional expertise. It is time for us to do what we do best in the world. In concluding, I go back to the work of the 9/11 Commission. In analyzing the many unexplored connections that led to that fateful day, September 11, 2001, the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission found: The most important failure was one of imagination. We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat. That is what was said after 9/11. The same can be said today. Our brave men and women, the troops and diplomats who serve every day in Afghanistan get the picture. They see what this administration chooses to ignore. Failure in Afghanistan is not an option. Our national security, the safety of our families here, depends on what we do in Afghanistan, and preventing another terrorist attack here depends on what happens in Afghanistan and all of South Asia. We cannot fail in Afghanistan. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today, I rise to convey my growing concern--and I think the American people share this concern--on an issue that the three major television networks' evening newscasts devoted just 46 minutes of coverage to so far this year: The war in Afghanistan. The White House has become distracted and weighed down by the war in Iraq. It has knowingly ignored dealing with the real threats that endanger American interests. It is time now to refocus our efforts and concentrate on the real front in the war on terror, and it is time to get serious about winning in Afghanistan. The United States has one overarching priority when it comes to this region: to ensure that al-Qaida or any other terrorist group does not gain the sanctuary it requires to plot, plan, or train for another terrorist attack on American soil or against our allies. However, despite some 62,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, including approximately 34,000 American forces, and more than 140,000 Afghan troops and police, Taliban and al-Qaida forces have regrouped and become stronger over the past 2 years. Finding sanctuary in the southern and eastern parts of the country and along the border with Pakistan, Taliban and pro-al-Qaida forces are threatening to undermine hard-fought international efforts to bring stability and peace to Afghanistan. The assessment from our top experts in the field is bleak. Retired General James L. Jones, who until the summer of 2006 served as the supreme allied commander of NATO, found in one report that: NATO is not winning in Afghanistan. . . Afghanistan remains a failing state. It could become a failed state. 2007 was the deadliest year since the fall of the Taliban, with over 6,000 people killed. Violence continues in 2008. Secretary Gates reported in May that for the first time, more coalition troops were killed in a month's fighting in Afghanistan than in Iraq. As of this week, at least 451 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan, including at least 20 from my home State of Pennsylvania. Overall, violence has risen 27 percent in Afghanistan in the past year, with a 39-percent increase in attacks in the eastern region--where most U.S. troops operate--and a 60-percent surge in Helmand province, where the Taliban resurgence has been the greatest. Suicide bombings rose to 140 in 2007, compared with 5 between 2001 and 2005. The news in recent days has also been especially troubling. Over the weekend, militants operating in sanctuaries in Pakistan launched rocket and artillery attacks into Afghanistan killing four Afghan civilians, including two children. NATO forces, whose patience has been repeatedly tested by escalating insurgent violence along the Afghan-Pakistani border, have since retaliated by shelling guerrillas along the Pakistani border. Last week, hundreds of NATO and Afghan forces engaged in one of their biggest battles in years against approximately 400 Taliban fighters in Kandahar. These fighters had bombed the main city jail and freed hundreds of their comrades. One report says that those who have been freed are among the most dangerous. These setbacks emerged as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released its latest report concluding that despite spending $16.5 billion, the Pentagon and State Department still lack a ``sustainable strategy'' for developing the Afghan National Security Forces. Only two of the Afghan Army's 105 units are fully capable of fulfilling their mission. No police unit is fully capable. Today, I sent a letter to Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice asking for answers on why our progress in building Afghanistan's security forces is so stunted. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to recognize June 20 as World Refugee Day, a day designated by the United Nations General Assembly to highlight and celebrate the contribution of refugees throughout the world. World Refugee Day has evolved into an annual commemoration marked by a variety of events in over a hundred countries, including in my home State of Pennsylvania. I am proud to note that, since the mid-1970s, more than 100,000 refugees from more than 30 nations have made Pennsylvania their home, enriching the cultural diversity and strengthening the economy of the Commonwealth. Over time, most have succeeded in adjusting to life in Pennsylvania and the majority have naturalized as U.S. citizens and actively participate in local community life. This day gives us an important opportunity to pause and appreciate the grave humanitarian situation refugees face worldwide. Forced to flee their homes and having lost everything, these people have immediate needs including shelter, food, safety, and protection. But they also have basic human rights--the right to seek asylum, the right not to be returned to a country where they fear persecution, the right to work, and the right to send their children safely to school. Between 2001 and 2005, the international community witnessed a decline in the number of refugees worldwide. Unfortunately, this trend has reversed. By the end of 2007, there was a 115 percent increase over just 2 years in the number of refugees under the responsibility of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees--UNHCR. We are now talking about a staggering 11.4 million refugees worldwide. The number of internally displaced people worldwide is also up, from 24.4 million to 26 million. Among refugees, Afghans and Iraqis account for nearly half of all refugees under UNHCR's care worldwide. Much of the increase in refugees in 2007 was a result of the volatile situation in Iraq. It has been 5 years since the fall of Baghdad, and Iraq and her neighbors are in the midst of a humanitarian crisis that threatens 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. Violence and sectarian conflict are an ever present reality in Iraq, driving away anywhere from one to two thousand Iraqis from their homes every day. The numbers are sobering. One in five Iraqis have been displaced. The UNHCR estimates more than 4.7 million Iraqis have left their homes, many in dire need of humanitarian care. Of these, more than 2.7 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2 million have fled to neighboring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. In 2006, Iraqis became the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe. I witnessed firsthand the challenges facing Iraqi refugees last August when I spent time in Jordan meeting with United Nations and International Organization for Migration personnel. I can report that Iraqi refugees throughout the region have become increasingly desperate and have nowhere to turn. Since the beginning of the crisis, the Iraqi government has proven to be unwilling and unable to respond to the needs of vulnerable Iraqis. While the government has access to significant oil revenue, it is divided along sectarian lines and lacks both the institutional capacity and the political will to effectively address the growing crisis. Sectarian militia groups like the Mahdi Army are quickly filling this vacuum to provide services. The largest ``humanitarian'' organization in Iraq today is the Sadrist movement affiliated with anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, whose programs provide shelter and food to hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Iraq. The international community, including the United States, has been largely in denial over the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis. Until recently, the conversation was always dominated by talk of reconstruction and development rather than addressing the basic, urgent needs of ordinary Iraqis. The United Nations only just issued a common humanitarian appeal for Iraq. Now, we here in the United States have a moral responsibility to do right by the millions of Iraqis who have been driven away from their homes, particularly for those who have risked their lives to assist our country. In 2007, Congress agreed to provide resettlement benefits for special immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan who helped the United States, helped us, and to increase from 500 to 5,000 the number of special immigrants from Iraq we will admit into this country. Both measures passed the Senate by unanimous votes. The American people have responded with their customary generosity and caring spirit in welcoming these Iraqis into our Nation. I am proud to note that my home State of Pennsylvania has been a leader in helping to resettle our Iraqi allies. The city of Erie, PA, alone has resettled about 90 Iraqis during this fiscal year. But the overall progress in resettling our courageous Iraqi allies has been frustratingly slow due to Government bureaucracy and logjams. Along with colleagues from the Senate and the House, I sent a letter to President Bush today questioning the progress the administration is making on processing resettlement claims for Iraqis who have worked for us and whose lives have been placed in great danger as a result of such service for us. There is also the larger issue of dealing with the millions of Iraqi refugees in the Middle East. Iraqi refugees are overwhelming the basic infrastructure of Iraq's neighbors, especially Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, raising troubling concerns about the region's stability and shifting sectarian balances. As Refugee International notes, the Iraqi refugee crisis is essentially exporting Iraq's instability to its neighbors. Beyond the obvious humanitarian and moral dimensions, this crisis has grave implications for our national security interests, our U.S. national security interests, in the Middle East. It is time for us to acknowledge the humanitarian crisis in Iraq that is spilling over into neighboring countries. We must firmly demonstrate our commitment to resettling Iraqi refugees and working with other governments in the Middle East and in Europe to provide humanitarian assistance and support. The Iraqi Government must accept responsibility to care for all-- all--of its citizens and the international assistance needed to improve its capacity to do so in a just manner. Let me conclude by saying how impressed I am, as are all Americans, and I continue to be so impressed by our brave men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have returned home to advocate that more be done to help Iraqis and those who are in Afghanistan who are at risk, particularly those who have risked their lives in service to the United States of America. Let us in Congress follow their example and keep fighting to help those in the world who are most in need. After all, that is the great legacy of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business. I ask consent to do that.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the state of the American economy in the midst of our current housing crisis, and, of course, the legislation that is before the Congress today and the need for action in this Congress, in this Senate, not just for Wall Street firms but for Main Street families and small businesses. A little over a month ago, the Senate Banking Committee held a field hearing in Philadelphia--I think the first of its kind since this Congress began and this Senate convened last year. Chairman Dodd chaired the hearing, convened it, and I was with him that day. One of the witnesses was a subprime borrower. Her name is Yajaira Cruz-Rivera. In 2005, she and her husband purchased a home. She was told by her broker she would get a fixed-rate loan. She made out a family budget, and she was told she was getting a fixed-rate payment of $925 per month. She told her broker she did not want anything with tricks in it that would change her payment, and that is what she was told she was signing. I would like to read some of her testimony of what happened next. These are her words: Just 10 days later we received a letter in the mail stating that a mistake had been made at closing. The interest rate we were given was not going to be 7% but rather 10.95%. Our payments would not be $925 but rather $1200. We considered backing out then, but we had already moved into [our] home. Our children were settling in, to pack everything back up was something we could not do. We had already put so much money out. Fred and I-- Fred is her husband-- Fred and I decided that although we would struggle, we would make it. All of the evidence presented to the Banking Committee in hearings stretching back over a year indicates that many of the homeowners who find themselves in trouble started with a story just like Ms. Cruz- Rivera's story. This is not simply a problem in some cities. A leading research institution in Pennsylvania, the Keystone Research Center, found nine counties in Pennsylvania where subprime mortgages make up 35 percent of all mortgages--35 percent. One of those nine is Philadelphia. The other eight counties in this Keystone Research Center survey are the following counties--Cameron, Clearfield, Fayette, Forest, Jefferson, Monroe, Venango, and Warren. All of those counties outside of Philadelphia that I just mentioned are rural counties for the most part. So this is not just a problem in cities and urban areas. It is a major problem in rural counties in Pennsylvania and across the country. More than 1 million homes are now in foreclosure--a new national record, unfortunately. Over 8,400 homes are entering foreclosure every day--8,400. Unless we act, an estimated 3 million homes will enter foreclosure this year, and 2 million homes will be foreclosed upon in that time. We know the job losses: 324,000 jobs lost already this year. We know the data from the economists. One economist, Robert Shiller, has estimated that the subprime and foreclosure crisis could cost American homeowners $6 trillion in lost household wealth--a record. That is $80,000 per homeowner. At the same time, the average American family income is just $50,000 a year. We know the adverse impact it has had on student loans. There is problem after problem resulting from the foreclosure crisis. So what do we do? We should pass the legislation on which Senator Dodd has worked so hard, working with the ranking member, Senator Shelby. Let's quickly go through the legislation. No. 1, government-sponsored enterprise reform legislation to give an effective regulator for the GSEs; No. 2, the HOPE for Homeowners Act would establish a new initiative at the FHA to prevent foreclosures; No. 3, the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, creating a Federal registry and establishing minimum national standards for brokers and lenders; No. 4, the Foreclosure Prevention Act, providing assistance and counseling so needed in this crisis; No. 5, the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008, providing tax benefits for homeowners, home buyers, and homebuilders aimed at providing housing market recovery. Unfortunately, there are some Senators in this Chamber who do not seem to see the need for action on this crisis. I want to show a chart which summarizes the principles of this basic legislation. It is very important to highlight these. There is a lot of rhetoric that is misleading. Basic principles: Here is what happens with this legislation. No. 1, it creates new equity for homeowners. We have to do that. No. 2, there is no bailout for investors or lenders. We have heard a lot of that talk here. It is not true. This is not a bailout. This is a way to dig our economy out of a huge hole. No. 3, borrowers do not receive a windfall. They have a stake in this, and they have to sacrifice as well. It is not any kind of a windfall for borrowers. Finally, and maybe most importantly for people who are following this debate, this is not taxpayer money we are talking about. OK. So this is a very responsible plan. I want to return to the story I started of Ms. Cruz-Rivera. She had asked for and was told, as I mentioned before, she was receiving a fixed-rate mortgage with no gimmicks and no tricks. Then, 10 days after closing, she found out her interest rate would not be 7 percent but 10.95 percent. The payment would go, as said before, from $925 to $1,200. The story does not end there, unfortunately for her. She and her husband sat down, and they decided to tough it out, to try to work their way through this adverse news they got. Here is what she said. I am quoting her again: Then, in 2007, the unthinkable happened. Our rate adjusted upward and our new payment was now $1,671 a month. A home we thought we were getting for $925 a month in 2005 is costing us nearly double that today. She is talking about her husband again. She said: My husband works 16 hour days, 6 days a week, but still we are not able to keep up with the payment. We explored refinancing but now our credit is damaged and on top of that we have a repayment penalty; if we do refinance we have to pay GMAC a huge fee upfront. We have been trapped into a terrible loan by greedy, predatory and fraudulent lending practices. So that is the reality of what we are talking about. We are not talking about bailouts. We are not talking about going easy on people. We are talking about helping people who, in many cases, were deceived deliberately by players in the market who were unregulated and getting away with murder--almost literally. People know the acronym ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. They are helping people such as Ms. Cruz- Rivera. They are helping a lot of other people. We hear a lot of talk in this body and across the way in the House, the other body, about moral hazard. People talk about that issue all the time--that some people should have known better, and you can fill in the blank about that. It is not often we hear economists talking enough about morality when it comes to this issue. In fact, the situation we find ourselves in today is a direct result of parts of this industry--not all, but parts of this industry--trying to maximize profit without any regard to any sense of morality or standards. So I find it ironic that the greed that some of us have been talking about is not included in that definition of ``moral hazard.'' But there are solutions out there. I will conclude with this: The city of Philadelphia recently announced a program that will specifically target borrowers who cannot afford payments on adjustable-rate mortgages and are in danger of foreclosure. Any property scheduled for sale by the city of Philadelphia right now by the local sheriff's office will be referred to officials who will in turn negotiate with lenders in an attempt to restructure the loan so the borrower can afford the monthly payments. I commend the city and especially Mayor Nutter, the mayor of Philadelphia, for his leadership on this and many other housing issues. It is critically important we remember there is, in this nightmare for so many families, solution-oriented thinking out there in addition to the important legislation we have before us. The time has come for the Senate to finally act--to act, not just to talk but to act on this issue--to put a floor under the housing market. It is time at long last for the Congress, and especially for the Senate, to finally act, but also in the process of acting, to help families stay in their homes. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to discuss two agreements under negotiation between the United States and Iraq that have grabbed headlines in recent days as more and more Iraqi politicians announce their strong opposition to these agreements. The two agreements will shape the presence of American military forces in Iraq long beyond the tenure of the current administration. Unfortunately, the administration, in my judgment, is handling these negotiations in the same manner that has characterized its entire approach to Iraq since 2003. Its approach is this: unnecessary secrecy, a disdain for congressional input, and an arrogant insistence that its course of action--the administration's course of action--is the only reasonable option. Let me talk about each of these agreements. The first agreement to which I am referring is a proposed Status of Forces Agreement, known by the acronym SOFA. The Status of Forces Agreement would define the authorities, privileges, and immunities of American troops on Iraqi soil and allow U.S. forces to remain in Iraq beyond December 31, when a U.N. Security Council mandate, authorizing the presence of coalition troops, is scheduled to expire. Administration officials insist the extension of the U.N. mandate, which has been repeatedly renewed on an annual basis, is no longer possible; the Iraqis seek to return to a normal status in the international system and no longer want to be the subject of a U.N. authorized military operation. The second agreement involves a more ambiguous ``strategic framework,'' which would lay out the broad political, security, and economic ties between our two nations. While the administration walked back from previous statements indicating the United States is prepared to offer a binding security guarantee to Iraq's Government to come to its defense in the event of foreign aggression or internal turmoil, it is still prepared to agree to ``consult''--consult--with the Iraqi Government under such circumstances. While the promise to consult, in the event of aggression, has been extended by the United States to many nations around the world, and is known in diplomatic jargon as a ``security arrangement,'' it still raises concern when the United States maintains a large-scale troop presence in a nation. Any promise to consult with a foreign government takes on much greater weight when more than 100,000 troops are stationed there. The Congress and the American public first learned of these two proposed agreements when President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a ``Declaration of Principles'' last November, outlining their shared intention to conclude negotiations by July 31. A week later--a week after July 31--joined by five other Senators, I sent a letter to President Bush expressing deep concern over the proposed security guarantees to the Iraqi Government and the insistence of the administration that it could conclude both these agreements without-- without--congressional input or approval. Since then, many Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, I might add, have expressed deep unease with the administration's approach. Some of the questions we have raised, including at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing in April, include the following: Here are a couple pertinent questions we should be asking and the administration should be answering. First, why the sudden insistence on a termination of the U.N. Security Council mandate for the U.S. and other coalition troops in Iraq at the end of this year? Why not simply extend the mandate for another year and allow the next President to negotiate a bilateral accord with the Iraqis instead of a lameduck President? Why would we accept a bilateral accord with the Iraqi Government that incorporates greater restrictions--greater restrictions--on U.S. troops, including limitations on the authority to conduct combat operations and detain prisoners of war than the current mandate? Why would we agree to that? I am a strong opponent of an open-ended U.S. combat presence in Iraq, but so long as American troops remain in Iraq, they should retain the discretion to conduct necessary operations to ensure their safety and security. American troops can never answer to a foreign government, especially one as dysfunctional as the Iraqi Government is now.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak today--as many of us have been doing--not just about the high price of gasoline but all of the pressures on American families that come with that. When I say ``families,'' I mean in the broadest sense of the word. The Presiding Officer has advocated on behalf of people who are suffering under the weight of high gasoline prices. He has been an articulate and forceful advocate for action. We are finally at the point where we are at least debating the action we should be taking. I wanted to talk about prices. When the average American family goes to the grocery store or they go to fill up their tank or they try to pay for college or health care--just fill in the blank--it seems as if everything in their lives is going up when their wages are flattening out or sometimes actually going down. The price of everything is going through the roof, and at the same time we have record job losses. I don't know the exact number to date, but we have had tens of thousands every month, month after month after month. Some believe the most recent monthly job loss number is a record. But even if it is not a record or if we are off by a couple thousand, it is still far too high. In Pennsylvania, this is not just a problem in inner cities where a lot of people's incomes are low; this is a problem across a State such as Pennsylvania. We have a State that has some large cities and bigger communities population-wise, but we have a very rural State. We have millions of people in Pennsylvania who live in so-called rural areas by the demographics. They have to travel great distances to get to the grocery store or to make transactions for business or to get their families to where they have to go. So gas prices, in some ways, disproportionately adversely affect those who live in rural areas or in small towns. In Pennsylvania, we have--more than maybe any other State and sometimes as many States as you can talk about combined--a lot of two- lane roads. So the distance between one place and another isn't just the mileage but it is the roads you take. On a two-lane road, you cannot go as fast, and that adds to the difficulty and the reality of gas prices. We also have a State that has a tremendous agricultural economy. All of those costs--the cost of energy and the cost of transportation and distribution--are going up for our farm families. While all this is happening--and we know there are no easy solutions--we also see that, lo and behold, the big oil companies--in the last 5 years, the profits of the five largest oil companies--in 2002, the profits of the five largest oil companies was a measly $29 billion. Last year, 2007, big oil had profits of $124 billion. So it went from $29 billion to $124 billion in just 5 years. I think there are very few, if any, American families--especially middle and lower income families--who are under the weight of these costs I just talked about who have had their incomes go up three, four, or five times. The reality is that big oil has gotten too much. Over and over again, their profits are going through the roof. This Government gave them tax breaks a couple of years ago to the tune of $17 billion. So just at the time when their profits were taking off in a record way, this Government gave them, back in 2004 and 2005, $17 billion in breaks. We have talked about taking away those breaks and allowing us as a government, as a family, to be able to say there is another part of the family over here that is hurting and we want to help them. I will do it very briefly in terms of our approach. Basically, what Democrats have tried to do is to say: Look, we don't have to pretend we are helpless and sit back and say there is nothing we can do. We don't have a magic wand and there is no easy solution, but the idea of doing nothing and saying it is OK for oil companies to get these profits at a time when we could use that revenue for something else is ridiculous. Everybody out there knows it. They know, for example, that we can say we should have an excess profits tax. That makes sense. Now, if a big oil company comes in the door and says: You know what, we are going to do our best to reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil, we are going to be more efficient and put more into research and development and do the right thing for the American consumers, we are going to say: OK, then maybe your excess profits tax--the hit against an oil company--is not going to be as high. That is reasonable. At the same time, a lot of people know that a high percentage of the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is from speculation by people on Wall Street who have money, power, influence, and the ability to get information like that and make a huge financial profit. We should crack down on speculation. We can do that. The Federal Government can do that. We should give the Federal Government the authority to do that. We should give the President--any President--the authority to crack down on price gouging. So there is much we can do. Listening to the other side of the aisle, their solution is that we can drill our way out of that situation. Nobody believes that. There is no evidence that we can drill our way out of this. If anything, that keeps us dependent on oil--not just foreign oil. I think this idea that we sit back and do nothing is really not worthy of a long argument. We have to end our addiction to oil. We have to take specific, targeted steps to not just reduce our dependence on foreign oil but to provide equity here for the American families. I believe a lot of the solutions Democrats have talked about have been very practical--an excess profits tax, taking away those tremendous billions in breaks oil companies have had, and also getting tough on the speculators, the people making a lot of money in the market, is another very practical way. Democrats have offered a practical set of solutions. We are waiting for the other side to come up with their solution to the pressure felt by the American family. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I will not read all of it, but I wanted to read the description of his sacrifice and the reason he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, so rare for any soldier to be so awarded. Here is part of the official report. This is December 4, 2006. During the course of the patrol, an unidentified insurgent positioned on a rooftop nearby threw a fragmentation grenade into the Humvee. Without hesitation or regard for his own life, McGinnis threw his back over the grenade, pinning it between his body and the Humvee's radio mount. McGinnis absorbed all lethal fragments and the concussive effects of the grenade with his own body. McGinnis, who was a private first class at the time, was posthumously promoted to specialist. Specialist McGinnis's heroic actions and tragic death are detailed in the battlescape section of this website and in his Medal of Honor Citation. He was a young man from Knox, PA, 19 years old, when he gave, as Abraham Lincoln also said, ``The last full measure of devotion to his country.'' And I have used that line a lot because it applies so well to those who have given their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan and other places around the world, but at no time--at no time--that I have used that line from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has it applied better than it does in this instance, for Ross. A McGinnis, 19 years old, born June 14, 1987, in Meadville, PA, though he grew up in Knox, PA. He was a 2005 graduate of Keystone Junior-Senior High School, and his parents were with President Bush this week when he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. So we are thinking of him today, on D-day, but we should make sure those memories we have of his service, and all those who have served in any conflict, be the inspiration for our hard work in the Senate, to make sure we are doing everything we can to earn the valor they gave so heroically for our country. And that has to be about making sure our troops are given what they need when they are on the battlefield, but also ensuring that when they come home, the help doesn't stop at the shoreline; that they are given the best health care and the best educational opportunities. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this: We pay tribute to those who have served our country, especially today, in remembering those who served on D-day, but in a special way we are thinking of Ross A. McGinnis, his service, his sacrifice, and we are praying for his family. Exhibit 1 The Story of PFC Ross A. McGinnis 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division Spc. McGinnis' dedication to duty and love for his fellow Soldiers were embodied in a statement issued by his parents shortly after his death: ``Ross did not become our hero by dying to save his fellow Soldiers from a grenade. He was a hero to us long before he died, because he was willing to risk his life to protect the ideals of freedom and justice that America represents. He has been recommended for the Medal of Honor . . . That is not why he gave his life. The lives of four men who were his Army brothers outweighed the value of his one life. It was just a matter of simple kindergarten arithmetic. Four means more than one. It didn't matter to Ross that he could have escaped the situation without a scratch. Nobody would have questioned such a reflex reaction. What mattered to him were the four men placed in his care on a moment's notice. One moment he was responsible for defending the rear of a convoy from enemy fire; the next moment he held the lives of four of his friends in his hands. The choice for Ross was simple, but simple does not mean easy. His straightforward answer to a simple but difficult choice should stand as a shining example for the rest of us. We all face simple choices, but how often do we choose to make a sacrifice to get the right answer? The right choice sometimes requires honor.'' Ross Andrew McGinnis was born June 14, 1987 in Meadville, PA. His family moved to Knox, northeast of Pittsburgh, when he was three. There he attended Clarion County public schools, and was a member of the Boy Scouts as a boy. Growing up he played basketball and soccer through the YMCA, and Little League baseball. Ross was a member of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Knox, and a 2005 graduate of Keystone Junior-Senior High School. Ross's interests included video games and mountain biking. He was also a car enthusiast, and took classes at the Clarion County Career Center in automotive technology. He also worked part-time at McDonald's after school. His mother, Romayne, said Ross wanted to be a Soldier early in life. When asked to draw a picture of what he wanted to be when he grew up, Ross McGinnis, the kindergartner, drew a picture of a Soldier. On his 17th birthday, June 14, 2004, Ross went to the Army recruiting station and joined through the delayed entry program. After initial entry training at Fort Benning, Georgia, McGinnis was assigned to 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment in Schweinfurt, Germany. According to fellow Soldiers, he loved Soldiering and took his job seriously, but he also loved to make people laugh. One fellow Soldier commented that every time McGinnis left a room, he left the Soldiers in it laughing. The unit deployed to Eastern Baghdad in August 2006, where sectarian violence was rampant. Ross was serving as an M2 .50 caliber machine gunner in 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment in support of operations against insurgents in Adhamiyah, Iraq. According to the official report, on the afternoon of Dec. 4, 2006, McGinnis' platoon was on mounted patrol in Adhamiyah to restrict enemy movement and quell sectarian violence. During the course of the patrol, an unidentified insurgent positioned on a rooftop nearby threw a fragmentation grenade into the Humvee. Without hesitation or regard for his own life, McGinnis threw his back over the grenade, pinning it between his body and the Humvee's radio mount. McGinnis absorbed all lethal fragments and the concussive effects of the grenade with his own body. McGinnis, who was a private first class at the time, was posthumously promoted to specialist. Spc. McGinnis's heroic actions and tragic death are detailed in the battlescape section of this website and in his Medal of Honor Citation. Army Decorations: Medal of Honor (to be presented to Tom and Romayne McGinnis at a June 2, 2008 White House Ceremony), Silver Star (awarded for valor exhibited during the events of Dec. 4, 2006, pending processing and approval of Medal of Honor), Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Combat Infantryman Badge.

Mr. CASEY. Finally, I want to speak for a couple of moments about a Pennsylvanian. As I have mentioned before, there are more World War II Medal of Honor winners from Pennsylvania than anywhere else. We did some research, and you can go down the list of people who have served from Pennsylvania, who have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, and we note that 378 Pennsylvanians have received the Medal of Honor out of about 3,467 overall, so a high percentage. We had 25 Medal of Honor winners from World War II and in Operation Iraqi Freedom; one is the person I want to spend a couple of moments talking about. Operation Iraqi Freedom has only four, I am told, four Medal of Honor winners across the Nation, so Pennsylvania has one of those four, and his name is Specialist Ross A. McGinnis, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a two-page document entitled, ``The Story of PFC Ross A. McGinnis,'' as well as a news story from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette from this week.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. One is to speak for a couple minutes about today's anniversary of D-day and then also to talk about a Pennsylvanian who lost his life in Iraq and was this week awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I, first, wish to speak about D-day. We observe this anniversary today, 64 years, but we have to think today about how we do that. We know what happened on D-day. For so many Americans, prior to just a number of years ago, it was a piece of history we read about in the history books. We learned a bit about it in school, but for a new generation of Americans, D-day has meant what we saw in the movie ``Saving Private Ryan.'' Thank goodness for that film because it captured so much of the horror, so much of the sacrifice and the valor of our troops. So we remember those Americans who gave their lives that day to save the world--literally to save the world from the horror that could have befallen the world if the axis powers were successful, and if D-day did not go as well as it did, they might have been successful. I am remembering today not just a generation of Americans, the ``greatest generation'' of Americans as we know them now, who sacrificed so much, but I am thinking of people from my home State. I think Pennsylvania had more Medal of Honor winners in World War II than any other State. One of them was in my home area, Lackawanna County, Geno Merli, who served in Europe, in that theater of the war, and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and passed away a couple of years ago. So when I think of D-day, and I think of those sacrifices, I am thinking of heroes such as Geno Merli and so many others who gave the ultimate sacrifice. His Medal of Honor pertained to his combat not on D-day but in a related theater of war. We think about those who came back. We think about those who served and came back, many of them wounded permanently and irreparably, just as we see today with some of our troops in Iraq, and it brings to mind Abraham Lincoln's words in two contexts. One is the context of those who have served. He talked about the soldier--him who has borne the battle--that we must care for him who has borne the battle. And I think one way to honor those who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan or around the world or in wars like World War II is to remember something my father said years ago when he was serving as Governor of Pennsylvania, and he talked about praying for our troops, as important as that is, but he also talked about praying for ourselves; that we may be worthy of their valor. I believe the only way we can be worthy of the valor of those who served in World War II on D-day or served in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere around the world--in Vietnam, in the Korean War, whatever the conflict was--we can't just honor them by remembering and commemorating and talking about battles and all of the information that we can impart about war. We have to, if we are going to be worthy of their valor, do the right thing today, not just when we commemorate D-day but every day. There are at least two things we can do to pay tribute to those who served and to be worthy of their valor. One way is to make sure those who survive a war and come back to the United States have not just some health care but the best health care. And we have to fund it. Fortunately, in the last two budgets we have been doing that. We have been meeting or exceeding the budget on veterans health care. The second thing we must do, at the very least, is make sure anyone who serves in combat has an opportunity to be educated as best we can provide. That is why the vote on the GI bill recently was so essential, so central to meeting that basic obligation, so caring, as Abraham Lincoln said, for him--and increasingly her--who has borne the battle, and making sure they have an education. Today, when we remember the service of those who gave their lives, and in some cases gave sacrifice and survived D-day, I think we have to meet the obligation that service imposes on us in the Senate and as citizens.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are making history today in the Senate because this is the first global warming bill that has reached the floor for a full debate and vote. Congress has, in the past, as we know, considered symbolic global warming legislation, but this is the first time that we are working on the details--how to create a national policy to slow, stop, and reverse the catastrophic global warming that we see across the world. At the same time, this legislation and this debate could not be more important to our economy and our national security. This bill is very simple. There is a lot of complexity to it, obviously, but at its core it is very simple. It is about creating jobs, first of all; it is about protecting God's creation; and it is also about enhancing our national security and, indeed, the world's security. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill on which to build a national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I do want to commend several Members of the Senate: Senators Lieberman and Warner, Senator Boxer, and so many others who have worked so many years on this legislation, and especially worked in the last year and the last 6 months to bring this to where we are today. These Senators, with help from other Members of the Senate, have crafted a bill that includes all of the major policy issues that we must address: the cost to American families, job creation, worker protection, focusing on developing nations that will soon be the largest emitters of carbon, and keeping America competitive internationally. At its core, this bill also recognizes and celebrates the best of the American spirit. We are confronting challenges in this bill, no doubt about that, but we are confronting challenges with American innovation, American ingenuity, the can-do spirit of the American people, and the skill of the American people in leading the world in confronting a difficult challenge. So I think that is something we should recognize: that this is a good opportunity for the American people not only to confront the crisis of global warming, but also to create jobs, to build a stronger economy, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to do something very significant on the question of what happens to our planet. The authors of this bill have worked to include a number of things that are important to me, especially a program in this bill that is critical to the security of American workers--the Climate Change Workers Assistance Program. In short, what this program will do is make sure that workers who are adversely affected will have wages, they will have health care benefits, and they will have the intensive training they need to make the transition that will happen to some of our workers. This program will also provide a link between creating new manufacturing jobs in the future and helping transition to those new jobs of the future over time. This program is also a safety net intended to give American families peace of mind that they will not be left behind as we build a new economy with these new jobs. That is the key point. Americans have called on us--have called on us--to take action and to prevent global warming, and they are willing to do a lot of the hard work to implement a national program to secure our collective future. Together, we can do this. We know we can do this. America has always been able to confront difficult challenges, whether that challenge was the Depression or a World War or any challenge presented to us. We have met those challenges just as we are meeting the challenge that is global warming. We can stop global warming at the same time that we create a robust new economy that will provide good jobs for our families. There is a lot of talk about the cost of this bill, and there is no question that there are costs. But I also worry about the cost to our families. All of us worry about that. People are working so hard just to make ends meet. This bill contains programs to directly address these concerns, including a paid-for tax policy to return money to consumers to offset increased costs and special assistance for States such as Pennsylvania, my home State, that rely on manufacturing and coal as a major part of their economy. But to this discussion of cost I wanted to add something opponents of this bill don't talk much about, and that is the cost of inaction, the cost of doing nothing, which many in this Chamber apparently believe we should do--do nothing and hope it gets better; talk about it and talk about it and do nothing and wait for another day. While there is certainly a cost to implementing this legislation, there is also a cost if we sit back and do nothing. Not only will it be more expensive to address global warming the longer we wait, we can expect even greater costs in terms of major storms and weather events, increased wildfires, loss of food crops, and so many things that we are seeing playing out right before our eyes today in the world. Just last week, a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged the impact global warming could have on crop disasters. We already know what happens when grain crops fail due to drought and flooding in different parts of the globe. It is happening right now. Lack of crops and increased costs of staples, such as wheat and rice, are causing food riots in some countries. By one estimate, one-fifth of the world's nations are in a food insecurity situation right now, as we speak. So this is not just a humanitarian crisis for those people and their countries, this is also a national and international security threat-- that threat being food insecurity--caused by a number of events and causes but especially the challenge that we have of global warming because that is contributing to that food insecurity. To sit back and do nothing about global warming when we see this path ahead of us and have heard the warnings from scientists all over the world would be not just the wrong policy--to do nothing on global warming--it would, in fact, in my judgment, be immoral. So I support the Climate Security Act, and I will vote in favor of its passage. Before I give up the floor, I have heard a lot of discussion in the last day or so from people criticizing this legislation, about a number of parts of the bill they do not like. But one of the things they keep pointing to is gas prices. Senator Boxer and others have used the chart that talks about the price increase of gasoline since President Bush has been in office, an exorbitant increase in the cost of gasoline. But I have to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who keep talking about this bill increasing gas prices--and, frankly, it would not do that over time. We know from some of the data that has been presented that this bill will bring down the cost of gasoline. But let's say they are really concerned about this part of the legislation. Let's just say they are trying to make their point about gas prices. If they are so concerned about gas prices today, why don't they support, as we have tried to push on this side of the aisle, strategies to bring down that cost or to, at a minimum, provide some measure of relief to our families? How about a windfall profits tax? If people really are worried about gasoline prices, why don't critics of the bill support that? Why don't the critics of the bill, if they are so worried about families and gas prices, not only support a windfall profits tax but support measures that we have introduced already--and I hope we can have a vote on this--to focus on excessive speculation that is in the market right now? So there is a lot we can do right now to bring down the cost of gasoline, or at least try, but it seems the other side of the aisle just wants to talk about bringing gas prices down but does not want to do it. I think this Climate Security Act is one way not only to deal with our energy challenges but to do our best to protect God's creation, to enhance our national security, and to create lots and lots of jobs for our families and for our future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, let me say first I commend the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota who again reminds us of the importance of this legislation that we have been working on for many months now, and now having the votes, an overwhelming number of votes in the Senate to override the President's veto. It is a bill that will help our farm families. But it is also a bill that we know from the percentage breakdown is about nutrition and conservation and so much else. So we are grateful for all of the work that went into this. I am thinking today about not only this legislation. I want to spend a few moments talking about our veterans. But also we had an opportunity today at lunch to listen to three individuals whose stories, among others, are portrayed in a book about the Freedom Riders in the early 1960s and the impact they had on civil rights, and the courageous witness they provided is an understatement. People literally risked their lives for freedom in the South. When I think about our veterans today, the GI bill that Senator Webb brought to this body, and so many of us cosponsored, when I think about the GI bill, the work today on agriculture and nutrition, and also the witness provided by these speakers today at lunch who were Freedom Riders, I am, of course, thinking about Senator Kennedy who is not with us today. He is outside of Washington and we are anxiously awaiting his return. But I was thinking, as we all are today, about him and about his health but also his presence here. Everything we did today virtually he has had an impact on for more than a generation, whether it was nutrition or whether it was helping our veterans or whether it was having the courage to stand up for civil rights. So we are thinking of him today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize the contributions of a community leader from my home State of Pennsylvania, Mr. L. Robert Kimball. Bob Kimball's name has become synonymous with high-quality work that clients have come to expect from the architecture, engineering, technology, and consulting firm that he founded 55 years ago in his home town of Ebensburg, PA. The firm's professional services are well known both in Cambria County and among the public and private marketplaces it serves. Far less recognized are the contributions that Bob makes to his community. In addition to his involvement on the boards of various civic, higher education, and professional organizations, his support extends to the fine and performing arts, education, athletics, youth organizations, community economic development initiatives, and health and human service agencies. His generosity is not limited to monetary contributions and sponsorships. He also encourages active participation by his staff in community activities. Bob wants to make sure that his firm never forgets its small-town foundation. Under his leadership as founder, Bob places a high priority on treating clients, staff, and the community with consideration, appreciation, and fairness. These core values are among the key components of the firm's success. Bob Kimball has enjoyed a successful career and has continuously shared that success, experience, and guidance with the community in Cambria County. He has distinguished himself as a business leader, an accomplished professional engineer, a successful entrepreneur, and a dedicated family man. On behalf of the United States Senate, we recognize Mr. L. Robert Kimball's commitment to his community in Ebensburg, PA.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wanted to make a couple of remarks about the GI bill of rights. We had an opportunity today to vote on a piece of legislation which included that. That legislation is so necessary for our veterans. I know, Mr. President, you in your State, as a former Governor and Senator, know the impact of veterans. In Pennsylvania, we have over a million veterans, and so many of them served our country in war after war. And in this war, the war in Iraq or anywhere in the world where they serve, all they are asking us to do is to help them in a couple of very basic ways: They want our respect, which we should always provide, and I think most Americans do over and over again. But they also should have the right to an education after they have served their country. It is that simple. We all know education is often referred to as the great equalizer. Sometimes when someone comes from a disadvantaged background, they are able to lift their sights and partake in the American dream because they have an education. If soldiers are serving in combat, men and women in uniform for America, the least we should do is provide them with an education when they come home so they can have the chance at the American dream here at home. I think the last thing, certainly not in that order, they have a right to expect is quality health care. We have a long way to go. Despite great work by people who work in the VA, there is a long way to go to provide the kind of quality health care our veterans have a right to expect. So when we remember on this floor the words of Abraham Lincoln a long time ago when he talked, about people who served in combat and war, he talked about caring for him who has borne the battle and his widow and his orphan. When we think about that today, caring for him or her who has borne the battle, it must mean at least those three things: our respect, quality health care, and a quality education. That is why this bill is so important. I am grateful so many of our colleagues agree with that. But we have got a long way to go to make sure the GI bill is the law of the land, not just something to debate but the law of the land. I hope the President, I hope people on both sides of the aisle here join us in that, in making sure the GI bill of rights at long last is the law of the land. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a native Pennsylvanian. Today we honor what would have been the 100th birthday of one of Pennsylvania's most famous sons, Jimmy Stewart. The fact that we call him Jimmy tells a lot about who he was, what he meant to our State, what he meant to America. Jimmy Stewart is most famous for his unforgettable roles in movies such as ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' ``It's a Wonderful Life,'' and on and on, so many great movies to remember him by. But Jimmy Stewart never forgot his Pennsylvania roots. He was born in Indiana, PA, on May 20, 1908. His family owned the hometown hardware store where the Stewart family could trace their roots in Indiana County back to 1772. Stewart attended Princeton University, where he studied architecture and graduated in 1932. Because of the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed, Jimmy Stewart questioned whether he would find employment as an architect, and he accepted a position in an acting troop. Shortly after joining, Stewart began working on Broadway, which eventually led to screen tests with major motion picture production companies. His work in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' in which he played a freshman Senator, earned him his first nomination for an Academy Award. He was also nominated for Oscars for best actor for ``It's a Wonderful Life,'' released in 1946; ``Harvey,'' released in 1950; and ``Anatomy of a Murder,'' released in 1959. He won his only Academy Award for best actor in 1940 for his role in ``The Philadelphia Story.'' I have to say, in a personal way, that every December, during the holiday season, I think I join a lot of Americans in trying to watch, yet again, ``It's a Wonderful Life.'' The reason I watch it--plenty of reasons--principally is because it is an American story, an American story of struggle, of family love, and the positive impact one person's life can have on an entire community. We all know Jimmy Stewart served his country in World War II but was initially rejected from service because he was 5 pounds underweight. But he wouldn't let that stop him from serving. He went home to Indiana, added some weight, and enlisted in the Army Air Corps. He got a whole series of commendations for his service in the Army Air Corps. He retired from the Air Force in 1968, at the mandatory retirement age, and received the Distinguished Service Medal. The signature charity event he started, the Jimmy Stewart Relay Marathon Race, held each year since 1982, has raised millions of dollars for the Child and Family Development Center at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA. Jimmy Stewart received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Life Achievement Award from the American Film Institute for fundamentally advancing the art of American film. The American Red Cross presented Jimmy Stewart with their humanitarian award for service to his fellow man. On his 74th birthday, his hometown of Indiana unveiled a statue of their native son in front of the Indiana County Courthouse. Jimmy Stewart passed away on July 2, 1997. He was mourned by fans worldwide. Perhaps the greatest tribute of the American Film Institute was the observation that James Stewart is an actor ``so beloved by the movie going public that they call him Jimmy, just like a member of the family.'' His was truly a remarkable life. In Pennsylvania and across America today, we say happy 100th birthday, Jimmy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Caryn Long from my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for today and throughout the remaining time on the bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Chairman Harkin for his great work and Ranking Member Chambliss for their leadership on this bill, a very difficult piece of legislation. Chairman Harkin was so patient with me when I kept coming to talk about dairy farmers over and over again, as he listened and worked so hard to help so many of our farmers in his home State of Iowa and across the country. We are grateful for his help. Also, I wish to mention Senator Chambliss's work and Senator Conrad, Senator Baucus, and so many others. On my staff, I mentioned Caryn Long, who did great work, Kasey Gillette, who has done great work from the beginning of this process, and Alex Davis from my staff as well. All have done great work. Let me do some quick highlights of the bill from the perspective of Pennsylvania but also I think from the perspective of our country overall. With regard to dairy, dairy farmers who lead lives of struggle every day and have had to work under and survive under the most adverse circumstances one could imagine, this bill is historic in the context of what it will do to help our dairy farmers, 98 percent of whom in Pennsylvania are family farms. For the first time, we are considering the cost of production. I know the Presiding Officer has heard that phrase a lot in our deliberations. But for the first time, we are considering cost of production when we put forth programs and policies for dairy farmers. This farm bill strengthens the safety net provided by the Milk Income Loss Contract, the so-called MILC Program, by adding a feed adjuster. I won't go into the details of that, but it is going to help enormously on the cost of production. This is an idea I worked with many Members of the Senate on, of both parties. Senator Specter from my home State of Pennsylvania has been very concerned about our dairy farmers as well over many years. Senator Leahy worked hard on this issue in conference. I appreciate his work. I am also very pleased that some of the amendments I worked on in committee are retained, such as the mandatory daily price reporting for dairy products, the feed and fuel cost being part of the so-called make allowances which are very important to balance between what happens to our farmers and what happens to processors. Specialty crops were mentioned before. In our State, fruits, vegetables, and other speciality crops have never had the kind of focus this bill provides. International food aid is part of this bill. I don't have time to go into that, but everyone knows that prices have enveloped the world. Almost one-fifth of the nations of the world are having problems that relate to food and security. States such as Pennsylvania have been underserved by the Federal Crop Insurance Program for many years. This bill includes reforms that help producers in these States to increase the number of acres they have enrolled in the Crop Insurance Program. The reform overall in this bill is very significant. There is $300 million in cuts to direct payments, reforms in the marketing loan program, it closes loopholes, reduces program abuses, on and on. These are changes that are made in this bill. In terms of conservation, the Chesapeake Bay will be provided dollars to restore this tremendous natural resource. The Conservation Farmland Protection Program is helped enormously. I conclude with the nutrition program. This farm bill makes substantial investments in domestic food assistance programs and improves the Food Stamp Program for our families. Mr. President, 1 in 10 Pennsylvanians is currently receiving food stamps, and we have tremendous help for those families in this bill. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report, and if the President vetoes it, we will override his veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are debating a number of measures in the next couple of days, and one of them that is before the Senate right now is the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. I wish to speak for a couple of moments about that legislation. This legislation would allow States that do not currently provide first responders with collective bargaining rights 2 years to revise their State law to do that. After 2 years, the Federal Labor Relations Authority would become responsible for protecting the rights of first responders in those States that still don't provide these rights. The Federal Labor Relations Authority would issue regulations to establish procedures for employees to choose whether to form a union for collective bargaining but would not have any say in the terms of the agreement. This legislation is critically important for us to respond to emergencies across the country. There are some States that can do it better than others because of limitations. We think at times such as this of the tragedy of 9/11, and it is important at this time to remember that every New York City firefighter, emergency medical person, every police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on that horrific day in American history was, in fact, a union member under a collective bargaining agreement. So their unions strengthened their ability to respond to this crisis. The bill before us, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would give public safety officers the right to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions, and would ensure that these rights are enforceable in State court. It also provides an efficient and effective dispute resolution mechanism for labor-management conflicts. It is important to note that this bill does not force any specific regulatory scheme on the States. It gives States plenty of leeway to adopt new collective bargaining laws that make sense for their States. States that choose not to craft their own system can get the help of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. I guess in summary form, we think of the importance of this legislation in the context of the threats we face: the threat of terrorism, the threat of disasters, all kinds of threats our communities are faced with. I and a lot of other Americans, I believe, want to make sure those who are putting their lives on the line every day, whether they are firefighters or police officers or other emergency personnel, have the peace of mind to know they are protected under law and that they also have the ability to negotiate and watch out for their own wages, benefits, and working conditions. That is what this legislation seeks to do: To bring States that don't currently have this in place--this labor relations authority in place-- to make sure we are doing that in every State of the Union so no matter where you live, those who are protecting us--the police officers, firefighters, and others--have the ability to benefit from the protections they should have under law. I urge my colleagues, as so many others who have already done so, to support the Public Safety Employer-Employees Cooperation Act. It is very important legislation, and it is important that we pass it here in the Senate. With that, I yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate and to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. I wish to commend my colleagues from Connecticut and New Jersey, Senators Menendez and Lieberman, on their statements this morning. Since its independence in 1948, Israel's promotion of democratic values has helped forge a thriving society and a bastion of freedom in a region where that value is sadly all too scarce. The vision of a permanent homeland for the Jewish people was centuries in the making and was finally achieved in May of 1948. From its outset, Israel has faced a myriad of challenges which it has navigated successfully against all odds. A small state with few natural resources and residing in a region decidedly unfriendly to its very existence, the odds against Israel have always been high. Yet the nation of Israel has endured. Today, Israel is known for a vibrant, high-tech economy. It successfully accommodates a significant Arab population inside its borders, allowing Arab representatives to serve in the Knesset. It has achieved broad universal recognition and has forged peace with previous enemies, including Egypt and Jordan. This will to surmount adversity time and time again comes from the tenacious spirit of its people and represents the very reason we are able to celebrate their anniversary today. I was fortunate enough to visit Israel in November of 2005 and meet with various people who make up the mosaic of that great nation. Today I want to share with my colleagues two indelible experiences. First, I toured a semiconductor plant, the Vishay plant near Tel Aviv, a plant whose base company is located in Chester County, PA. What made this plant so special outside of its Pennsylvania ties was that it was started by a Holocaust survivor, Dr. Felix Zandman, and his son Mark who led us on the tour. We not only observed the factory processes and equipment but also, and more importantly, the resiliency, I should say, of this brave family. Dr. Zandman experienced the most horrific fate imaginable to man. Yet out of his experience, he was able to pick up the pieces of his life, begin participating in his community again, and to become a very successful businessman, who now contributes to the global economy. To me, his story reflects the strength and courage embodied in the Jewish people. The next experience occurred while attending a Saturday dinner in Jerusalem after the end of the Sabbath. I was at the home of Rabbi Daniel Gordis, who is well known in the United States. He went to Israel from the United States. The rabbi had a 19-year-old daughter at that time who was serving in the military. At dinner, Rabbi Gordis told us the story about going very early in the morning to wake up his daughter to take her back to where she was stationed in the army, only to notice that, while she was soundly sleeping in her bed, next to her automatic weapon was her Curious George stuffed animal from her childhood. As the father of four daughters, I will never forget that image--the image of a young Jewish woman, bravely serving her country, but not that far removed from her own childhood. Rabbi Daniel Gordis, like so many parents in Israel, was feeling the emotion, the human emotion of love for his daughter and, at the same time, love for his country. There is no better example of the profound sacrifices of the Jewish people and what they have given to build and preserve the state of Israel. The story of Rabbi Daniel Gordis and his daughter is Israel's story. I was reminded, when I was there, of a passage from Scripture. We went by a school, and this part of scripture was inscribed on the school, which, in many ways, represented the bright promise and future of Israel. It is taken from the prophet Zechariah, chapter 8, and I will quote it briefly. This is the prophet predicting thousands of years into the future at that time: There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for every age. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof. That prophecy of long ago has indeed come to pass for the great state of Israel. So today, and every day, when we celebrate their bold entrepreneurial spirit, a strong sense of community, a commitment to national service and, obviously, a commitment to liberty, all these values, combined with the democratic ideal that permeates their society, all these make Israel what it is today and demonstrates why it is such a strong ally of the United States of America. Our two nations share a deep and unshakable bond, and that alliance, I believe, will endure for the next 60 years, and for all of our tomorrows, as it has for the previous six decades. As the world community continues to deal with conflicts in the region, the Jewish people must know that the United States will always extend our assistance to our indispensable ally as it moves forward on the road toward peace and stability. Once again, I extend my warmest congratulations to the state of Israel on its 60th anniversary. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, it is with the greatest respect and personal gratitude that I stand today to honor our guest Chaplain, Monsignor Joseph G. Quinn, and thank him for his humble and moving blessing upon us this morning. I am proud to say that Monsignor Quinn hails from my hometown of Scranton, PA, and lives and works there today as pastor of St. Rose of Lima Parish in Carbondale. Monsignor Quinn is one of the most dedicated and committed servants of God whom I have ever had the privilege to know. I am honored to say that he is my good friend and has been an invaluable and steadfast friend to my family for decades. He has provided us comfort and strength in times of sorrow and loss. When my father, Governor Casey, was ill and when he died in May of 2000, Monsignor Quinn grieved with us. In times of happiness and celebration like christenings and other occasions or celebrations, he has brought his sense of humor and his warmth. Monsignor Quinn is a beloved church servant. He has made extraordinary contributions to his family, the city and diocese of Scranton and all of northeastern Pennsylvania. Interestingly, Monsignor Quinn's journey to the priesthood first took a detour through a short, but remarkable, legal career. I would like to highlight just a few of his accomplishments over the last three decades. After graduating from the University of Scranton and Seton Hall University School of Law in 1976, he was appointed a Federal magistrate-judge for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Then 25 years of age, he was the youngest person in the country to serve in that position. After 6 years of distinguished service in the judiciary, he answered his call to the priesthood and went on to complete his studies at the North American College in Rome and was ordained in 1985. Monsignor Quinn's numerous professional contributions include serving as: parish priest and pastor; dean of the Scranton Central Deanery of the Diocese of Scranton; member of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission; diocesan moderator of the Bishop's Annual Appeal for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 campaigns; member of both the Diocesan College of Consultors and the Diocesan Presbyteral Council; chairman of the Diocesan Communications Commission; member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Scranton; and personal representative of the Bishop of Scranton to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, a statewide body that addresses and advances public policy issues on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bishops. Monsignor Quinn has been a key contributor to the community in a wide variety of capacities, and has been honored with numerous awards. The following are just a sampling: the B'nai B'rith Americanism Award; the Scranton Preparatory School Outstanding Alumnus of the Year as well as its most significant honor, The Ignatian Award; a Marywood University Presidential Scholarship in his honor; and the Lackawanna Bar Association's President's Award as well its highest award, the Chief Justice Michael J. Eagan Award. The University of Scranton honored Monsignor Quinn with its O'Hara Award in recognition of his community service, and in the fall of 2004, the Monsignor's nearly 30 years of service by naming a Presidential scholarship in his honor. In 2005, Scranton's Central City Ministerium named Monsignor Quinn its Clergyman of the Year. These are only a few of Monsignor Quinn's many awards and accomplishments. He should be proud of these commendations but I have no doubt that his tremendous joy in serving God through service to his brothers and sisters in Christ, each and every day is what continues to inspire him. Monsignor Quinn is a truly beloved servant of the Church and its people. It is heartening to me, both personally and as a Member of the Senate, to listen to today's blessing by Monsignor Quinn and to welcome his vision of God's grace for our world into this Chamber.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today there will be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans will control the final half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2284, a bill to restore the financial solvency of the National Flood Insurance Fund. As a reminder, the Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today for the weekly caucus luncheons. Welcoming Guest Chaplain I ask for a couple moments of personal privilege. Monsignor Joseph Quinn offered our prayer. I wish to say how proud I am to be here this morning to witness that. He is a very dear friend and someone who has, for many years, ministered to my family and to families throughout northeastern Pennsylvania in good times and bad. We are grateful for his presence today. We are grateful he was able to offer the prayer. I will submit for the Record a fuller statement of some background material on his life. But he has been so much a part of the fabric of northeastern Pennsylvania. He has often said that in large families, the joys are multiplied and sorrows are divided. We are grateful for his leadership as a priest, and now as a monsignor, but in a very personal way, for what he has meant to so many families in northeastern Pennsylvania. I am honored to be here to share a couple minutes with him and am grateful for his presence today in the Senate. I yield the floor.