Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the growing food security crisis which faces the United States and countries around the world. The short-term challenges we face as a result of this food security crisis are economic, strategic, political, and humanitarian. All of these challenges we face are already being faced by the most vulnerable in our society. Here in the United States, this crisis comes on the heels of so many other trying circumstances confronting poor and working families across America. Our Nation is facing an economic recession and ever-rising unemployment rates. Many of those who remain employed find themselves working more hours and yet earning less because their wages have not kept up with inflation. While their incomes have declined, the unprecedented cost of food and home energy has continued to soar. Many of these same families are also facing a mortgage and housing crisis which may force them to forego ownership of the house they once considered their slice of the American dream. In short, many families, who years or even months ago were living comfortably, are now struggling to get by. As a result, the increase in food prices over the last several months has added one more pressure to already overburdened American families. Increasingly, these families are stretched to the breaking point and are turning to Federal food assistance programs and food banks for some measure of relief. I have seen this trend repeated firsthand at food banks and in headlines across Pennsylvania. A couple of examples. This is the headline of the Allentown Morning Call: ``Heavy Demand at Food Banks, Kitchens Is a Grim Economic Indicator for Valley'' [meaning the Lehigh Valley]. The Scranton Times Tribune: ``More Seeking Food Stamps: Recipients in Pennsylvania Rise 9.5 percent.'' The Philadelphia Inquirer: ``Working Poor Struggle to Get By.'' The Pittsburgh Tribune Review: ``Demand for Food Stamps `Very Close' to Record.'' All across the State and across the country, it is the same headlines, the same story, the same economic trauma, because of a food security challenge we face. The data shows evidence of this disturbing trend. The demand for food stamps in Pennsylvania is skyrocketing. Back in December of 2000, before this current President took office, approximately 757,000 Pennsylvanians--1 out of every 16--were enrolled in the food stamp program. But this past December, 7 years later, that number has risen dramatically to 1.4 million Pennsylvanians, accounting for 1 out of every 10 State residents. This trend shows no sign of stopping. From December 2007 to March of 2008, Pennsylvania enrolled an average of 10,000 new individuals in food stamps every month, bringing the total enrollment to 1.18 million. But the situation in our State is far from unique. All across the country the number of individuals enrolling in the Food Stamp Program continues to rise at historic rates. From December 2006 to December 2007, more than 40 States saw recipient numbers rise, and in seven of those States the 1-year rate of growth topped 10 percent. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that starting in fiscal year 2009, 28 million Americans will be enrolled in the Food Stamp Program, the most ever enrolled in this program since its inception 40 years ago. For the millions of Americans struggling from the effects of economic recession and rising food prices but making too much to qualify for food stamps, food banks can provide some measure of respite by providing food to those who could not otherwise afford it. Unfortunately, these food banks are struggling as well from a combination of increasing food prices, decreasing donations, and increased demand. Wholesale prices for such foods as eggs, flour, rice, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products have dramatically spiked in the last 8 years. For food banks this price spike resulted in diminished purchasing power, translating into the availability of fewer supplies to meet an ever-increasing demand. While there is no accurate nationwide or even statewide data to show the effects increased prices and increased demand are having on food bank supplies, we know from news articles, television stories, and firsthand reports from those working at food banks that this food security crisis has adversely affected emergency food assistance programs in every State. The Senate-passed version of the 2007 Food and Energy Security Act, otherwise known as the farm bill, includes several measures intended to shore up Federal antihunger assistance programs. In fact, 67 percent of the funding of this bill is dedicated to protecting Americans from hunger. Provisions incorporated in the bill combat hunger, and they include measures to increase the value of food stamp benefits and language to increase the annual level of Federal commodity purchases for food banks from $140 million to $250 million. Unfortunately, while the House and Senate are making strides in bringing their differences together, the longer it takes to complete this bill, the longer struggling Americans must wait for some measure of relief. Rising food prices and their effect on poor and working families are only part of the food security equation. While part of the increase in food prices can be attributed to the rising fuel and energy costs needed to produce and distribute these products, the far bigger driver behind those increased costs is lack of supply. Internationally, as well as domestically, food prices have been affected by severe shortages and record inflation of major food commodities such as corn, rice, soybeans, and wheat. The head of the World Food Program has called the global food crisis a ``silent tsunami,'' affecting the world's most vulnerable without regard to geography or traditional borders. World Bank President Robert Zoellick has said that surging food costs could translate into ``seven lost years'' in the fight against worldwide poverty. Weather disasters and crop losses have caused devastating shortages across Africa and the Asia-Pacific, leading to historically low levels of world stocks of key commodities. Australia, one of the leading worldwide wheat producers and exporters, has endured several consecutive years of drought and last year lost 60 percent of its total wheat harvest. Floods in Asia have destroyed global production centers of wheat and rice as well. The rapid economic growth of China and India have lifted millions out of poverty, but it has also succeeded in creating a new middle class complete with Western appetites for a diet of meat and protein. While foods such as rice and wheat remain a staple of the traditional diet, increased demand from China and India for meat produced from grain-fed animals is putting a strain on global supply and will only grow over time. Many of the commodity supplies these countries once exported are now being used for domestic production. Threatened by shortages at home, many countries have banned exports of critical foodstuffs, disrupting supplies for neighbors and trading partners and sending shock waves through the global markets. Import-dependent countries such as the Philippines are left with no choice but to pay top dollar to forestall future crises. Others have added artificial incentives to attract food imports. These counterproductive actions only exacerbate food shortages and foster a beggar-thy-neighbor approach. The United States must work with the U.N. and other international actors to press countries against adopting such counterproductive measures. We must start looking at mid- and long-term strategies for helping countries deal with this crisis. Higher food prices not only increase the potential for humanitarian disasters, they can also spark political instability and impact U.S. foreign policy. We have seen the devastating effect the food shortage has had on developing nations around the world, sparking violence and riots and putting added pressure on already fragile and underresourced governments. Last week we saw protesters in Haiti chanting ``we are hungry'' and forcing out the Prime Minister. Food riots erupted in Egypt and Ethiopia, and troops were used in Pakistan and Thailand to protect crops and storage centers. According to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, 37 countries are now facing a food security crisis and are at risk of a food-related upheaval. In areas of vital concern to U.S. national security, such as Afghanistan, the food crisis threatens hard-fought progress we have achieved in peace, stability, and reconciliation. In Darfur, where the refugees and internationally displaced have already suffered under war, famine, and genocide, the international community may be forced to cut food supplies. The United States can serve its national security and humanitarian objectives by fully funding overseas emergency food assistance programs. In March, I sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee along with Senator Durbin and a number of other Members of the Senate calling for a $200 million increase in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental budget request to address the predicted shortfall in U.S. food assistance programs. Although President Bush directed the Agriculture Secretary to take out $200 million from the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust to help with the crisis, this is only a short-term fix. The United States must do more by increasing our bilateral and multilateral contributions in funding to replenish the trust. Supplemental funding in PL 480 title II programs is essential to maintain current food aid programs at current levels and meet the increased cost of food, freight, and fuel production. America can do more, and we must. While I don't claim to have all the answers to this mounting domestic and international crisis, I do believe this is an issue deserving the full attention of the Senate. We need to begin this effort with final passage of the 2007 Food and Energy Security Act and continue by including funding for domestic and international food aid in the supplemental appropriations bill. But these measures in and of themselves will not be enough. We must act, we must legislate. The moral gravity of this food security crisis cannot be overstated. It is a matter of economic justice. It is also about preserving human life and alleviating suffering. It is also a matter of national security. I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be evenly divided.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture Smart Trade Act along with my colleague Senator Stabenow. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that, as we consider the various free trade agreements that come before the Senate, we are taking a look at the big picture, including the increased risk of accidently importing invasive pests or diseases and the ability for American agricultural producers to access new export markets once trade agreements are in effect. Our bill is supported by United Fresh, the national association of fruit and vegetable growers and processors, and the U.S. Apple Association. The bill has two main components. First, it requires the Administration to send a report to Congress prior to the start of formal trade negotiations with a foreign nation detailing potential invasive pests and disease that could pose a risk to U.S. agriculture. Furthermore, this report must identify what additional agricultural inspectors and other personnel are needed to prevent these pests and diseases from being brought into the United States. Second, the bill requires the Administration to disclose in the same report all sanitary and photosanitary, or SPS, trade barriers that could unduly restrict export markets for American commodities. What we've seen in the past is that a trading partner will raise SPS barriers to prevent American products from entering their country. Some of these SPS barriers are not grounded in science are simply non-tariff trade barriers. As the Administration begins negotiations for a trade agreement, we all need to take a look at what kinds of SPS issues we have with potential trading partners. Are their SPS concerns based in science? We need to be sure that once an agreement is in effect, we will have access to those foreign markets as stipulated in the trade agreement. I want to make clear that this bill does not in any way limit the President's authority to negotiate trade agreements under Fast-Track, nor does it prevent trade legislation from being considered by the Congress. What this bill does is provide the Senate and the House of Representatives with a more complete picture of what potential trade agreements involve beyond the obvious import and export quotas. Regardless of how any senator feels about the free trade agreements that we review and debate, I think all of my colleagues will agree with me that increased international trade means an increased risk of importing bugs and diseases that have the potential to devastate our food sources, jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers, and cost our states a fortune. We need to acknowledge the risk and put in place the best safeguards we can to prevent the accidental introduction of these harmful pests. I am not merely speculating about the risk of invasive pests and disease. It is a fact that all of our States are battling insects and crop diseases and dreading the next outbreak. Most recently in Pennsylvania we discovered that the western part of our state is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer, an invasive beetle that was accidently imported to the U.S. through Detroit via wooden shipping pallets from China. This beetle is costing our commercial nursery growers millions of dollars in lost stock. Senator Stabenow knows better than anyone how much money, time and other resources the Ash Borer has cost the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But that's just one example. Orange growers in Florida have spent the past decade fighting to contain and eradicate citrus canker, an invasive disease that causes citrus trees to produce less and less fruit until they prematurely die. And California and Texas have dealt with expensive eradication programs to deal with the Mediterranean fruit fly or ``Med fly.'' The list goes on and on. And there isn't a single State that has not been impacted by invasive pests or diseases. So I hope that my colleagues will support the Agriculture Smart Trade Act, and help us make smart decisions that will protect our growers and our economy while opening new export markets. Because that is what this bill is about--smart trade. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Agriculture Smart Trade Act along with my colleague Senator Stabenow. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that, as we consider the various free trade agreements that come before the Senate, we are taking a look at the big picture, including the increased risk of accidently importing invasive pests or diseases and the ability for American agricultural producers to access new export markets once trade agreements are in effect. Our bill is supported by United Fresh, the national association of fruit and vegetable growers and processors, and the U.S. Apple Association. The bill has two main components. First, it requires the Administration to send a report to Congress prior to the start of formal trade negotiations with a foreign nation detailing potential invasive pests and disease that could pose a risk to U.S. agriculture. Furthermore, this report must identify what additional agricultural inspectors and other personnel are needed to prevent these pests and diseases from being brought into the United States. Second, the bill requires the Administration to disclose in the same report all sanitary and photosanitary, or SPS, trade barriers that could unduly restrict export markets for American commodities. What we've seen in the past is that a trading partner will raise SPS barriers to prevent American products from entering their country. Some of these SPS barriers are not grounded in science are simply non-tariff trade barriers. As the Administration begins negotiations for a trade agreement, we all need to take a look at what kinds of SPS issues we have with potential trading partners. Are their SPS concerns based in science? We need to be sure that once an agreement is in effect, we will have access to those foreign markets as stipulated in the trade agreement. I want to make clear that this bill does not in any way limit the President's authority to negotiate trade agreements under Fast-Track, nor does it prevent trade legislation from being considered by the Congress. What this bill does is provide the Senate and the House of Representatives with a more complete picture of what potential trade agreements involve beyond the obvious import and export quotas. Regardless of how any senator feels about the free trade agreements that we review and debate, I think all of my colleagues will agree with me that increased international trade means an increased risk of importing bugs and diseases that have the potential to devastate our food sources, jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers, and cost our states a fortune. We need to acknowledge the risk and put in place the best safeguards we can to prevent the accidental introduction of these harmful pests. I am not merely speculating about the risk of invasive pests and disease. It is a fact that all of our States are battling insects and crop diseases and dreading the next outbreak. Most recently in Pennsylvania we discovered that the western part of our state is infested with the Emerald Ash Borer, an invasive beetle that was accidently imported to the U.S. through Detroit via wooden shipping pallets from China. This beetle is costing our commercial nursery growers millions of dollars in lost stock. Senator Stabenow knows better than anyone how much money, time and other resources the Ash Borer has cost the States of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But that's just one example. Orange growers in Florida have spent the past decade fighting to contain and eradicate citrus canker, an invasive disease that causes citrus trees to produce less and less fruit until they prematurely die. And California and Texas have dealt with expensive eradication programs to deal with the Mediterranean fruit fly or ``Med fly.'' The list goes on and on. And there isn't a single State that has not been impacted by invasive pests or diseases. So I hope that my colleagues will support the Agriculture Smart Trade Act, and help us make smart decisions that will protect our growers and our economy while opening new export markets. Because that is what this bill is about--smart trade. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a resolution Senator Specter and I have introduced supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, which occurs this month of April. In the U.S. a person is sexually assaulted on average every two and a half minutes. One in six women and one in 33 men have been victims of rape or attempted rape. According to the Department of Justice, 191,670 people in the United States were sexually assaulted in 2005. These are disturbing statistics. National Sexual Awareness and Prevention Month serves many valuable purposes. It provides a special opportunity to educate people about sexual violence and increase public awareness about the impact of this crime that changes many lives forever and sometimes irrevocably. It pays tribute to the many survivors of sexual violence and honors their compassionate efforts to help others in the face of their own anguish. Many courageous individuals, themselves survivors of sexual assault, rise above their own suffering to help assuage the pain of others and assist in the prevention of sexual assault. This resolution also recognizes and applauds the work of community organizations and other supporters who help survivors and promote prevention and awareness. These are important and vital services in the lives not only of those who have been assaulted but all of us. Increasing public awareness helps in the fight to prevent sexual assault and reduce the number of people who are sexually assaulted, saving those individuals from the nightmare others know all too well. Sexual violence is a crime we must all work to eradicate. While women comprise the majority of victims, this crime is perpetrated against women, children, and men. It is my goal that this resolution helps us to understand our role in assisting these individuals and preventing this crime from happening in the future. I ask all my colleagues to support this important resolution and encourage communities across our country to pay tribute to all those whose lives have been touched by sexual assault and those who have dedicated their lives to work to end it.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about a housing matter. I have two amendments, but I am only speaking about them today, I will not be calling them up. I did want to speak very briefly and very generally about both of them. There are two very important matters that come before us as parts of our debate on housing. The first involves appraisals. We know that one of the biggest concerns a lot of people have in attacking the problem of subprime mortgages and the aftermath of a lot of bad loans was that faulty and sometimes fraudulent appraisals were part of that. The first amendment I will speak of today deals with the question of how do we get a second independent appraisal for properties that are so-called flipped properties. When you have a property that may go into foreclosure and then it is sold later, sometimes we have instances where property is sold at a grossly inflated price that does not reflect the true value, and then down the road another purchaser, a homeowner, would buy it, and then you have extraordinary inflation, often fraudulent inflation of the cost of a property. Our office has worked closely with Senator Martinez on this as well. What this amendment does is to make it very clear that, in those instances where you have a house flipped within 180 days of the date of purchase, there will, in fact, be a second independent appraisal done. Some of the work on this in the other body has been done by Representative Paul Kanjorski. He has worked on these issues for years. I commend him for his work in Congress on these and other matters that pertain to housing and to the financial questions that arise with regard to affordable housing. First of all, we want to make sure, in those instances that a second independent appraisal is done, it would have to be by a qualified appraiser. That would mean the appraiser has to be certified in the State or somehow licensed in the State. And second, that the appraisal is performed in conformity with uniform standards of professional appraisal practice to make sure it is done the right way. We want to make sure consumers are given a copy of that appraisal, that it is done thoroughly, and that a statement is made by the creditor that any appraisal prepared for the mortgage is for the sole use of the creditor and that the consumers may choose to have a separate appraisal conducted at their own expense. There will be heavy penalties imposed for those who violate this. It is one way to deal with one of the various problems we encounter when it comes to the difficulties so many families are confronting right now. The worst thing that can happen to a homeowner who saves money and borrows money to fulfill a dream of owning a home is to be presented with a situation where they buy a home that has been grossly and fraudulently inflated beyond its value and they don't find out about that until those who perpetrated the fraud are far away and have already made their money. This will hold people in the market accountable, as they should be held accountable. We will have more time to talk about it later. I want to make another point about a separate amendment. In the city of Philadelphia, as in many of our major urban areas, housing is a terribly difficult challenge for so many people. In the city of Philadelphia, we have more than 80,000--as HUD, Housing and Urban Development, officials would call them, clients--more than 80,000 clients in the city of Philadelphia who rely on HUD and the housing authority there to provide affordable housing in that city. A dispute has arisen about a number of things. We don't have to go into the reasons for those disputes, but because of that dispute, now there is an agreement that was worked out between HUD and the housing authority called the Moving to Work Agreement which has allowed people not just to have the benefit of an agreement that provides them with the opportunity to live in housing that is safe and affordable, but also this agreement has allowed the Philadelphia Housing Authority to use the leverage of this agreement to borrow money and to finance other housing priorities in the city of Philadelphia. Because of that, because of the importance of that agreement, we want to make sure the agreement stays in place at least for a year. That is what the amendment Senator Specter and I have been working on does. That is the reason for it, to give a 1-year extension so that the Moving to Work Agreement in the city of Philadelphia, with the U.S. Housing and Urban Development agency, stays in place for 1 year so we can continue to work out an arrangement between the housing authority and HUD. Unfortunately, we have not been successful in working for many months on this. But I think it is critically important not to allow a bureaucratic fight between a housing authority and a Federal agency to interfere with important services that are provided to Philadelphians who benefit from this; some more than 80,000 Philadelphians. Those are the two amendments I wish to speak about. We will have time later as we proceed to deal with them more directly. I wished to make sure we make both thorough and accurate and independent appraisals a priority as well as to make sure that when we are dealing with a local housing authority, we do not let a dispute prevent Philadelphians from getting the benefit of the services provided in this case by the Moving to Work Agreement. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I congratulate the Holy Family Residence of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Scranton, PA, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. The Holy Family Residence has served the elderly poor of Scranton for the past century with loving care and devotion. All of the devoted caregivers ensure that the guests of Holy Family Residence receive the physical, social, and spiritual care advocated by Blessed Jeanne Jugan, the foundress of the Little Sisters of the Poor. In fact, all of the sisters have taken a vow of hospitality to care for their impoverished neighbors. Not only do the guests of the Little Sisters of the Poor enjoy a true sense of belonging through recreational and social activities and responsibility for certain daily tasks, but the guests also receive hospitality in the form of physical comfort and compassionate healthcare. The current staff of Holy Family Residence consists of ten Little Sisters of the Poor and 90 full and part-time employees. These devoted individuals offer skilled nursing care to 52 elderly residents and also operate apartment-style living for another 22 disadvantaged senior citizens. All of those under the care of Holy Family Residence are eligible for Medicaid. In spite of such financial difficulties, these residents can enjoy peace of mind and compassion through the charitable efforts of the Little Sisters of the Poor and the dedicated caregivers at Holy Family. It is with great pride that I congratulate Holy Family Residence for its 100 years of service to the elderly poor of Scranton. I hope that the Little Sisters of the Poor may continue their good works in Scranton for many years to come and that they might inspire others to show the same care toward their neighbors.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about a young man from my home region of northeastern Pennsylvania who lost his life in the war in Iraq, 1LT Michael J. Cleary of Dallas, PA. He was born April 4, 1981, and we are thinking of him today for so many reasons, not the least of which is a birthday tomorrow. I want to provide somewhat of a biographical sketch, and then talk a little bit about his life. Michael Cleary was a graduate of Dallas High School in Luzerne County, PA, in June of 1999. He was captain of two teams there, both soccer and tennis. He was an active member of so many organizations, including a proud member of the National Honor Society. He had opportunities at several colleges, but he chose Hamilton College in the State of New York. While at Hamilton, he participated in varsity soccer and received letters in varsity tennis. He was the chapter president of the Sigma Phi fraternity. And despite all of his college and academic interests, he also had a feeling in his heart for his country, and he wanted to serve. He wanted to enlist in special forces immediately after the attacks of September 11 but chose to follow the advice of his mother--which for all of us is the right thing to do--and she urged him to stay in school and to complete his studies. He did that, and he graduated in May of 2003 with honors from the economics program. Ultimately, his dream was fulfilled when he joined the military. Unfortunately, he lost his life in December of 2005. His military decorations include the following: the Combat Action Badge, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, and three campaign medals. It is hard to describe in a short amount of time, even in a writeup in the newspaper, as local papers did at that time, but probably the best way to encapsulate what Michael Cleary's life has meant to this country is to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln when he talked about the sacrifice of our soldiers. When he spoke about the battle of Gettysburg, he spoke of those who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. We now can say that about so many of our young men and women who fought in Iraq, and one of them was Michael Cleary. He indeed gave the last full measure of devotion to the country he loved. He didn't have to do it. He had a great career ahead of him because of his academic achievements and because of his leadership qualities. He could have pursued another path, but he chose to give back. He chose to sacrifice for his country, knowing full well that he could be asked by God to give the last full measure of devotion, and he did. We are thinking of his family today for so many reasons, not the least of which is that First Lieutenant Cleary was the fourth generation of that family to serve his country. His father, Jack Cleary, was a decorated Army veteran from the Vietnam war, and then two generations before that. So this is a family who has sacrificed in generation after generation, and we are thinking of them today. Tomorrow, they should have been able to celebrate Michael's birthday, which would have been his 27th birthday, but they cannot. They are strong people. They understand the sacrifice he made, and we are thinking about them this morning and tomorrow and on so many other days. I think sometimes it is very difficult for us to fully comprehend-- those of us who have not had a close family member lost in combat--what this means to a family, what it means to a community such as northeastern Pennsylvania, in Luzerne County, even years later now. It is difficult because in so many parts of our State, as is true of the whole country, when we lose one soldier, especially in a small town, in a smaller community, the impact is devastating. And not only the initial impact of that, but months and years later. I think it is important we don't just look back and remember and pay tribute to the day they died and to the sacrifice they made, as important as that is, but we should be remembering, as well, their life, their life of achievement and triumph, and their life of service because when these families look back on these young people, they are not just going to remember their service in the military. Family members know our fighting men and women weren't born into divisions and platoons. They weren't born with a uniform on; they were born into families--families of mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and cousins and friends and so many others we all know are part of all of our families. So I think it is important to remember these young men and women, to the extent that we can, on their birthday or some other significant moment in their life. Finally, let me say this: The news article I cited from December of 2005 talked about the plans Michael Cleary had to be married to Erin Kavanagh. I will not review the whole article, but suffice it to say that it is a powerful story of what one soldier's hopes and dreams were--to serve his country but to come home and then start a new life and to be married. So we are remembering her as well today and remembering they graduated together from Dallas High School in that year of 1999. We are grateful this day in so many ways, but it is difficult to fully explain how grateful we are for his life of service and sacrifice, his life of courage and commitment, and his life which was focused on the future, his own future but also the future of our country. So tomorrow, as his family celebrates his birthday, we are remembering Michael J. Cleary at this time, and we wish for him and for his family all of God's blessings. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two documents I have in front of me, one of which is a description of the life of one of our fallen soldiers, as well as a news article from the Citizens' Voice newspaper dated December 23, 2005.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of S. Res. 494, which is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution I introduced yesterday calling upon the international community to fulfill previous pledges to provide reconstruction assistance to Iraq. I am joined in introducing this resolution by my colleague, Senator Corker, from the great State of Tennessee. I am honored to have his support. Our message is simple. It is long past time for other nations, especially Iraq's neighbors, to carry through on past promises and deliver the type of assistance that can help stabilize Iraq and allow for an orderly redeployment of U.S. combat troops from Iraq. Over the course of the next 2 weeks, the Senate will once again return to the Iraq war and the debate over future U.S. military presence in that country. It is no secret there is a sharp divide in the Congress over the next steps in Iraq. We have some fundamental differences, and it is essential that we debate these differences in an open manner. However, there is some common ground that all of us can find when it comes to Iraq. We can agree that America has already sacrificed too many of our finest and bravest young men and women in this conflict. We recently marked the grim toll of 4,000 Americans killed in combat there, including 183 natives of my home State of Pennsylvania. But the United States is also bearing the majority of the burden when it comes to financial assistance to the Iraqi Government for reconstruction activities. We bear this burden even though other nations and multilateral organizations, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have pledged but failed to implement significant sums toward Iraq's reconstruction. The United States bears this burden even as we spend millions of dollars every day on our military presence in Iraq. That is not right, and it cannot continue. Our resolution calls upon other nations to carry through on previous pledges of reconstruction assistance to the Iraqi people who have been largely ignored. The resolution has been inspired by two recent reports, a December 2007 report from the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and a January 2008 report from the inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction. The two reports document the following facts--just two, but they are alarming and disturbing--the United States has already spent roughly $29 billion on reconstruction assistance to Iraq, with another $16.5 billion in the pipeline having been authorized by Congress. That is fact No. 1, $29 billion spent, $16.5 billion on the way. As of last October, international donors have pledged a combined total of approximately $16 billion to support Iraq's reconstruction, but only $7 billion of the $16 billion has actually been disbursed to Iraqi governmental entities. This is a less than 50- percent return when it comes to carrying out previous pledges, many of which date back to the year 2003. There are some plausible explanations for why reconstruction funding has not flowed as quickly as we would like. Certainly corruption in the Iraqi Government remains a serious problem. The hazardous conditions in many parts of Iraq have impeded reconstruction projects. But these same constraints apply to the U.S. Government and our construction funding. There is no reason the United States has spent more than four times what the rest of the world combined has spent when it comes to reconstruction assistance to the Iraqi Government. I don't need to remind anyone in this Chamber or in the country of our economic challenges at home. The war in Iraq is exacting a significant toll on our Nation's Treasury. The United States cannot afford to continue to subsidize reconstruction assistance to Iraq while other nations remain on the sidelines. The lack of participation by other international donors, especially Iraq's neighbors, incurs diplomatic and political costs as well. When the United States is seen as the principal source of reconstruction funding in Iraq, and when those reconstruction activities falter, it is America that is unfairly blamed in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Five years after we invaded Iraq, much of the nation continues to experience power shortages and rolling blackouts. The Iraqi people view this state of affairs as America's responsibility. That is why the Iraq Study Group, more than a year ago, recommended multilateral support for Iraqi reconstruction, including ``greater involvement by and with international partners who should do more than just contribute money. They should actively participate in the design and construction of projects.'' So said the Iraq Study Group more than a year ago. It is all too rare for a Democrat and a Republican to find some shared ground today on the issue of Iraq. The fact that two Members of the Senate, both members of the Foreign Relations Committee from different parties, have found common cause on one aspect of our presence there should tell us something. There is no reason the United States, already having borne a massive cost in terms of military resources expended and precious lives of our bravest men and women lost, should continue to be on the hook for the majority of reconstruction funding in Iraq. Reconstruction funding for Iraq is important, and it is time Iraq's neighbors, major international organizations, and other nations step to the plate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am proud to submit, along with Senator Specter, this resolution declaring March 25 as National Cerebral Palsy Awareness Day. With this resolution, it is my hope that we can increase education and public awareness about cerebral palsy among the general public and the medical community. Cerebral palsy, commonly referred to as CP, is not one disorder but many. It includes any number of neurological disorders that may appear in infancy or early childhood and permanently affect body movement and the muscle coordination necessary to maintain balance and posture. CP is caused by damage to one or more specific areas of the brain, usually occurring during fetal development, or before or during birth or shortly thereafter. Although most children with CP are born with it, it is often not detected until months or years later. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that about 10,000 babies will develop cerebral palsy each year in the United States. According to the March of Dimes, about 2 to 3 children per 1,000 have cerebral palsy. An estimated 800,000 people in the United States have CP. The average lifetime cost of cerebral palsy is estimated at nearly $1.5 million. This includes expenses associated with additional doctor visits, speech and physical therapy, surgery, prescription drugs, transportation, emergency room visits, residential care, and other needed expenses. Children with cerebral palsy need much more attention than other children do. They have special needs for movement, interaction, and communication and require daily assistance and therapy. Many times, parents do not know where to turn. Clearly, children and families affected by cerebral palsy need our help, our understanding, and resources for research and treatment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recently released information showing that the incidence of cerebral palsy is increasing and the rate is now about 1 in 278 children. While we presently have no cure for cerebral palsy, we do have treatments that will do much to improve a child's abilities to live the fullest life possible. Most children with CP have the capacity for intellectual and emotional development, sometimes far beyond what others may expect of them. Life may be more challenging and stressful, but that should not prevent these children from getting all the help and resources we can offer them and their families. Scientists and researchers are hopeful that we will achieve a breakthrough in treating cerebral palsy. But to do so, we must make this disorder a priority in our research and medical communities. Every child and adult with cerebral palsy faces unique challenges and their treatment and therapy must be tailored to meet their own unique needs. But they do have one thing in common--they all share an intrinsic value and worth as human beings and children of God, equal to the value and worth of any other human being on this Earth. Many times, individuals with disabilities in one area have great gifts in other areas. With loving attention and care--and with more research into treatments and assistive resources--individuals with cerebral palsy can access their own unique gifts and full potential. Increasing public awareness about CP can help the general public to understand the contributions such individuals have to make to their families, communities and our society at large. It is my fervent hope that this resolution will help Americans to understand and recognize the importance of assisting our fellow citizens who have cerebral palsy, of providing support for their family members and research dollars for foundations and leading Government agencies.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 70, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome-- the outcome being 89 to 6.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, tomorrow, following the moment of silence, the Senate will resume consideration of the budget resolution. Senators should be prepared to begin the so-called vote-arama as early as 11 a.m. tomorrow. Rollcall votes are expected to occur throughout the day.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:15 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, March 13; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the leader time be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there be a moment of silence to honor the 5 years of service and sacrifice of our troops and their families for the war in Iraq and also to remember those who are serving our Nation in Afghanistan and throughout the world; that following the moment of silence, the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget, under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I now ask unanimous consent that morning business be closed, the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 70, and that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Grassley and Barrasso.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak to two amendments that I have at the desk that I will be able to talk more about tomorrow. But I wished to describe them tonight. First of all, amendment No. 4171 is an amendment that focuses on a problem we see all around us. It seems we cannot go too long in a week when we do not pick up a newspaper that talks about the safety of the food we eat. It has been an issue of concern for Americans and certainly from people in my home State of Pennsylvania. Over the past year, there have been a steady stream of news reports on countless incidents of recalled or otherwise contaminated food products. To mention a few: Spinach contaminated with E. coli; peanut butter contaminated with salmonella; imported fish containing high levels of antibiotics; and, finally, culminating last month with the largest meat recall in the history of the United States, 143 million pounds of ground beef. The safety of our food supply is an issue we can no longer afford to ignore. My amendment would expand the deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that enhances the protection and safety of the Nation's food supply. The funds of this legislation would allow for congressional action. It would do the following: First of all, expand Federal food inspection field forces; second, develop risk-based approaches to inspecting the food supply; third, develop the infrastructure to ensure a coordinated Federal food safety approach; No. 4, we would enhance the Food and Drug Administration's recall authority; and, finally, expand food-borne illness awareness and education programs. This is a critically important issue, and I know the current cosponsors include Senator Grassley, who is on the floor with us tonight; Senators Durbin, Brown, Schumer, Lautenberg. So that is the food safety amendment No. 4171. I would urge my colleagues to support that amendment. Amendment No. 4172 The second amendment is No. 4172, the Wounded Warriors Bonus Equity Act. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan amendment to the budget resolution calling for payment of bonuses to troops who have retired or separated for combat-related injuries. I wish to thank Senator Clinton and Senator Sessions for agreeing to be original cosponsors on this amendment. The three of us introduced legislation in December of last year in response to reports that wounded troops were asked by the Department of Defense to return their enlistment bonus. I will say that again. These were troops asked by the Department of Defense to return their enlistment bonuses after they retired or separated from the Armed Services due to combat-related injuries. These troops and tens of thousands of others across the country that were injured in Iraq are struggling to support themselves and their families. We owe them what we promised, and we must not drop our commitment to our troops at the shoreline of the United States. The Senate passed our bill, S. 2400, the Wounded Warriors Bonus Equity Act, last year by unanimous consent. But we have not reconciled our version with that of the House of Representatives which does not require retroactive payment of the bonus that has already been withheld or returned. I wished to commend Congressman Jason Altmire from my home State of Pennsylvania, in the Fourth District, who helped bring this problem to light when one of our constituents faced the loss of his enlistment bonus. I am hopeful that expanding the deficit-neutral reserve fund for veterans and wounded servicemembers will include legislation that will require the Department of Defense to return promised bonus payments and conduct an audit to identify any servicemembers who are owed payments. This will pave the way for signing this legislation into law. We have often heard the words of Abraham Lincoln when he talked about those who perished in war, those who gave the last full measure of devotion. He also spoke, in his Presidency, of those who have been injured in war. He talked about those who have borne the battle and what we owe them. Abraham Lincoln was right. We owe them much. The least we can say is we owe them, to fulfill the promise we made to them for those who have indeed borne the battle. I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment as well, amendment No. 4172, the Wounded Warriors Bonus Equity Act.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes within the time allocated for the Joint Economic Committee on the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, thank you very much. I wish to, first of all, start my presentation today with an overarching commendation of the work of the Budget Committee and, in particular, Chairman Kent Conrad, who worked, as he always does, along with the members of his committee from both parties who have worked very hard on this budget. We are going to have a significant debate this week and we are doing that now and it will be fairly heated because we have broad disagreements about this budget. But I do wish to commend Chairman Conrad and his work over many months, as he does every year, in his committee. I wish to focus on three areas: First of all, our fiscal situation that we face now because of what has been happening in the last several years with our Federal budget; secondly, to talk about our families and the struggles so many families are living through right now; and then, finally, to summarize very briefly some of the Democratic proposals and how they compare to the President's budget. But I wish to start first with our fiscal situation. And I wish to thank Nathan Steinwald, who is with us, who is not only helping with getting the right chart up but also has done a lot of work on our staff to prepare us for these budget debates. The first chart sets forth the deficit as it has taken hold over time. It starts on the far left corner, with that green bar, which starts at the year 2001, the first year of President Bush's administration. That is his first year. There was $128 billion in surplus in his first year. I would argue that is a surplus that was left over from the prior administration. But then you go into the 6 years after that, where we have data set forth and depicted on this chart showing the deficits since President Bush has been in office from 2002 to 2007--$158 billion in deficit; $378 billion in deficit; the largest deficit, $413 billion, in 2004; it reduced somewhat to $318 billion in 2005. It had been reduced and went down to $162 billion last year. But then here is where we begin to get into trouble again. The projected deficit, as it is set forth in President Bush's budget: $410 billion is a projection for 2008; for 2009, it is $407 billion. So we go from a surplus, when he came into office, far into deficit. Just when you think we are crawling out of it, because of his proposal--if we enacted his budget--we are going to go back into almost record deficit. You can see they are almost at the record level of $413 billion. So that is a big problem. That chart alone is evidence to tell us we should not adopt President Bush's budget. So let's go to the next chart, which focuses not on deficit but on debt. Unfortunately, this chart tells us even more. This is bad news. I will try to get to good news as soon as I can, but I think it is important to set forth where we have been, where we are, and where we are going. This is the debt of the United States: $5.8 trillion--that is what the T means--in 2001, the first year of President Bush's administration. As if it were ascending steps to an unknown height, step after step after step going up, the debt number is increasing year after year after year. So we keep borrowing under this administration ad nauseam, borrowing against our children's future. It is not just about some far off debt that this Government has put on our children--that is bad enough; that is reason enough to try to bring that number down--but we are paying for this every year, hundreds of billions of dollars in debt service right now. In 2007, we had that, and in years before that--2008, 2009. So we are paying for it now to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Here is where we will be in 2009: a debt number of $10.4 trillion. At some point in that year, we will achieve a debt number of $10.4 trillion. The President, even though he will technically be out of office in January of 2009, bears responsibility, a large part, if not all the responsibility, for that number: $10.4 trillion. In essence, this President has become the ``10 Trillion Dollar Man,'' the ``10 Trillion Dollar President''--not something that anyone would want as part of their legacy. It is important to note that $5.8 trillion--that was the level we were at when he came into office--that number was actually starting to go down in the last couple of years of the prior administration. So instead of staying on that path and having a flat line--so to speak, holding it under control--this President, with a lot of help from the Republican Congresses, by the way, sent that number through the roof. As you can see, the final number--the most disturbing number, if we stay on the path we are on and do not adopt the policies that will lead us to get us on the path of fiscal responsibility--in 2013, the debt will be $13.3 trillion. Again, we are going to pay for that every year. We spent last year, in terms of debt service, more money than all of the Medicaid Program, which is over $200 billion in and of itself, and all of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And you can add more to that. But consider that: We spend more on debt service than we do on both of those programs that help poor children, Americans who are suffering from a disability, children of working families who have health care. All of that health care, all the good things that happen in those programs do not equal what we are paying in debt service to finance his debt. So we are in a debt mess here. It is a fiscal nightmare. I will go to the next chart, which shows what we owe the foreign governments. A portion of that almost $10 trillion in debt, of course, is foreign debt, debt to foreign countries. The top 10 foreign holders of our national debt: In first place, Japan. We owe the Japanese Government $581 billion. We owe China $478 billion. It goes down from there; the UK; the ``oil exporters,'' we owe them $138 billion. It goes down from there. That is another piece of bad news. This is not some far off debt number. Some of them are allies; some of them are not. Some of them we have some real disputes with. We owe them hundreds of billions of dollars. I will go to the next chart where we have been hearing a lot the last couple days about the tax cuts. Well, let's look at how much they have cost us and what they will cost us. The cost of extending the Bush tax cuts explodes outside the 5-year budget window. So when you are talking about here that we are debating the budget for 2009--talk about 2009, look at the way that number goes up starting in 2010: the 10-year cost of $2.9 trillion for the Bush tax cuts if we stay on this path from 2009 to 2018. So if you want to adopt the Bush tax cut, that is what you have to pay for. That is what you have to pay for in that 10-year window. To say it is unaffordable, to say it is fiscally reckless is a gross understatement, but I think we can see from all of the red why that is the case. So what do we do when we debate this budget? We can talk a lot about the fiscal situation, but I think it is probably even more important to talk about what has been happening in our country with regard to our families. It seems that in the life of a family, in terms of costs, everything that a family hopes would be going down is going up. A family would hope, I guess, that health care costs would be leveling off or going down. They have actually gone way up. We would hope the cost of a college education has flatlined or is staying at a certain level or going down. The cost of a college education is going up. Everyone knows the price of gasoline is going through the roof, is going up over and over again, month after month. The price of oil--I don't know what it did today, but we were over $105 a barrel; the subprime crisis we are living through and the cost of housing, the value of the house in terms of that family's value, their economic value on paper but also the value to our economy. So this housing crisis, caused in large measure by mortgage brokers and others who were unregulated and really took people over a cliff, so to speak, with regard to their housing costs, has caused tremendous pressure, first of all, on individual families but, of course, on our neighborhoods. Whenever we have a property foreclosed upon, a neighborhood disintegrates time after time. But at the same time, the costs of everything in the life of that family is going up, whether it is housing or gasoline or education or health care. The things a family hopes would be going up are things like consumer confidence. That is going down. The value of one's home, one would hope it would be increasing, but that has been going down. All of these up and down problems for families are real-life crises for so many families across America. What they expect us to do with this budget is everything we can to help dig them out of the economic crisis they face. So what should we do? Well, we can do a lot. We can, first of all, be fiscally responsible but also have budget policies and strategies in place that focus on creating not just jobs, not just any jobs, but good-paying, family-sustaining jobs. That means in particular budget proposals on how we fund an agency, what we cut and what we don't, what we increase and what we don't, but also it means trying to set aside places in the budget where we can make investments over time. These aren't things that will happen right away, these aren't things that can happen quickly, but these are priorities. For example, education--I think our budget should reflect that we place a value upon and we are actually going to invest in education, just as a good CEO would invest in workers. First of all, this budget resolution invests in education strategies that create jobs and growth, preparing our workforce for the global economy, making college affordable, improving student achievement. You can see what it does there: education tax cuts up to $13 billion, $5.7 billion over the President's budget in discretionary funding for the Department of Education and Head Start. Thirdly, an education reserve fund for school construction and higher education authorization. The second chart talks about the way we can grow our economy and create high-paying, good jobs by investing in energy. The old way of thinking about this was that if you had to conserve energy or be more efficient, that was going to cost jobs. Now we know that when we are not in conflict, one of the best ways to create jobs is to invest in green-collar jobs and in green energy. I will go to the last chart in terms of our infrastructure, just to get this in before we conclude. Our infrastructure, everyone knows--we knew this before, but certainly when we saw the bridge collapse in Minnesota--that we have to invest in basic infrastructure. This budget resolution sets aside room in the budget to do just that: to invest in our infrastructure, whether it is highways or mass transit, whether it is airports or what we call ready-to-go infrastructure projects. Sometimes, when a company wants to locate in a community, they don't have time for a lot of debate. They need to get moving very quickly. We need projects and land set aside to do that. I will conclude with one final chart because I know the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Senator Schumer, is with us, and he is probably coming up next, and I want to make sure he has all the time he needs because he has been a great leader on these budget issues. The final chart I will put up: We hear a lot about Democratic spending, spending, spending from the Republican side. The differential between what the President proposed--$3.04 trillion--in this 2009 budget and what we are proposing is $3.8 trillion. That is a 1-percent difference. So when we hear debate and arguments back and forth that Democrats are spending too much--more than the President--the difference is 1 percent. I have a lot more to get into, but I am going to conclude with this thought: We have to invest in good-paying jobs, family-sustaining jobs, and we also have to get our fiscal house in order. Unfortunately, I think the President's budget does not do that. The Democratic budget will. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis that is facing a growing number of Americans every day. That crisis is hunger. In this country, as food prices continue to rise, more and more American families find themselves desperately in need of help just to put food on the table for themselves and their families. In 2006 alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that these figures for 2007 and 2008 will be even more disturbing. The only recourse for these millions of people is to turn to Federal food assistance programs and emergency food banks for their basic food needs. Unfortunately, as recent articles in national publications like the USA Today and the New York Times have highlighted, there is a critical lack of food inventories available in local food pantries across the country. Rising demand, sharp drops in Federal supplies of excess commodities, and declining donations have forced food banks to cut back on rations, and in some cases, close their doors. In short, America's food banks are facing critical shortages now. As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I had a hand in helping to create a new farm bill. This bill, as passed by the Senate, will help food banks by providing additional annual funding to shore up food bank supplies. But, as we continue to conference this bill with the House, there are further steps we can take to help ensure that food banks can continue to fulfill their mission. That is why today I am pleased to join with Senator Snowe to introduce the Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008. This act will provide critical support needed to ensure food assistance agencies, already in desperate need of supplies, can take full advantage of the distributions of bonus food commodities supplied by USDA through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP. By helping to offset the intrastate storage, transportation, and distribution costs the food assistance agencies incur to distribute these bonus food surpluses, the act will ensure the commodities will be able to reach the greatest number of needy individuals. The Emergency Food Assistance Program began in 1981 as a temporary program with dual purposes; it was intended to help reduce the Federal food inventories and storage costs while also assisting the needy. Because of the program's success in helping distribute food to those in need, in 1988, after much of the Federal inventory was depleted, the Hunger Prevention Act authorized funds to be appropriated to purchase food for TEFAP. Under current-day TEFAP, the USDA provides States and food assistance agencies with food commodities bought specifically for the program and with funding to help cover distributing agencies' intrastate storage, handling, and distribution costs. In addition, when available, USDA provides any excess food not needed to fulfill other program requirements to States for allocation to local food assistance agencies. This excess food is otherwise known as ``bonus TEFAP.'' Unfortunately, while the USDA generously distributes these bonus TEFAP commodities to the States, many of the State and food assistance agencies are unable to accept the bonus TEFAP commodities because they do not have the resources to store, transport, or distribute them. The Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008 that I am introducing today with Senator Snowe alleviates this problem by providing offsetting funds to recipient agencies to assist with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing bonus TEFAP commodities. The funds provided through this legislation will help to provide more food to those in need through food banks, food pantries, emergency shelters, soup kitchens, and other organizations that directly provide these resources to the public. To solve the problem the inadequacy of local resources causes, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use existing funds granted under section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. Currently, section 32 funds are used to fund child nutrition programs and other programs to support the farm sector at the discretion of the Secretary. Through this legislation, a small portion of section 32 funds would be allocated to each eligible recipient agency in the lesser amount of $0.05 per pound or $0.05 per dollar value of bonus TEFAP commodities. With this modest increase in funding, the States and their food assistance agencies will be able to accept more food distributions from the USDA through TEFAP, benefitting the many low- income recipients who rely on the program for emergency food and nutrition assistance. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and me in ensuring that the States and food assistance agencies can accept the available excess commodity foods the USDA provides under the Emergency Assistance Food Program. Food assistance agencies are in dire need of funds, food, and supplies and we owe it to them to ensure that they can take full advantage of every opportunity to serve those in our nation who are in desperate need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a crisis that is facing a growing number of Americans every day. That crisis is hunger. In this country, as food prices continue to rise, more and more American families find themselves desperately in need of help just to put food on the table for themselves and their families. In 2006 alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have enough money or resources to get food for at least some period during the year. This figure was an increase of 400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 million since 2000. And, with the fragile state of our economy, we can only assume that these figures for 2007 and 2008 will be even more disturbing. The only recourse for these millions of people is to turn to Federal food assistance programs and emergency food banks for their basic food needs. Unfortunately, as recent articles in national publications like the USA Today and the New York Times have highlighted, there is a critical lack of food inventories available in local food pantries across the country. Rising demand, sharp drops in Federal supplies of excess commodities, and declining donations have forced food banks to cut back on rations, and in some cases, close their doors. In short, America's food banks are facing critical shortages now. As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I had a hand in helping to create a new farm bill. This bill, as passed by the Senate, will help food banks by providing additional annual funding to shore up food bank supplies. But, as we continue to conference this bill with the House, there are further steps we can take to help ensure that food banks can continue to fulfill their mission. That is why today I am pleased to join with Senator Snowe to introduce the Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008. This act will provide critical support needed to ensure food assistance agencies, already in desperate need of supplies, can take full advantage of the distributions of bonus food commodities supplied by USDA through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP. By helping to offset the intrastate storage, transportation, and distribution costs the food assistance agencies incur to distribute these bonus food surpluses, the act will ensure the commodities will be able to reach the greatest number of needy individuals. The Emergency Food Assistance Program began in 1981 as a temporary program with dual purposes; it was intended to help reduce the Federal food inventories and storage costs while also assisting the needy. Because of the program's success in helping distribute food to those in need, in 1988, after much of the Federal inventory was depleted, the Hunger Prevention Act authorized funds to be appropriated to purchase food for TEFAP. Under current-day TEFAP, the USDA provides States and food assistance agencies with food commodities bought specifically for the program and with funding to help cover distributing agencies' intrastate storage, handling, and distribution costs. In addition, when available, USDA provides any excess food not needed to fulfill other program requirements to States for allocation to local food assistance agencies. This excess food is otherwise known as ``bonus TEFAP.'' Unfortunately, while the USDA generously distributes these bonus TEFAP commodities to the States, many of the State and food assistance agencies are unable to accept the bonus TEFAP commodities because they do not have the resources to store, transport, or distribute them. The Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 2008 that I am introducing today with Senator Snowe alleviates this problem by providing offsetting funds to recipient agencies to assist with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing bonus TEFAP commodities. The funds provided through this legislation will help to provide more food to those in need through food banks, food pantries, emergency shelters, soup kitchens, and other organizations that directly provide these resources to the public. To solve the problem the inadequacy of local resources causes, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use existing funds granted under section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. Currently, section 32 funds are used to fund child nutrition programs and other programs to support the farm sector at the discretion of the Secretary. Through this legislation, a small portion of section 32 funds would be allocated to each eligible recipient agency in the lesser amount of $0.05 per pound or $0.05 per dollar value of bonus TEFAP commodities. With this modest increase in funding, the States and their food assistance agencies will be able to accept more food distributions from the USDA through TEFAP, benefitting the many low- income recipients who rely on the program for emergency food and nutrition assistance. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and me in ensuring that the States and food assistance agencies can accept the available excess commodity foods the USDA provides under the Emergency Assistance Food Program. Food assistance agencies are in dire need of funds, food, and supplies and we owe it to them to ensure that they can take full advantage of every opportunity to serve those in our nation who are in desperate need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 4109.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to first of all commend the work of several colleagues on this Consumer Product Safety Commission legislation, and in particular the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for long overdue changes of the law that pertain to how we protect consumers, families, across America from unsafe products from around the world that come into Pennsylvania and come into America and can do harm to our families. So I am grateful for the work that went into this legislation. Today, I wish to raise with this amendment a particular concern I have, and I think it is shared by a lot of people in this body, and that is the threat posed by formaldehyde. I am going to put up a definition so people have a sense of what we are talking about. Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas, and when present in the air at levels above 0.1 parts per million, it can cause watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat, nausea, coughing, and all the things you see here, but it has also been shown to cause cancer in scientific studies using laboratory animals and may cause cancer in humans. So we are talking about something that is a threat to families across this country, and it is something that this legislation should deal with. Our amendment is very simple. And I should note for the record this amendment is being offered not only by me but by Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. It is very simple what we do. We set forth in this amendment to have the Consumer Product Safety Commission, first of all, study the use of formaldehyde in the manufacturing of textile and apparel articles. That study would be conducted within 2 years, and basically we would want that study to identify risks to consumers caused by the use of formaldehyde in the manufacturing of articles that may be clothing articles or components of such articles. So, first of all, the study. Secondly, not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of the amendment, the Consumer Product Safety Commission should set forth a safety standard, which is something this Commission can do and should do with regard to formaldehyde. Thirdly, we say that the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall prescribe a testing program, a reasonable testing program for textile and apparel articles and components of such articles. Basically, what we are talking about is to test for the presence of formaldehyde and the threat it poses. Now, what are we talking about? Some of the news articles over the last couple of years point to very basic articles in the life of any family in this country--blankets. There was a problem not too long ago with the presence of formaldehyde in blankets. We have seen examples where toys and other products that impact children, but especially when it comes to clothing in this case, there have been examples of baby clothing where there is a threat posed by the presence of formaldehyde. Some might say: Well, why would the Consumer Product Safety Commission have to have a regulation such as this and to have a program to deal with this? Well, for some reason, it has been left off the list. Because in terms of the Government agencies already that have regulated the use of or exposure to formaldehyde, the list is long. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, has it; the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has it; the Food and Drug Administration; the Housing and Urban Development agency has it. So these are agencies already in the Federal Government that have regulated the use of and exposure to formaldehyde, and what we are asking in this amendment is that yet another critical agency in our Government, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, be charged with the responsibility of studying, setting forth rules and regulations, and also making sure we are doing everything possible to prevent this from becoming an even larger threat to American families. I would conclude with one chart: the Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations of formaldehyde. And after that, the entire chart is blank because that is exactly what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is doing right now on formaldehyde--nothing, not a single thing, not a single rule that deals with this, despite the threat posed to young children, to babies when they wear baby clothing, or the threat it poses to all Americans when it comes to what we wear. This is long overdue, and I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle would not only support, as I think they will, strongly, the elements of this Consumer Product Safety Commission legislation but in particular that they would support this amendment. I yield the floor.