Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today in support of a Senate resolution that expresses the Senate's esteem for and commitment to the National School Breakfast Program. I am pleased to be joining Senator Feingold in both recognizing the good that this program accomplishes for low-income children and encouraging more States to participate. The United States is experiencing a hunger crisis. In 2006 alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that 35.5 million Americans did not have the money or resources needed to provide food for themselves or their families, and this number is sadly on the rise. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of hungry people in the United States increased by over 400,000. As we continue through hard economic times, we can only assume the number of hungry people in America will continue to increase. Hunger is not just a problem that plagues adults. Of the 35.5 million people who go hungry each year in America, 12.6 million of them are children. This means that 17.2 percent of all children are unsure where their next meal will come from--which poses a real problem. Hunger hinders growth and development and negatively affects health, leading to increased illness, fatigue, and even hospitalizations. Studies have also shown that hunger impairs cognitive function; hungry children are more likely to perform poorly on tests and repeat grades. Recognizing the relationship between good nutrition and the ability to learn and be healthy, Congress established a pilot National School Breakfast Program in 1966. Because of its success in raising the nutrition level of needy children, Congress permanently authorized the program in 1975. Since its inception, the School Breakfast Program has experienced tremendous growth. According to the USDA, the number of participating students has increased from 0.5 million children in 1970 to 9.7 million in 2006. This means that each day, more and more children receive a breakfast that provides them with one-fourth of the recommended dietary allowance for protein, calcium, iron, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, and calories. And because of improvements in implementation, including initiatives that provide breakfasts both in classrooms, in hallways, and as students exit buses, the number of students participating in the programs has doubled and in some cases tripled. Yet the number of students participating in the Breakfast Program is still much less than half of the number participating in the National Lunch Program. It is vitally important that we keep up the National Breakfast Program's momentum and provide the States with the tools they need to encourage as many needy children to take part as can. Appreciating the importance of the program, Pennsylvania has helped increase the number of schools that take advantage of this important program. Each year, Pennsylvania invests nearly $35.5 million in school breakfast and lunch, paying school districts 10 cents for each breakfast served and 10 cents for each lunch served. To increase the number of students receiving both breakfast and lunch, Pennsylvania pays an additional 2 cents per lunch if breakfast is offered in the school and an additional 4 cents per lunch if the school serves breakfast to at least 20 percent of enrolled students. As with national participation, Pennsylvania's participation is on the rise; over 100 more schools participated in the program between 2005 and 2006 than the previous year. Through this resolution, we hope to encourage States, like Pennsylvania, to continue to work toward our common goal of reducing child hunger. This Senate resolution recognizes the positive impact the National School Breakfast Program has on needy children. The program not only gives students a balanced breakfast, it provides a solid foundation on which they can start their day. Eating breakfast alone increases student attentiveness and improves overall performance and wellness. The National School Breakfast Program is making great inroads into child hunger. This resolution recognizes the efforts of the States in implementing the program and encourages them to expand their efforts.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the housing legislation. There will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate. The next vote is expected to occur at approximately 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, February 29; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 3221, the legislative vehicle to be used for the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 22 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 996 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Colorado outlined for us, a great recitation of the challenges we have in the Senate on this issue of the housing crisis and our economy. It is important to point out where we are today. We are here tonight talking about legislation which did not move forward today for one very simple reason: because the other side of the aisle chose to stop it, as they have done on a number of fronts. I was thinking today about when we reflect upon the housing crisis that grips so many communities and families, a couple of weeks ago we were debating a stimulus package and a similar thing happened. We did get legislation passed and the President did sign it. That was largely a positive development. But what we didn't get done--because, again, the other side stopped us; they blocked, obstructed our ability to put unemployment insurance and food stamp assistance in there, which economists tell us are the best ways to stimulate the economy. Here we are again on housing, at a time when we had a piece of legislation which would provide some light--in fact, I would argue substantial light--to the darkness that many families face with regard to foreclosure. It would provide some measure of relief to the pain families feel when they lose their home. It would provide some help and assistance with the trauma, the economic trauma that the loss of a house can visit upon a family. That is what we are talking about, doing our best in the Senate to provide some help for families. We want to do a couple of things with this legislation which we know is the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Our majority leader, Senator Reid, and the members of the Democratic Caucus set it out fairly specifically, a couple of basic things this legislation would have done. First, it would have continued what we started in the end of last year, foreclosure prevention counseling dollars to give money to organizations around the country that are certifiable experts at this, organizations such as La Raza, which the Presiding Officer knows. We know also of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known by the acronym ACORN. They are headquartered in Philadelphia. These are organizations which understand what a lender has to deal with but, more importantly, deal with borrowers when they are borrowing money, when they are dealing with the difficulty and the complexity of borrowing money. These organizations would have helped even more than they are helping now with $200 million more of counseling money. That is not going to happen because of what the other side did. They blocked that money by blocking this legislation. One of the best vehicles on housing and on stimulating activity and also providing some measure of relief is to say to our housing finance agencies across the country, organizations at the State level that are expert at this, we are going to allow you to do what you do best, to get money into the system and to allow people to borrow money for the cost of a house. That won't happen now because of what the other side of the aisle did. Another provision in this bill, as Senator Salazar mentioned in detail, was the bankruptcy provision which simply says that if a bankruptcy judge can deal with your second house or with all kinds of matters that come before that judge in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy judge ought to be able to help you restructure your mortgage in bankruptcy so you can dig yourself out of not just a foreclosure problem but can dig yourself out of bankruptcy. The other side said no to that. Finally, they said no to communities across the country with regard to community development block grant money. They said no to them as well. For billions of dollars which were in this bill, they said no to those communities across the country. It is important to understand what they on the other side said no to today. We have to understand that when we talk about this issue, it is not just a house and a family, as important as that is. We are talking about keeping families in their homes, helping them with their foreclosure problem, their crisis that they could be in the middle of or about to enter into. We are also talking about communities, neighborhoods. The chairman of the Banking Committee--I know the Presiding Officer is a member of the committee--outlined in detail what happens to a community when one house goes down or a number of houses go down. We know about the details. What we should do is be very clear about our priorities: keeping people in homes, helping communities, and stimulating the economy, but also to make the record clear about why we are not moving forward. The other side stopped us, as they have done again and again. Now we have to move forward. Now we have to figure out in a bipartisan way how best we can get some elements of this legislation to continue. We cannot sit back and say: Well, we are having a dispute here and we can just let this die. We cannot. We have to do everything we can now, as Senator Dodd said very well tonight, to move this forward, to make sure we are doing everything possible to keep people in their homes, to stimulate our economy, and to protect and nurture our communities and our neighborhoods. I think we can do that, but we have a long way to go. I hope it is a bipartisan effort. We have to make that hope into a realty. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. In conclusion, I want to say that Myron Cope was a familiar voice to every Pittsburgher and football fan alike, and his persona will live on in the hearts of Pittsburghers and Steelers fans for generations to come. It is a sad day and really a sad week for Pittsburgh and for football. He will be dearly missed. And today we honor his legacy. Tomorrow I will be honored to introduce a resolution honoring Myron Cope. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, thank you very much. I rise tonight to speak about a distinguished Pennsylvanian whom we lost this week. I will be speaking a little bit later about housing and the housing crisis in our economy. I wanted to speak first tonight about a man who is known all across our State and indeed beyond the State but especially in Pittsburgh. I speak of Myron Cope who died this week at the age of 79. He was, in fact, a legendary Pittsburgher and the voice of the Pittsburgh Steelers for an unprecedented 35 years. He died yesterday at the age of 79 in a nursing home in Pittsburgh where he was being treated for respiratory problems and heart failure. He is known for so much. He is probably best known for his quirky catch phrases and creating the well-known, world-renowned ``terrible towel'' of the Pittsburgh Steelers, which so many people know was a symbol that was twirled at Steelers games as a good luck charm and has developed into an international symbol of Pittsburgh Steeler pride. Steeler's president, Art Rooney, said it best in a story yesterday when he said: His memorable voice and unique broadcasting style became synonymous with Steeler football. They say imitation is the greatest form of flattery and no Pittsburgh broadcaster was impersonated more than Myron. Art Rooney said it well. Not many people know that Myron Cope was an announcer by accident. He spent the first half of his professional career as one of the Nation's most widely read freelance sports writers, writing for Sports Illustrated, the Saturday Evening Post, on subjects and athletes as wide and as diverse as Muhammad Ali, Howard Cossell, and Roberto Clemente, the legendary Pittsburgh Pirate baseball player. The Associated Press did a story about Myron's passing. And it talked about how he became so popular with the Steelers that they did not try to replace his unique perspective when he retired. Instead they downsized from a three-man announcing team to a two-man booth because of his unique perspective. I will not try to imitate his voice. Many do; I will not try it because I cannot do it well. But the Associated Press said this about Myron: To Cope, an exceptional play rated a ``Yoi!'' A coach's doublespeak was ``garganzola.'' That is Myron Cope's language for various things. We could go on and on tonight about all of those terms that he came up with, ways he described winning and losing and the aspects of a football game. But I will leave it to others to try to imitate his voice. But we are thinking of him tonight and thinking of his family and his legions of fans. I ask unanimous consent that the Associated Press story by Alan Robinson be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the past 47 years of service of over 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers who have served our Nation and aided developing nations worldwide. This week our Nation celebrates their contributions toward the elimination of global poverty and disease that continues to deprive millions of people the opportunity to fulfill their goals and dreams. Henry David Thoreau noted that ``One is not born into the world to do everything, but to do something.'' To do something is the foundation of the Peace Corps' mission. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy established the Peace Corps to promote peace and friendship and challenged Americans, young and old, to help their Nation and the world by sharing their talents with those in developing countries. Many Americans have heeded his call to service. Currently, approximately 8,000 volunteers serve in 74 countries to help train and provide skills to those in need and act as American cultural ambassadors to those nations. However, their work does not end there. I am very proud that 261 Peace Corps volunteers from Pennsylvania are currently serving abroad. These men and women will join the ranks of former Pennsylvanian volunteers who continue to leave their mark on the world such as Christina Luongo from Stroudsburg, PA, who served as a nutrition education volunteer in Bolivia from 2002 to 2005; Abigail Calkins, from Philadelphia, PA, who served as a community development volunteer in Cameroon from 1987 to 1990 and is now working at the University of Pennsylvania researching breast and endometrial cancer; and Betrice Grabish, from North Wales, PA, who served as an English teacher in Uzbekistan from 1992 to 1994. As we celebrate National Peace Corps Week, I would also like to highlight the vital contributions that a predecessor of mine, Senator Harris Wofford, made toward launching the Peace Corps in 1961. As special assistant to President John F. Kennedy, Senator Wofford helped plan and launch the Peace Corps and later moved with his family to Ethiopia, where he served as the Peace Corps' special representative to Africa and director of its Ethiopia program. Ever since, Senator Wofford has been a leading voice advocating for more Americans to become involved in national service. Committing to serve one's nation is an honor, and I join Senator Wofford in calling on more Americans to make this commitment. As our world becomes interconnected, more Americans will need to interact with those who live outside our borders. Peace Corps volunteers learn more than 250 languages, which provides them the skills to compete globally as well as assist the U.S. Government in national security areas where critical language skills are essential. Many Peace Corps volunteers go on to serve in Congress, the executive branch, and the Foreign Service. I salute the Peace Corps for its tremendous work and the dedication of its volunteers who have not hesitated to help improve our world. On this week marking the 47th anniversary of the founding of the Peace Corps, I call on everyone to join me in celebrating its historic achievements.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 27; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and the time be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans in control of the first half and the majority in control of the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to S. 2633; further, I ask that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. and that all time during any recess, adjournment, or morning business count postcloture.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns, shared by so many of my constituents in Pennsylvania and across the country, about the war in Iraq and how our efforts there have exacted a direct cost on the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates in Afghanistan. The bills introduced today by Senator Feingold and Majority Leader Reid have prompted an important debate about our national security. I believe it is our duty, as elected officials, to level with the American people on the war in Iraq, both on the reality of the situation on the ground and in the context of our Nation's broader strategic priorities. We must speak truth to the anxiety of the American people on what we are doing to make this country more secure. Our Nation recently marked the 1-year anniversary of the President's decision to initiate a troop escalation into Iraq. We are quickly coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. As the President said in January of 2007, when announcing the goals of his troop escalation, ``Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.'' Judged by those standards enunciated by the President himself, the surge has not worked. While we all welcome the reduction in violence, that metric was never the be-all and end-all in determining whether the surge worked. Monday of this week, the Pentagon said it expected 140,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq this July, 8,000 more troops than when the President's troop buildup began in January of 2007. These extended troop deployments have imposed a significant toll on a U.S. military already stretched dangerously thin by this war. We have provided Iraqis with some ``breathing space'' and violence in many parts of Iraq is, indeed, down. That fact is attributable to the fine men and women of our armed services and to their skills as the finest fighting force in history. Yet Iraq is still not a secure Nation because progress on the essential tasks of political reconciliation has not been achieved by the Iraqis. General Petraeus has been very clear on this point: The war in Iraq can only be won politically, not militarily. Although the Bush administration immediately praised the three reform measures recently passed by the Iraqi Parliament, the package served only to postpone critical discussions on the future of the country and underscore the fractured State of the Iraqi Government. The Parliament approved a 2008 budget, passed a provincial powers law defining a division of responsibility between the central government in Baghdad and regional authorities, and issued an amnesty bill that may free thousands of prisoners from the disaffected Sunni community. But the potential details and implementation of these laws, especially on the amnesty bill, remain a critical question mark. What the Iraqi leadership failed to achieve and the decisions of Parliament chose to kick down the road, so to speak, is perhaps more notable than the short-term successes. The government has yet to tackle the most divisive issue in Iraq, and that is this: who controls the country's oil and how to distribute the proceeds. To take the most egregious example, the Kurdistan regional government in the north passed its own oil law last August, signing dozens of contracts with international oil firms, which the central government in Baghdad deems illegal. The Iraqis have devised a de facto approach for splitting oil proceeds in the short term, but that arrangement is vulnerable to breakdown at any time. Legislative accomplishments by the Iraqi Parliament are welcome but can be very deceiving. So long as the very parliamentarians who passed these recent bills cannot leave the Green Zone without fear of assassination attempts or suicide bombings, Iraq remains an unsecured nation. Just as Iraqi progress on internal reconciliation is sorely lacking, I am also distressed by our short-term strategy of pacifying local actors in Iraq to improve security while ignoring the underlying political and sectarian fault line in Iraq. In short, this approach is not sustainable and is undermining--undermining--our overarching objective of national reconciliation. At the same time we speak of bridging the sectarian divides, the U.S. ``awakening strategy'' in western and central Iraq is arming Sunni tribal leaders and integrating former insurgents into the rough equivalent of militias--all in a process separate from and parallel to the national armed forces of Iraq. As an article in Time magazine recently noted, a number of these ``concerned local citizens'' militias, organized and supported by the U.S. military, are now turning on each other in a contest for influence and territory. The Shia-led central government views these armed militias as undermining its central authority and has balked at integrating large numbers of Sunnis into the national Iraqi security forces. So at this point we must ask ourselves whether the U.S. Government, in service of a worthy but short-term objective of suppressing violence in Iraq, is only paving the road for a large-scale future conflict by arming sectarian groups separate from the national army and police. That is an important question we must consider. Let me say, Mr. President, sometimes short and telling anecdotes tell a story. We have read recently that the Iranian President, Mr. Ahmadinejad, will make a visit to Baghdad next week for talks with Prime Minister al-Maliki and other officials. This visit has already been announced, with details of his itinerary available to the press and the public. By sharp contrast, when President Bush, Secretary Rice and/or Secretary Gates visit Iraq, they travel to Baghdad unannounced and rarely leave the fortified walls of the Green Zone. Another example. When Senator Durbin and I visited Iraq last August, we flew from the airport to the Green Zone in low-flying, fast-moving helicopters practicing evasive maneuvers. Here is a question we should ask ourselves: Why can the Iranian President drive in an open manner into Baghdad while U.S. leaders must sneak into the country under the cloak of darkness? Five years into our occupation of Iraq, what does this say about our role in Iraq and the security of that nation? As Iraq continues to dominate the attention and resources of our Government, it clouds and confuses our long-term U.S. strategic priorities. I remain troubled, as so many others here remain troubled, that a ``Declaration of Principles'' signed on November 26, 2007, by President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki commits our Nation to ``providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter future aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.'' That is what the Declaration of Principles says in part. Although Secretary Rice assured me during a recent Senate Foreign Relations hearing that no such commitments will be extended to Iraq, I remain deeply skeptical. In concert with my colleagues, I will continue to exercise vigorous oversight to ensure that President Bush does not lock the United States into a binding and long-term security commitment to Iraq. It is time to refocus our energies and our efforts on the ``forgotten war'' in Afghanistan. Our focus on Iraq has distracted from and undermined the central front in the war on terrorism. ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently testified before Congress, and he said: In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must. With all due respect to Admiral Mullen, he has it wrong. We should do what we must in both places. We know that 6 years ago America was fighting and winning the war in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida and the Taliban were on the run. But instead of staying and accomplishing our mission in Afghanistan by hunting down those who planned the 9/11 attacks, this administration diverted our attention to Iraq. Today, the Taliban has returned with a vengeance and controls more territory than at any time since its ouster in 2001. Afghanistan is on the brink of becoming yet again a failed state and thus a safe haven for al-Qaida to launch deadly attacks, including against the American homeland. Three recent bipartisan reports on Afghanistan concluded that the situation on the ground is dire. One report, coauthored by retired general Jim Jones and Ambassador Thomas Pickering, puts it bluntly, and I quote in part: The progress achieved after 6 years of international engagement is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, mounting regional challenges, and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country. The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid, and without a clear and consistent comprehensive strategy. That is the Jones and Pickering report from which I am quoting. When Secretary of Defense Gates is forced to go public with criticisms of the refusal of our NATO allies to deploy more forces in Afghanistan and his skepticism of their ability to conduct counterinsurgency operations, we must admit that the situation on the ground is getting worse in Afghanistan, not better. Military officials expect the coming year to be even more deadly, as the Taliban becomes more deadly and deploys greater numbers of suicide bombers and roadside explosives. U.S. forces remain largely isolated in Afghanistan, with key NATO allies refusing to provide ground support and imposing onerous restrictions on where and how they can fight. The end result is that the very future of NATO, the most successful alliance in modern history, is now in grave danger. In a welcome display of straight-talk, Secretary Gates admitted that the very reason large segments of the European public do not support NATO operations in Afghanistan is due to their antipathy toward U.S. policy in Iraq. Secretary Gates recently asserted in Munich: Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan, and do not understand the very different--for them--the very different kind of threat. That is what Secretary Gates said recently. Mr. President, let me conclude with this thought: The war in Iraq has indeed strained our military, limiting the number of combat divisions we can provide in Afghanistan. It has undermined our global leadership, depriving us of the moral authority to demand more of our allies, and it has diverted the attention of our senior military and civilian leadership, allowing the Taliban to mount a comeback under our very eyes. We are losing a war we cannot afford to lose in a futile and misguided effort to force success in another conflict that can only be won politically, not militarily. Our priorities are tragically mistaken, and our Nation is paying a severe cost. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the passage of S. 1200, the Vitter amendment 3896 be modified with the change at the desk.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a critical health issue affecting thousands of our children every day but about which few people have ever even heard. All across this country, thousands of children suffer from rare genetic diseases called ``orphan diseases,'' thus named because of the relatively small number of people these diseases strike. An orphan disease is defined as affecting fewer than 200,000 people. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, estimate that there are approximately 6,000 of these orphan diseases, affecting about 25 million Americans on the whole. Most of these rare diseases are genetic and many affect children. Last spring, I met with a group of mothers who shared their struggles and frustrations in getting ongoing and consistent treatment for their children, each of whom suffers from an orphan disease. Many of these parents had been able to enroll their children in clinical trials at the NIH and had found experimental treatments for their children that had proven extremely successful. The doctors at NIH do miraculous work in finding treatments for children with rare genetic diseases. But oftentimes, when the trial ends, these children and parents are left on their own, with no access to the previously free and effective treatment that their children were getting. Imagine if you can, for one moment, the predicament of these children and their parents? After months and sometimes years of first not knowing what was ailing their sick children, desperately seeking help, then finally getting a diagnosis, only to find out that there was no FDA approved treatment. Then after searching for some kind of treatment and then finally, finally finding--and being admitted to--a clinical trial on medication that miraculously gave their children the ability to function like other kids--to be able to play soccer and go to school and have friends over and just have the energy to be a child. For all of us who are parents, you can imagine the joy of seeing your child finally alleviated from the suffering he or she has been going through, finally able to enjoy him- or herself and do all the things that children are supposed to do. Then imagine, if you can, what it would be like to suddenly have that taken away. The clinical trial ends, or funding for the trial ends. Suddenly, you no longer have access to this drug that your child needs to be able to function, to do their homework, eat well and have fun. If it is a drug that has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or specifically approved for a child's particular disease, then insurance companies typically will not cover it because the treatment is considered ``experimental.'' In some cases, a drug has been approved for other uses than the orphan disease, known as ``off- label'' use. If a family has enough insurance, and there is off-label FDA approval, sometimes families can get coverage of the drugs. If not, the resulting cost to families is astronomical--ranging anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per month. This is what happened to Nino Todaro, a young boy from Newville, Pennsylvania, and that is why Senator Specter and I are today introducing Nino's Act. Nino suffers from Periodic Fever Syndrome, an unpredictable genetic condition that can cause uncontrolled inflammation throughout the body. When this disease acts up, Nino has days where he cannot do much more than lie on the couch. Left untreated, this condition could leave Nino unable to walk and even be life-threatening. Fortunately Nino found help through an NIH clinical trial, but funding ran out last year. The drug that returned Nino to a joyous soccer-playing kid was approved for arthritis and Crohn's disease, but not Periodic Fever Syndrome. Facing costs of $12,000 a month, and initial rejections from their insurance company, Nino's parents turned to Congress. Nino's Act will allow children to transition out of successful treatment in NIH studies without a gap in treatment. There are thousands of children like Nino across this country who desperately need the continuity of ongoing successful treatment for their rare disorders. These are children who have been very ill, sometimes incapacitated, and have been able to resume normal childhoods through successful drug treatment. Parents advocating for their children understandably refuse to accept that their children have no choice but to regress because their insurance company will not cover humongous medical bills that no middle class family could even begin to absorb. No parent should ever have to face a situation in which the care they need for their seriously ill child is too expensive or held up by regulatory red tape. It is unthinkable to me that any ill child in this country, the richest nation on earth, with all our medical advancements, should ever be denied medical treatment that is available and proven successful. Our bill will give these children and their parents peace of mind that when a study ends, their children's successful ongoing treatment will not be threatened. To address this, Nino's Act will require Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment of in the event that a child's health insurance does not. This is the least we can do for these children and families. No child for whom treatment is available should have to forego that treatment to the serious detriment of their health. That is just plain wrong. Senator Specter and I share the belief that ensuring ongoing treatment for children with rare disorders is something this Congress should get behind. I urge my colleagues to support Nino's Act and I will work hard for its passage. My hope is it will go a long way toward ensuring that children with orphan diseases can get the successful treatment they deserve, freeing them and their families to focus on what is truly important--keeping them well, and living out happy and productive lives.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a critical health issue affecting thousands of our children every day but about which few people have ever even heard. All across this country, thousands of children suffer from rare genetic diseases called ``orphan diseases,'' thus named because of the relatively small number of people these diseases strike. An orphan disease is defined as affecting fewer than 200,000 people. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, estimate that there are approximately 6,000 of these orphan diseases, affecting about 25 million Americans on the whole. Most of these rare diseases are genetic and many affect children. Last spring, I met with a group of mothers who shared their struggles and frustrations in getting ongoing and consistent treatment for their children, each of whom suffers from an orphan disease. Many of these parents had been able to enroll their children in clinical trials at the NIH and had found experimental treatments for their children that had proven extremely successful. The doctors at NIH do miraculous work in finding treatments for children with rare genetic diseases. But oftentimes, when the trial ends, these children and parents are left on their own, with no access to the previously free and effective treatment that their children were getting. Imagine if you can, for one moment, the predicament of these children and their parents? After months and sometimes years of first not knowing what was ailing their sick children, desperately seeking help, then finally getting a diagnosis, only to find out that there was no FDA approved treatment. Then after searching for some kind of treatment and then finally, finally finding--and being admitted to--a clinical trial on medication that miraculously gave their children the ability to function like other kids--to be able to play soccer and go to school and have friends over and just have the energy to be a child. For all of us who are parents, you can imagine the joy of seeing your child finally alleviated from the suffering he or she has been going through, finally able to enjoy him- or herself and do all the things that children are supposed to do. Then imagine, if you can, what it would be like to suddenly have that taken away. The clinical trial ends, or funding for the trial ends. Suddenly, you no longer have access to this drug that your child needs to be able to function, to do their homework, eat well and have fun. If it is a drug that has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or specifically approved for a child's particular disease, then insurance companies typically will not cover it because the treatment is considered ``experimental.'' In some cases, a drug has been approved for other uses than the orphan disease, known as ``off- label'' use. If a family has enough insurance, and there is off-label FDA approval, sometimes families can get coverage of the drugs. If not, the resulting cost to families is astronomical--ranging anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per month. This is what happened to Nino Todaro, a young boy from Newville, Pennsylvania, and that is why Senator Specter and I are today introducing Nino's Act. Nino suffers from Periodic Fever Syndrome, an unpredictable genetic condition that can cause uncontrolled inflammation throughout the body. When this disease acts up, Nino has days where he cannot do much more than lie on the couch. Left untreated, this condition could leave Nino unable to walk and even be life-threatening. Fortunately Nino found help through an NIH clinical trial, but funding ran out last year. The drug that returned Nino to a joyous soccer-playing kid was approved for arthritis and Crohn's disease, but not Periodic Fever Syndrome. Facing costs of $12,000 a month, and initial rejections from their insurance company, Nino's parents turned to Congress. Nino's Act will allow children to transition out of successful treatment in NIH studies without a gap in treatment. There are thousands of children like Nino across this country who desperately need the continuity of ongoing successful treatment for their rare disorders. These are children who have been very ill, sometimes incapacitated, and have been able to resume normal childhoods through successful drug treatment. Parents advocating for their children understandably refuse to accept that their children have no choice but to regress because their insurance company will not cover humongous medical bills that no middle class family could even begin to absorb. No parent should ever have to face a situation in which the care they need for their seriously ill child is too expensive or held up by regulatory red tape. It is unthinkable to me that any ill child in this country, the richest nation on earth, with all our medical advancements, should ever be denied medical treatment that is available and proven successful. Our bill will give these children and their parents peace of mind that when a study ends, their children's successful ongoing treatment will not be threatened. To address this, Nino's Act will require Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment of in the event that a child's health insurance does not. This is the least we can do for these children and families. No child for whom treatment is available should have to forego that treatment to the serious detriment of their health. That is just plain wrong. Senator Specter and I share the belief that ensuring ongoing treatment for children with rare disorders is something this Congress should get behind. I urge my colleagues to support Nino's Act and I will work hard for its passage. My hope is it will go a long way toward ensuring that children with orphan diseases can get the successful treatment they deserve, freeing them and their families to focus on what is truly important--keeping them well, and living out happy and productive lives.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, in the remaining moments of morning business, I wish to highlight a couple important points about our economic stimulus efforts in the Senate. We have had an opportunity over the last couple weeks to analyze carefully what the American people expect in terms of a jolt to our economy and what they expect this body to do. Unfortunately, we have been stymied by a lot of politics. I think it is important to point out very briefly the elements of what the Senate is trying to do, at least on the Democratic side and, secondly, to highlight its importance to the American people. First of all, with regard to the basic elements--I will not go into a long discussion--in order to stimulate this economy, we have to invest in strategies we know will work. One of those is unemployment insurance. We know that. All the economists say that. It is not because Democrats assert that; economists say one of the only ways that is proven to jolt our economy is to invest in unemployment insurance. This proposal on the Democratic side does that. The House proposal doesn't do that in the area of unemployment insurance. It doesn't address that. The package this side of the aisle has been pushing is a $500 rebate. It is across the board for everyone and obviously for those who are married it is double that. But significantly, in this proposal 20 million American senior citizens are provided some relief. That wasn't addressed in the House proposal. I think that is an important omission. In order to get this right, in order to jolt our economy, we need to help seniors. We also need to make sure a quarter of a million disabled veterans are helped as well. That is an important feature. Thirdly, avoiding foreclosure; doing everything we can in this stimulus package in a short-term way to help families avoid foreclosure is another critically important element. Home heating costs: In my home State of Pennsylvania--and I know the same is true in Ohio and across the country--there has been a 19- percent increase in the costs that families have to heat their homes, in 1 year. So if that is happening in Pennsylvania, we know it prevails around the country. This proposal in this Chamber does that. It adds $1 billion for home heating costs. Finally, helping businesses and energy: As to the cost to businesses, I think small businesses should get help in this rough economy, and this proposal helps our businesses. It also makes investments we should have--or I should say implements strategies we should have done months ago when it comes to incentivizing energy efficiency and other tactics to move toward a more energy independent economy. So whether it is energy, whether it is helping businesses, whether it is making sure our seniors get relief, that our families get relief and that we focus on unemployment insurance, home heating costs, all these elements are critically important. It is not perfect. The Presiding Officer knows--and he shares this view with me--we wanted to do more with regard to food stamps. We are still going to try on that. But if that doesn't happen and some other things don't happen that I want, we still have to move this forward. I wish the other side of the aisle would allow us to go forward in a way that addresses these basic problems. We have seen a lot of talk on the other side but not nearly enough action to say we are going to support a proposal, not just what the House sent us but an improved and a much more significant proposal to hit this economy in the way we should hit it: With a stimulus to get the economy moving, to create jobs, to provide relief for our families, and to move into the future together. We can do that here. We should do it this week and make sure we don't pass something which is watered down and which would not do the job. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution honoring the lifetime achievements of Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as well as my colleague from Pennsylvania and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, join me as original cosponsors of this resolution. We are honored to pay tribute to a remarkable lawyer, jurist, scholar and advocate whose story inspires us. The Bible says, ``There were giants in the earth in those days.'' Leon Higginbotham was a giant. He stood six feet six inches all and towered above most of the rest of us in his intellect, his compassion and his commitment to equality. Today, those who knew him and worked with him, and those who, like me, admired him from afar, have gathered in our Nation's Capital to honor his life and his legacy. Aloysius Leon Higginbotham was born 80 years ago this month. The United States was about to enter the Great Depression and many Americans suffered under the yoke of racism and institutional, legalized segregation. Leon's young mother, who left school in the seventh grade, and his father, who worked in a Trenton, NJ factory, faced a world where most avenues to success were closed to African Americans. Young Leon Higginbotham grew up in a household that valued hard work and education, yet the African-American community had few resources to support good schooling. ``Separate but equal'' grade schools offered a limited curriculum, small schoolhouses and often one teacher for multiple grades. This left black students effectively unable to gain admission to the nearby white high schools. In fact, in the four decades preceding Leon's entrance into junior high, no black student from his school in Ewing Township, NJ had ever enrolled in a white high school. Without the required prerequisites, especially training in Latin, the doors to academic success were nailed shut. Fortunately, Leon's parents believed those doors could be pried open. His mother, Emma Lee, who worked for a wealthy family, constantly told her son that education was the ``sole passport to a better life.'' In a bold, unprecedented move, she negotiated Leon's entrance into one of the best high schools in Trenton. Despite having no foundation in Latin, Leon managed to pass his freshman course. Impressed by his intellectual ability, Leon's Latin teacher offered to tutor him over the summer. Between jobs as a busboy in a local hotel and as a laborer in factories, he rode his bicycle nearly 20 miles to his teacher's home, several times a week, to improve his Latin skills. Mirroring his father's work ethic and his mother's passion for learning, Leon overcame the odds and earned his high school diploma. In 1944, at age 16, Leon enrolled in the engineering program at Purdue University, where the student body had 6000 white students and 12 black students. Leon and his 11 fellow students were required to live in the unheated attic of a campus building. As autumn became winter, snow found its way through the flimsy roof, and the 12 students shivered their nights away, wearing earmuffs, shoes and multiple layers of clothing to bed. As the Midwestern winter grew colder, Leon requested a meeting with the university president to negotiate for a warmer place to sleep, noting that all of the white students slept in heated dormitories. The president responded, ``Higginbotham, the law doesn't require us to let colored students in the dorm. We will never do it, and you either accept things as they are or leave the university immediately.'' Leon found the president's comments especially troubling in light of the thousands of African Americans who were then serving their nation in World War II. He left the president's office determined to find a way both to serve his country and bring about lasting change. Leon continued his academic pursuits at Purdue and became an avid debater, qualifying to attend the Big Ten debate championships. After being forced to, sleep in a YMCA overrun with mice, while his white teammates were lodged in a comfortable hotel, Leon finally decided to leave Purdue and enroll in Antioch College. His strong academic performance at Antioch persuaded members of the faculty and the board of trustees to encourage him to enroll in law school. Leon received an offer of assistance from a benefactor which would cover his first semester at Yale Law School, but Rutgers University offered him a full scholarship. Characteristically, Leon resisted pressure from friends and family and chose the steeper path, Yale. He arrived at Yale with a cardboard suitcase and little understanding of the challenges that lay ahead. He was overwhelmed at first by the education and polish of his fellow students, many of them sons or relatives of lawyers, judges, or prominent politicians. As he recalled, ``my father was a laborer, two books in the house. One, we had purchased, a Bible; the other, my mother had gotten out of the trash of one of the people she worked for, an old dictionary. . . . I did not begin Yale at the same starting line as many of my contemporaries.'' Leon balanced his time between working at a corner store in New Haven and wrestling diligently with the law. As a research assistant to Prof. John P. Frank, Leon demonstrated ``an extraordinary verbal talent'' and achieved what Dean Wesley Sturges described as more honors in oral advocacy than anyone else in the law school at the time. Leon later said that the most significant event in his law school career was traveling to Washington, DC, to witness Thurgood Marshall's passionate advocacy before the Supreme Court in the Sweatt v. Painter case. From that moment on, Leon committed his considerable talents to the fight for what he called the ``promise of freedom'' for all people. The child who rode his bicycle to Latin lessons graduated from Yale Law School as the towering man with the deep baritone voice, who would succeed in a world almost unimaginable to his parents. Leon decided to begin his legal career in Philadelphia. This was not an easy task in the Philadelphia of the early 1950s, but a few people recognized his potential and helped him become a clerk for Judge Curtis Bok of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. He worked hard and soon became the youngest--and first ever African-American assistant district attorney--under Richardson Dilworth, who later served as mayor of Philadelphia. After 2 years in the DA's office; Leon left to found, with another future Federal judge, Clifford Scott Green, and others, Philadelphia's first African-American law firm, Norris, Schmidt, Green, Harris & Higginbotham. The Norris firm became the launching pad for a generation of successful African-American lawyers. At the same time, he pushed for social change in various roles, including president of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP, Special Hearing Officer for the United States Department of Justice, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission, and Special Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. While juggling these public commitments, Leon always maintained close ties to the community as a director of numerous legal, political and nonprofit organizations. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy appointed Leon to the Federal Trade Commission, making him the first African-American ever to serve on a Federal regulatory commission. Soon thereafter, Kennedy recognized Leon's work as a lawyer and public servant and nominated him for a Federal judgeship in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. However, his confirmation faced strong resistance and repeated delays engineered by some Members of the United States Senate. After President Kennedy's death, President Lyndon B. Johnson overrode the resistance to Leon's nomination by giving him a recess appointment to the Eastern District Court. At the age of 35, Judge Leon Higginbotham became one of the youngest men ever appointed to the Federal bench. From the beginning of his career on the bench, Judge Higginbotham was known for his scholarly, well-written opinions and his imperturbable judicial temperament. His tenure was also marked by his focus on the generations to follow him, what many came to call his ``people legacy.'' His warmth extended particularly to those on what he referred to as ``the lower end of the Courthouse bureaucracy.'' The Judge permitted young clerks and staffers to accompany him in all his activities so they could learn the full nature of the legal profession. Students from Philadelphia public high schools could be found working as interns in his office. He soon developed a diverse entourage that became known as the ``Higginbotham menagerie.'' Many of his proteges moved on to lead outstanding careers in the public arena. In fact, one of our congressional colleagues, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, served as his first law clerk and is a living symbol of Judge Higginbotham's legacy. In 1968, in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, despair and violence escalated across our country. President Johnson repeatedly called on Judge Higginbotham for advice on how to restore hope and optimism in the hearts of the American people. Johnson recognized Judge Higginbotham's wisdom in the face of crisis and appointed him to the Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence. Judge Higginbotham used that opportunity to push for ways to quell the violence of the time and to shrink the divide between Black and White America. The Judge also exerted his influence beyond racial issues and advocated for women's rights. As a trustee of the Yale Corporation, he successfully fought to allow undergraduate enrollment for women at Yale College. In 1977, Judge Higginbotham's accomplishments, both on the bench and in civic matters, led President Jimmy Carter to appoint him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Higginbotham sat on the Third Circuit for 16 years, served as chief judge from 1989 to 1991, and as senior judge through the completion of his judicial career in 1993. He described his judicial philosophy as ``evolutionary in terms of what is fair and just in a society.'' Through his rulings and subsequent writings, he reminded us that when our country was founded, the hope and promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were tarnished by the fact that the United States had over 500,000 slaves. Judge Higginbotham believed that equality for all under the law requires progressive interpretation of our founding documents and continued focus on the inequities that still exist. As he put it, ``. . . It is possible that with the obvious pride we have in the few who make it, that we may fail to recognize how long the road behind us is and how many there are on that road who still are deprived by history of the utilization of their talents. . . . We cannot become anesthetized by the success of a few and oblivious to the deprivation of the many.'' In 1993, Judge Higginbotham retired from the bench and began a new phase of his quest to achieve racial equality under the law. Even after three decades of remarkable public service, Judge Higginbotham took no time to rest, often quoting Robert Frost's words, `` I have promises to keep. And miles to go before I sleep.'' He focused his post-judicial life on the future, often asking who in the next generation would ``carry the baton into the new millennium.'' As a professor at Harvard University, he poured his energy and passion into preparing tomorrow's leaders to take that baton. He taught numerous courses and many of his students recall his oft-repeated words: ``If you do not stand up for something, you'll fall for anything.'' Judge Higginbotham's work as a scholar and historian helped transform our Nation's perception of race in America. His thorough research of nearly 250 years of legal documents involving racial issues formed the basis for a flood of books and articles in which he dissected the many aspects of discrimination embedded in America's legal system. For example, he hosted a conference on the centennial of Plessy v. Ferguson, using the occasion to urge the young minds of the next generation to take full advantage of the hard-won opportunities created by Brown v. Board of Education. He once commented to a group of recent law school graduates, ``What should be our theme to America?. . . It is that in the long, bloody and terrible history of race in America, there is no more time for foolishness.'' His words and his actions still compel each of us to face the ugly parts of our Nation's history as well as the glorious ones, and to respond, with commitment, to the public arena. Many remember Judge Higginbotham as what we now call a multitasker, especially during his retirement. When he wasn't teaching, he was frequently in a car on the way to the airport, dictating one of the over 100 speeches he delivered each year. When not addressing audiences, he often could be found testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, attending monthly meetings of the United States Commission on Human Rights, serving on numerous boards of trustees, including the New York Times and National Geographic, or arguing voting rights cases on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus before the Supreme Court. He extended his fervor for equal justice overseas as a consultant to President Nelson Mandela on the formation of the South African Constitution and as an advocate for democracy education in South Africa. Not surprisingly, Judge Higginbotham was recognized with numerous awards for his leadership as jurist, historian, scholar, advocate, mentor and ordinary citizen. His many honors include the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Raoul Wallenberg Humanitarian Award, the NAACP Spingarn Medal, the ACLU Medal, the National Human Relations Award from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Silver Gavel Award from the American Bar Association, the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Outstanding Young Man Award from the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and honorary degrees from over 60 universities. Judge Higginbotham is remembered by many, including me, as a true American hero: a giant among men, who began his life in the most modest of circumstances, yet rose to extraordinary heights. Rosa Parks, another American whose own story continues to inspire us, appropriately noted after his passing, ``I think he really had a great idea that we are all equal people.'' Rosa Parks'' words capture what I believe to be the essence of Judge Higginbotham's legacy: he helped pry open the doors leading to the American dream for ordinary people from all walks of life. So in this month when we celebrate the achievements of African Americans, I am honored to pay tribute to Leon Higginbotham's life of courage and commitment to justice; of integrity and intellect; his life of advocacy and action, service and scholarship. Judge Higginbotham's life was a testament to the enduring power of the words ``we shall overcome.'' Leon Higginbotham helped our Nation move closer to the ideal expressed on the building across the street from this chamber: ``Equal Justice under Law.'' We are proud to have his wife, Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, as well as numerous family members, friends, former clerks and colleagues here with us today as we honor his life and work and seek to keep the flame of Leon Higginbotham burning ever brightly.

Mr. CASEY

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