Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Schumer for his leadership on these issues. I rise today, like so many this morning, to talk about something we refer to by way of acronym. In case someone is just tuning in, when we are talking about FHA, we are talking about the Federal Housing Administration. We are talking about home ownership, the dream of home ownership which is so much a part of the American dream, and today we have an opportunity to pass legislation, a modernization bill for the FHA, which will reform FHA lending programs to make them a more viable alternative for borrowers looking to purchase or to refinance a home. By way of history, back in the depths and the darkness of the Depression in 1934, a single-family FHA mortgage insurance program was created to help spur the housing market and increase home ownership-- just what we are trying to do today in 2007. FHA made the low- downpayment, 30-year fixed-rate loan the standard product of the United States and has traditionally played a role in providing home purchase financing to minority, first-time, and lower income home buyers. This bill does a number of things. We have heard them, but I will go through the list again briefly. First, increasing loan limits. This is so important at this present time to help the middle class of America. Second, this legislation streamlines the borrowing process to make it faster and more efficient. Everyone here has been through the process of borrowing money. It is complicated enough. Anything we can do to streamline that will help consumers and future homeowners. Third, it increases prepurchase counseling for borrowers so they know how much they can afford before they buy a home. This is a part of the subprime crisis. Not nearly enough attention and resources are dedicated to counseling. This legislation helps in the context of the FHA counseling homeowners. Finally, it improves and expands the availability of reverse mortgages so that older citizens can stay in their homes longer and safely tap into the equity they built up in their home. I don't need to go into the details of the subprime crisis; we all know about it. Senators Brown, Schumer, and I authored legislation, the Borrowers Protection Act. We also have money in the budget the President is talking about vetoing, $200 million for counseling. It will be a big mistake for the President to do that. But this modernization bill of our housing programs is focused on home-ownership preservation and providing borrowers with responsible, stable alternatives to subprime mortgages. We know we need other alternatives. Right now, the credit markets across the country and across the world remain tight, and even borrowers with good credit are having a hard time borrowing. So this bill provides realistic alternatives for hundreds of thousands of borrowers right at the time they need it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan for summarizing the important issues we worked on today that help the American people. We are grateful for her work on these issues and her great leadership. I wish to speak just for a few minutes, probably less than 2 minutes, about the farm bill. It is hard to do that because it is such a massive piece of legislation, but suffice it to say that I think when we came to this Congress a year ago--it was a brandnew Congress--we said we were going to focus on change in a new direction. I think the change we have tried to bring is a change of priorities, really. I think this farm bill is evidence of that. It is also a bipartisan effort, the whole list of things you have already heard on the specialty crops for States such as Pennsylvania, a brandnew part of the farm bill, whether it is the help that our dairy farmers in Pennsylvania will receive--not nearly enough help; we have more work to do there but certainly some new changes there. The energy title is so important to create the jobs of the future but also reduce our dependance on foreign sources of energy. The conservation and the reform efforts that were made here are important. To highlight something in the nutrition title in this bill, there is more than $5 billion of new money for nutrition, so needed by families across America. So I think we can be very proud, and I wanted to say how much I appreciate the work of the whole Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Chairman Tom Harkin did a wonderful job. The ranking member, Senator Chambliss, spoke before about Senator Conrad's contribution as the Budget chair, also sits on our Agriculture Committee. I am grateful that so much work went into this for the people, in my case, of Pennsylvania but also for the people of America.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to speak about something that is on the minds of a lot of Americans, but also something that initially was addressed by the President and by Secretary Paulson today when they announced their loan modification program as it relates to the subprime lending crisis that is engulfing many American communities and so many families. Despite all the evidence of the size and scope of the subprime crisis, this administration today unveiled what I would argue is a tepid plan that would reach only a small number of subprime borrowers. I don't think it is too late for the President or Treasury Secretary Paulson to come up with a real solution, but this plan is far too little. It is my opinion that this plan will only affect a few borrowers, not enough to meet the need. That is not just my opinion, though, it is the opinion of some experts in the industry. One in particular, Barklays Capital, is estimating that this plan announced today will reach only 12 percent of all subprime borrowers. Mr. Eric Halperin, the Director of the Center for Responsible Lending, which institution is a leading expert in this area, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: I don't see anything that leads me to believe we will see an increase in loan modifications. That is just two experts weighing in on something that is critical to so many families in America. The fact that the President and Secretary Paulson have put a kind of window dressing on these loan modifications and the problems that are caused by the subprime crisis doesn't mean that we can feel secure that they are meeting the need that we see across the country. I think the administration has to do more than just talk about this issue and take credit for having some kind of a plan because we know that more than 2 million subprime loans are about to reset at higher rates in the months ahead. This crisis has already slowed economic growth in America and has an impact the world over. It is threatening to push our economy into recession, and still the President and the administration are not willing to truly help homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. The Treasury Secretary has known about these problems for some time, as has the administration. I am afraid when Members of Congress weigh in on this problem, as so many have--with legislation, with suggestions, with ideas--the administration tends to ignore that advice or ignore that plea for help. Just this week I sent a letter to Secretary Paulson which was signed by a number of other Senators-- Senator Schumer, Senator Brown, and also Senator Dodd. We asked the Secretary to consider basically five considerations. Let me read what we asked him to examine as he and the President were preparing the plan they released today. No. 1, we asked he ensure the eligibility for modification not be too narrow and that people who are affected have every opportunity to ensure that they remain in their home. No. 2, we asked they make sure loan modifications are long enough to ensure the long-term affordability of the mortgages and not merely delay a foreclosure. No. 3, we asked to waive all prepayment penalties. I think that is a reasonable request in this kind of crisis. No. 4, we asked the Secretary to guarantee the fair treatment of families that are not able to avoid foreclosure, even with modifications. No. 5, make sure the modification program must be transparent to allow for independent monitoring. Of these five key points, these five requests, really, it is only clear that one has been addressed. One has been addressed by freezing rates for 5 years. A plan that affects only 10 to 12 percent of borrowers, can that kind of plan qualify and can most borrowers have confidence in such a plan? I don't think so. Unfortunately, Secretary Paulson and the President have come up far too short on their recommendations. So many people here, not just in Washington but across the country, know the effects of this crisis on our country--obviously on families and their ability to make ends meet month to month, paying the bills, but also the effect on the economy, really on the world economy. We know, for example, the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am a member--the Presiding Officer is also a member, a proud member from the State of Minnesota. She knows when our committee had a chance to review this issue we issued a study, not too long ago, about how much this problem will cost. Just let me give you a couple of numbers which are relevant: 2 million foreclosures. We have heard a lot about that, but we know 2 million will occur by the time the riskiest subprime adjustable rate mortgages, the ARMS, will reset over the course of this year and next year. Many thought the crisis was behind us, that we were kind of over the hump. A lot of experts believe the worst is yet to come. That is why we needed a real plan by the President, not a half- baked plan. No. 2, the Joint Economic Committee found that approximately $71 billion in housing wealth will be directly destroyed--$71 billion in housing wealth will be directly destroyed. There is another $32 billion on top of that, $32 billion in housing wealth that will be indirectly destroyed by the spillover effect of foreclosures which reduce the values throughout a neighborhood. States across the country will lose some $917 million in property tax revenue because of this crisis. The 10 States with the greatest number of estimated foreclosures, of course, are some of the larger States: California, Florida, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, and my home State of Pennsylvania. I am sure the State of the Presiding Officer, Minnesota, is probably close to the top as well. But there are several others close to that ranking. Finally, in terms of the findings of this particular report, on top of the losses due to foreclosure, this report also says there will be a 10-percent decline in housing prices, which would lead to a $2.3 trillion economic loss. We could go on and on about what the problem is, but we know there are some solutions on the table. I am one of the cosponsors, along with Senators Schumer and Brown, of the Borrowers Protection Act, which imposes obligations on some of the players in this market who have not been regulated, frankly, have not been cracked down on, the so-called unregulated brokers and originators. This legislation, the Borrowers Protection Act, would do that looking forward, but also in the present context we have pushed very hard, and the Senate has already passed legislation--of course, the President, like he is about a lot of things, is talking about vetoing this legislation--in which we do have $200 million set aside for foreclosure counseling, which a lot of families need and a lot of homeowners have a right to expect. There are some short-term and long-term things that we can do but, unfortunately, what the President and the Secretary did today does not meet that. I want to conclude by quickly moving to another topic for just a few moments before my time is up.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, to highlight something that was in the New York Times last Friday--it was Friday, November 30--at the bottom of page A12, in the midst of all of this discussion we have had in this country over the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran--and properly so that we debate that and discuss that--all of the discussion on crises and challenges in our foreign policies that threaten our national security, the ongoing debate about Iraq, in the midst of all of that, we see in the New York Times and other publications a headline that reads as follows: In Slovakia, three are held in a uranium smuggling case. What is this all about? Well, it is about what a lot of people believe is maybe the greatest nightmare we face in the country: that a small group of terrorists can get a hold of fissile material and create a nuclear weapon, any kind of even unsophisticated nuclear weapon or dirty bomb--however you want to describe the various types of weapons that can be developed--and explode it in an American city or explode it in a Western city, maybe, across the world. But here is what happened in this case. This is cause for alarm because of the lack of attention that is being paid to this issue in the press, frankly, and also when the press asks Presidential candidates questions in debates because it has not been a subject of much debate at all. I am talking about three individuals, two Hungarians and a Ukrainian, who were arrested last Wednesday after trying to sell highly enriched uranium, according to diplomats in that part of the world. Now, it was only half a kilogram, and the poundage was very limited. We know you need a lot more kilograms, a lot more pounds to have a real threat. But here is the problem. We have an administration that has had a series of recommendations made to it over many years now about ways we can prevent this nightmare from taking place. I gave a speech a couple of weeks ago, and a lot of Members of this body have been concerned about this issue for years. But the administration has not shown the kind of leadership we need to prevent the nightmare of nuclear terrorism. What can we do? Well, there are a couple of things we can do. Very simply, this country could lead an effort, an international effort to create a global library of fissile material so we can track this material if an explosion occurred or if a terrorist attack occurred. Countries would be accountable if we did that. But this administration has not shown a willingness to show real leadership on this issue. Secondly, we should treat an issue such as this as a crime against humanity. That is another step which should be taken, and this administration should lead that effort. Unfortunately, they have not. They have allowed a real gap in the work to persist so that other groups, international groups, groups here in America, nonproliferation groups across the country have had to take up the ball, so to speak, and run with it because this administration does not show the leadership. I would ask this administration, I would implore them that even in the last year of an 8-year administration, they take this issue very seriously, even if this particular case that was pointed out in the New York Times and other places was by a small group of very unsophisticated people across the world. At some point in time, we are going to be faced with the challenge of a very sophisticated group of terrorists. It might be al-Qaida, which is seeking to do this every day of the week. That is the nightmare, and we are not prepared for it, we are not spending enough time on it. The administration should lead this effort. The next administration as well as this Congress has to show leadership. That is a gentle but firm reminder from a story just last week. It is a real threat to our existence, and it is a threat to our national security in and of itself. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EAT SAFE Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, Senator Grassley, to introduce this important piece of food safety legislation. As we have all seen this past year, in the wake of massive recalls of pet food manufactured using contaminated Chinese gluten and consumer warnings about the safety of various imported food products, ensuring the safety of food products and food ingredients being brought into this country from other nations has taken on a greater urgency. A report issued in September by the President's Interagency Working Group on Import Safety acknowledged that ``aspects of our present import system must be strengthened to promote security, safety, and trade for the benefit of American consumers.'' The EAT SAFE Act that we are introducing today is designed to address one of those critical aspects of the food and agricultural import system that, in the face of the mounting imported food safety crisis, has received little public focus. That issue is food and other agricultural products that are being smuggled into the U.S. When many people think of food smuggling, they likely think of it as something that occurs when travelers attempt to bring small amounts of foreign food or agricultural products into the U.S. by concealing it in their vehicles, luggage, or other personal affects. While this type of smuggling is unquestionably a problem that U.S. authorities must and do address, the larger threat of smuggled food and agricultural products comes from the companies, importers, and individuals who circumvent U.S. inspection requirements or restrictions on imports of certain products from a particular country. The ways in which these companies, importers, and individuals circumvent the system can happen in any number of ways. Many times smuggled products are intentionally mislabeled and bear the identification of a product that can legally enter the country. Other times, smuggled products gain import entry through falsifying the products' countries of origin. And, many times, products that have previously been denied entry are later ``shopped around,'' that is, presented to another U.S. port of entry in the effort to gain importation undetected. Just some examples of prohibited products discovered in commerce in the United States in recent years include duck parts from Vietnam and poultry products from China, both nations with confirmed human cases of avian influenza; unpasteurized raw cheeses from Mexico containing a bacterium that causes tuberculosis; strawberries from Mexico contaminated with hepatitis A; and mislabeled puffer fish from China containing a potentially deadly toxin. These smuggled food and agriculture products present safety risks to our food, plants, and animals, and pose a threat to our Nation's health, economy, and security. The EAT SAFE Act addresses these serious risks by applying commonsense measures to protect our food and agricultural supply. This legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to bolster their efforts by hiring additional personnel to detect and track smuggled products. It also authorizes funding to provide food safety cross training for Homeland Security Agricultural Specialists and agricultural cross training for Customs' Border Patrol Agents to ensure that those men and women working on the front lines are knowledgeable about these serious food and agricultural threats. In addition to focusing on increased personal and training, the EAT SAFE Act also seeks to increase importer accountability. The legislation requires private laboratories conducting tests on FDA- regulated products on behalf of importers to apply for and be certified by FDA. It also imposes civil penalties for laboratories or importers who knowingly or conspire to falsify imported product laboratory sampling and for importers who circumvent the USDA import reinspection system. Finally, the EAT SAFE Act will also ensure increased public awareness of smuggled products, as well as recalled food products, by requiring the USDA and FDA to provide this information to the public in a timely and easily searchable manner. These commonsense measures are an important first step towards safeguarding Americans' food and agricultural supply and ensuring our Nation's health, economy, and security. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the EAT SAFE Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, Senator Grassley, to introduce this important piece of food safety legislation. As we have all seen this past year, in the wake of massive recalls of pet food manufactured using contaminated Chinese gluten and consumer warnings about the safety of various imported food products, ensuring the safety of food products and food ingredients being brought into this country from other nations has taken on a greater urgency. A report issued in September by the President's Interagency Working Group on Import Safety acknowledged that ``aspects of our present import system must be strengthened to promote security, safety, and trade for the benefit of American consumers.'' The EAT SAFE Act that we are introducing today is designed to address one of those critical aspects of the food and agricultural import system that, in the face of the mounting imported food safety crisis, has received little public focus. That issue is food and other agricultural products that are being smuggled into the U.S. When many people think of food smuggling, they likely think of it as something that occurs when travelers attempt to bring small amounts of foreign food or agricultural products into the U.S. by concealing it in their vehicles, luggage, or other personal affects. While this type of smuggling is unquestionably a problem that U.S. authorities must and do address, the larger threat of smuggled food and agricultural products comes from the companies, importers, and individuals who circumvent U.S. inspection requirements or restrictions on imports of certain products from a particular country. The ways in which these companies, importers, and individuals circumvent the system can happen in any number of ways. Many times smuggled products are intentionally mislabeled and bear the identification of a product that can legally enter the country. Other times, smuggled products gain import entry through falsifying the products' countries of origin. And, many times, products that have previously been denied entry are later ``shopped around,'' that is, presented to another U.S. port of entry in the effort to gain importation undetected. Just some examples of prohibited products discovered in commerce in the United States in recent years include duck parts from Vietnam and poultry products from China, both nations with confirmed human cases of avian influenza; unpasteurized raw cheeses from Mexico containing a bacterium that causes tuberculosis; strawberries from Mexico contaminated with hepatitis A; and mislabeled puffer fish from China containing a potentially deadly toxin. These smuggled food and agriculture products present safety risks to our food, plants, and animals, and pose a threat to our Nation's health, economy, and security. The EAT SAFE Act addresses these serious risks by applying commonsense measures to protect our food and agricultural supply. This legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to bolster their efforts by hiring additional personnel to detect and track smuggled products. It also authorizes funding to provide food safety cross training for Homeland Security Agricultural Specialists and agricultural cross training for Customs' Border Patrol Agents to ensure that those men and women working on the front lines are knowledgeable about these serious food and agricultural threats. In addition to focusing on increased personal and training, the EAT SAFE Act also seeks to increase importer accountability. The legislation requires private laboratories conducting tests on FDA- regulated products on behalf of importers to apply for and be certified by FDA. It also imposes civil penalties for laboratories or importers who knowingly or conspire to falsify imported product laboratory sampling and for importers who circumvent the USDA import reinspection system. Finally, the EAT SAFE Act will also ensure increased public awareness of smuggled products, as well as recalled food products, by requiring the USDA and FDA to provide this information to the public in a timely and easily searchable manner. These commonsense measures are an important first step towards safeguarding Americans' food and agricultural supply and ensuring our Nation's health, economy, and security. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.) Without objection, it is so ordered. (The remarks of Mr. Casey pertaining to the introduction of S. 2407 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about members of the American family whom we all care about, and I think all of us do in this chamber and across America, but for whom we do not do nearly enough to support, and those members of the American family are pregnant women. I remember, as so many others do in the life of the family the times my wife Terese learned that she was pregnant, and even through I, of course, cannot ever experience it directly, I knew and I know now through her and my sisters' experience that that moment is indelible, and it is unforgettable in the life of a woman, in the life of a family, the moment she finds out that she is pregnant. For many women this is a moment, of course, of great joy. It is the moment where they learn they are pregnant and they appreciate the miracle of pregnancy. And perhaps it has been long awaited or in the case of a particular woman and her family, perhaps it is something of a surprise. But for many women, for many families, it is a welcome surprise. Many of these women do not need help beyond what their families can provide them and what others may receive in terms of adequate support from our existing framework of support within this country, so they do not feel they have any great burden at that moment. But there is another circumstance other pregnant women may face. And for those pregnant women, and for one, in particular, if we can imagine who that person is in the life, in our own lives, people we have known, for that woman the moment of discovery that she is pregnant unfortunately is not a moment of joy. For her it is a moment of terror or panic or even shame in some circumstances. She may be in a doctor's office or a clinic or she may be at home. But for her that moment begins a crisis, a real crisis in her life, in which she feels overwhelmingly and perhaps almost unbearably alone, all alone. She could be wealthy, middle income, or poor. Most likely, in our country, unfortunately, she would be poor. But whatever her income, that woman at that moment in that circumstance feels very simply all alone. A pregnant woman may have an abusive spouse or boyfriend, for example, that person who is tormenting her at that moment, and that will continue. At that moment for her, she is all alone with no help at all. Another pregnant woman may believe she cannot support or care for a new baby at this point in her life. She too is all alone. Another woman might believe her financial situation is so precarious that she cannot care for or raise a child. She may also feel alone and even helpless. We know the staggering numbers in America today: 48 percent of all pregnancies are unintended; excluding cases of after miscarriages, 54 percent of those unintended pregnancies end in abortion. The response: ``cannot afford a baby,'' is the second most frequently cited reason why women choose to have an abortion. And 73 percent of women having abortions citing this reason: ``cannot afford a baby,'' cite this reason as a contributing factor in their decision. So a woman who is facing the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy, that may be a crisis for her, does not need, does not need a lecture from a politician and does not need a clinical reminder that she just has a simple choice to make. The choice is never simple, never, and this woman needs support and love and understanding. She needs to be embraced in a time of crisis in her life, not sent on her way to deal with this question on her own. She needs our help and she needs us to walk with her, not only through the 9 months of her pregnancy, but also for the early months and years of her child's life. We in the Congress, both House and Senate, both parties, need to address this issue in a comprehensive way that meets those needs that woman has in her life. Some Members in this body for years, and up to the current day, have initiated good efforts. We should applaud those efforts and support them. In some cases there is support for them. But I believe neither political party is doing enough for pregnant women in America today-- neither party. While there is tremendous disagreement about how best to do this, there is one significant area of common ground. Despite all we hear in Washington, there is, on these questions, one area of common ground, one thing we all agree upon, and that is, we all want to reduce the number of abortions. We all want to help as many pregnant women, as many families as we can. Many women who have had abortions do so very reluctantly. While choice is a term that is widely used in this debate, many women who face unplanned pregnancies do not feel, do not feel they have a genuine choice. And that is why for so many reasons I am introducing new legislation, the Pregnant Women Support Act. With this bill it is my fervent hope that a new dialog, a kind of common ground, will emerge on how we can reduce abortion by offering pregnant women real choices and real help. Let me outline a couple of provisions of the bill. This bill will, first of all, assist pregnant and parenting teens to finish high school and prepare for college or vocational training. Next, it will help pregnant college students stay in school, offering them counseling as well as assistance with continuing their education, parenting support classes, and also childcare assistance. Third, it will provide counseling and shelter to pregnant women in abusive relationships who may be fearful of continuing a pregnancy in a crisis situation. It will establish a national toll-free hotline and a public awareness campaign to offer women support and knowledge about options and resources available to them when they face an unplanned pregnancy. It will give women free sonogram examinations by providing grants for the purchase of ultrasound equipment. It will provide parents with information about genetic disability testing, including support for parents who receive a diagnosis of Downs syndrome. It will ensure that pregnant women receive prenatal and postnatal care by eliminating pregnancy as a preexisting condition in the individual health care market, and also eliminating waiting periods for women with prior coverage. It will establish a nurse home visitation program for pregnant and first-time mothers as an eligible benefit under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, what we refer to here as SCHIP. We know it means Children's Health Insurance. One example of this home visitation program is the nurse-family partnership, an evidence-based program and national model in which nurses mentor young first-time and primarily low-income mothers, establishing a supportive relationship with both mother and child. Studies have shown this program to be both cost effective and hugely successful in terms of life outcomes for both mothers and their children. This legislation will increase funding for the Women, Infants and Children Program, known as the WIC Program, providing nutrition assistance, counseling and education, obesity prevention, breastfeeding support, prenatal and pediatric health care referrals, immunization screening and referral, and a host of other services for mothers and their children. Next, it will expand nutritional support for low-income parents by increasing the income eligibility levels for food stamps. It will increase funding for the childcare and development block grant program, which is the primary source of Federal funding for childcare assistance for low-income parents. Finally, it will provide support for adoption as an alternative to abortion and make the adoption tax credit permanent. I introduced this bill with the deepest conviction that we can indeed find common ground. I believe we can transform this debate by focusing upon the issues that unite us and not the issues that divide us. As most people know who cover the Senate and understand what happens here and where candidates stand, most people know this already, but I am a pro-life Democrat, and I believe life begins at conception and ends when we draw our last breath. I also believe the role of Government is to protect, enrich, and value life for everyone, at every moment, from beginning to end. I believe we as a nation have to do more to support women and their children when they are most vulnerable, during pregnancy and early childhood. I also strongly support, and have for years, family planning programs, because they avoid sometimes those dark moments when a woman, often alone, faces a pregnancy she feels she cannot handle. I also support family planning programs precisely because they reduce the number of abortions. But that is not the issue I address today. Today, with this bill, I am focused on the woman who is pregnant, and I am asking myself, and I think Congress and the administration, as any Congress and any administration has to ask themselves this fundamental question: For that woman who is facing that crisis in her life, we have to ask ourselves, as a Congress and as a society: What more can we do? What more can we do to help her? That is the question we must continually ask. I think if we ask that question today, the answer, unfortunately, is: Not enough. We are not doing enough. I believe there is more common ground in America than we might realize on these questions, if only we focus on how we can truly help and support that woman who wishes to carry her pregnancy to term and how we can give her and her child what they need to begin healthy and productive lives together. For the past 34 years, unfortunately, the issue of abortion has been used mostly as a way to divide people, even as the number of abortions remains and still remains unacceptably high. We have to find a better way. I believe this legislation, the Pregnant Women Support Act, is a part of that better way. I believe we must look toward real solutions to the issue of abortion by targeting the underlying factors that often lead women to make the decision to have an abortion. This is precisely what this act, the Pregnant Women Support Act, will do. I really believe when it comes to this issue of helping a pregnant woman, we need to consider what our obligations are. I think we can state it very simply: We need to walk in solidarity with her, in her pregnancy, especially when it is an unplanned pregnancy, and we need to support her and give her all the help we can at this time in her life. That is exactly what this bill does for women who may find themselves in a position where they are facing one of the most difficult situations in their life. The woman who has no one to turn to for advice, for counsel, or for support, we have got to be there for her at that moment and for a long time thereafter. I truly believe there are few things more terrifying than the prospect of supporting another human being when you have no support of your own. Unfortunately, far too many women face that decision, face that crisis. So I believe reducing the number of abortions should not be a partisan issue. It should not pit Republicans against Democrats. So what do I seek? I seek common ground, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in seeking real solutions that will unite us in providing life with dignity, before--before--and after the birth of a child, for a pregnant woman, for her family, and for her child. Surely, we must all agree that no woman should ever have to face the crisis of an unplanned pregnancy all alone.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about members of the American family whom we all care about, and I think all of us do in this chamber and across America, but for whom we do not do nearly enough to support, and those members of the American family are pregnant women. I remember, as so many others do in the life of the family the times my wife Terese learned that she was pregnant, and even through I, of course, cannot ever experience it directly, I knew and I know now through her and my sisters' experience that that moment is indelible, and it is unforgettable in the life of a woman, in the life of a family, the moment she finds out that she is pregnant. For many women this is a moment, of course, of great joy. It is the moment where they learn they are pregnant and they appreciate the miracle of pregnancy. And perhaps it has been long awaited or in the case of a particular woman and her family, perhaps it is something of a surprise. But for many women, for many families, it is a welcome surprise. Many of these women do not need help beyond what their families can provide them and what others may receive in terms of adequate support from our existing framework of support within this country, so they do not feel they have any great burden at that moment. But there is another circumstance other pregnant women may face. And for those pregnant women, and for one, in particular, if we can imagine who that person is in the life, in our own lives, people we have known, for that woman the moment of discovery that she is pregnant unfortunately is not a moment of joy. For her it is a moment of terror or panic or even shame in some circumstances. She may be in a doctor's office or a clinic or she may be at home. But for her that moment begins a crisis, a real crisis in her life, in which she feels overwhelmingly and perhaps almost unbearably alone, all alone. She could be wealthy, middle income, or poor. Most likely, in our country, unfortunately, she would be poor. But whatever her income, that woman at that moment in that circumstance feels very simply all alone. A pregnant woman may have an abusive spouse or boyfriend, for example, that person who is tormenting her at that moment, and that will continue. At that moment for her, she is all alone with no help at all. Another pregnant woman may believe she cannot support or care for a new baby at this point in her life. She too is all alone. Another woman might believe her financial situation is so precarious that she cannot care for or raise a child. She may also feel alone and even helpless. We know the staggering numbers in America today: 48 percent of all pregnancies are unintended; excluding cases of after miscarriages, 54 percent of those unintended pregnancies end in abortion. The response: ``cannot afford a baby,'' is the second most frequently cited reason why women choose to have an abortion. And 73 percent of women having abortions citing this reason: ``cannot afford a baby,'' cite this reason as a contributing factor in their decision. So a woman who is facing the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy, that may be a crisis for her, does not need, does not need a lecture from a politician and does not need a clinical reminder that she just has a simple choice to make. The choice is never simple, never, and this woman needs support and love and understanding. She needs to be embraced in a time of crisis in her life, not sent on her way to deal with this question on her own. She needs our help and she needs us to walk with her, not only through the 9 months of her pregnancy, but also for the early months and years of her child's life. We in the Congress, both House and Senate, both parties, need to address this issue in a comprehensive way that meets those needs that woman has in her life. Some Members in this body for years, and up to the current day, have initiated good efforts. We should applaud those efforts and support them. In some cases there is support for them. But I believe neither political party is doing enough for pregnant women in America today-- neither party. While there is tremendous disagreement about how best to do this, there is one significant area of common ground. Despite all we hear in Washington, there is, on these questions, one area of common ground, one thing we all agree upon, and that is, we all want to reduce the number of abortions. We all want to help as many pregnant women, as many families as we can. Many women who have had abortions do so very reluctantly. While choice is a term that is widely used in this debate, many women who face unplanned pregnancies do not feel, do not feel they have a genuine choice. And that is why for so many reasons I am introducing new legislation, the Pregnant Women Support Act. With this bill it is my fervent hope that a new dialog, a kind of common ground, will emerge on how we can reduce abortion by offering pregnant women real choices and real help. Let me outline a couple of provisions of the bill. This bill will, first of all, assist pregnant and parenting teens to finish high school and prepare for college or vocational training. Next, it will help pregnant college students stay in school, offering them counseling as well as assistance with continuing their education, parenting support classes, and also childcare assistance. Third, it will provide counseling and shelter to pregnant women in abusive relationships who may be fearful of continuing a pregnancy in a crisis situation. It will establish a national toll-free hotline and a public awareness campaign to offer women support and knowledge about options and resources available to them when they face an unplanned pregnancy. It will give women free sonogram examinations by providing grants for the purchase of ultrasound equipment. It will provide parents with information about genetic disability testing, including support for parents who receive a diagnosis of Downs syndrome. It will ensure that pregnant women receive prenatal and postnatal care by eliminating pregnancy as a preexisting condition in the individual health care market, and also eliminating waiting periods for women with prior coverage. It will establish a nurse home visitation program for pregnant and first-time mothers as an eligible benefit under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, what we refer to here as SCHIP. We know it means Children's Health Insurance. One example of this home visitation program is the nurse-family partnership, an evidence-based program and national model in which nurses mentor young first-time and primarily low-income mothers, establishing a supportive relationship with both mother and child. Studies have shown this program to be both cost effective and hugely successful in terms of life outcomes for both mothers and their children. This legislation will increase funding for the Women, Infants and Children Program, known as the WIC Program, providing nutrition assistance, counseling and education, obesity prevention, breastfeeding support, prenatal and pediatric health care referrals, immunization screening and referral, and a host of other services for mothers and their children. Next, it will expand nutritional support for low-income parents by increasing the income eligibility levels for food stamps. It will increase funding for the childcare and development block grant program, which is the primary source of Federal funding for childcare assistance for low-income parents. Finally, it will provide support for adoption as an alternative to abortion and make the adoption tax credit permanent. I introduced this bill with the deepest conviction that we can indeed find common ground. I believe we can transform this debate by focusing upon the issues that unite us and not the issues that divide us. As most people know who cover the Senate and understand what happens here and where candidates stand, most people know this already, but I am a pro-life Democrat, and I believe life begins at conception and ends when we draw our last breath. I also believe the role of Government is to protect, enrich, and value life for everyone, at every moment, from beginning to end. I believe we as a nation have to do more to support women and their children when they are most vulnerable, during pregnancy and early childhood. I also strongly support, and have for years, family planning programs, because they avoid sometimes those dark moments when a woman, often alone, faces a pregnancy she feels she cannot handle. I also support family planning programs precisely because they reduce the number of abortions. But that is not the issue I address today. Today, with this bill, I am focused on the woman who is pregnant, and I am asking myself, and I think Congress and the administration, as any Congress and any administration has to ask themselves this fundamental question: For that woman who is facing that crisis in her life, we have to ask ourselves, as a Congress and as a society: What more can we do? What more can we do to help her? That is the question we must continually ask. I think if we ask that question today, the answer, unfortunately, is: Not enough. We are not doing enough. I believe there is more common ground in America than we might realize on these questions, if only we focus on how we can truly help and support that woman who wishes to carry her pregnancy to term and how we can give her and her child what they need to begin healthy and productive lives together. For the past 34 years, unfortunately, the issue of abortion has been used mostly as a way to divide people, even as the number of abortions remains and still remains unacceptably high. We have to find a better way. I believe this legislation, the Pregnant Women Support Act, is a part of that better way. I believe we must look toward real solutions to the issue of abortion by targeting the underlying factors that often lead women to make the decision to have an abortion. This is precisely what this act, the Pregnant Women Support Act, will do. I really believe when it comes to this issue of helping a pregnant woman, we need to consider what our obligations are. I think we can state it very simply: We need to walk in solidarity with her, in her pregnancy, especially when it is an unplanned pregnancy, and we need to support her and give her all the help we can at this time in her life. That is exactly what this bill does for women who may find themselves in a position where they are facing one of the most difficult situations in their life. The woman who has no one to turn to for advice, for counsel, or for support, we have got to be there for her at that moment and for a long time thereafter. I truly believe there are few things more terrifying than the prospect of supporting another human being when you have no support of your own. Unfortunately, far too many women face that decision, face that crisis. So I believe reducing the number of abortions should not be a partisan issue. It should not pit Republicans against Democrats. So what do I seek? I seek common ground, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in seeking real solutions that will unite us in providing life with dignity, before--before--and after the birth of a child, for a pregnant woman, for her family, and for her child. Surely, we must all agree that no woman should ever have to face the crisis of an unplanned pregnancy all alone.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, the United States today faces a broad set of national security challenges, so many of them, but just to name a few: initiating a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraq, preventing the Taliban from making a comeback in Afghanistan, addressing the current turmoil in Pakistan, responding to antidemocratic trends in Russia. Our whole country has a full plate of national security challenges. So today I wish to speak about one of those, but I think it is at the top of the list, and I think it is an issue that has not received nearly enough attention in the Senate or in the other body. It is a longer term threat that has not received the attention it deserves, but I believe this issue is the single greatest peril to this great Nation, and that is the prospect that a terrorist group, possibly with the active support of a nation state, will detonate an improvised nuclear weapon in an American city. I commend those who have displayed outstanding leadership on this issue, many of these individuals over several years, if not, in some cases, decades. Former Senator Nunn, of course, has been a leader on this issue; Senator Lugar, a colleague of ours and the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, a committee on which I have the honor to serve; and, of course, the chairman of that committee, Senator Joe Biden. All of these individuals and others have worked on this issue for many years. In the weeks following 9/11, a lot of Americans know our intelligence community picked up a very frightening report from an agent. It was rumored that al-Qaida had acquired a Soviet-era nuclear weapon and had managed to smuggle it into New York City. The response of our Government, although secret at the time, was swift. Teams of experts were deployed across New York City with state-of-the-art detection equipment in an effort to track down this bomb before it exploded. The threat was ultimately discounted. There was no nuclear weapon inside the United States at that time. The intelligence community's agent had bad information. But what is so frightening about these events is that it is entirely plausible that al-Qaida could have smuggled a nuclear weapon into our Nation. One can only imagine the retrospective questions that would have followed such a horrific attack. What could our Federal Government have done to prevent such a detonation, we would ask. What policies or programs did we fail to prioritize? And, thirdly, how could we not have appreciated the urgency and the magnitude of the threat of nuclear terrorism? I hope we never have to ask and answer those questions. But here we are 6 years later and neither the United States nor any other nation has been forced to confront the aftermath of a terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon. Yet I regret to say we cannot rely upon good luck continuing indefinitely. The threat of nuclear terrorism persists, and the United States and the international community are failing to move quickly enough to neutralize this threat. Why am I so concerned about nuclear terrorism and the challenges that it poses, not just for the world of today but for the world of our children and the world of our grandchildren? Some may ask that, and in response I just will cite a couple examples as to why I and everyone in this body should be concerned. No. 1, last year a Russian citizen was arrested in Georgia on charges of seeking to smuggle 100 grams of highly enriched uranium on the local black market in that country, with the promise made that he could deliver another 2 to 3 kilograms of highly enriched uranium at a later time. This arrest on smuggling charges is only one of hundreds involving fissile material that have emerged since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. The good news is the quantities detected so far have been very small. The bad news is, just as with drug trafficking, those transactions come to our attention only after a fraction of what may actually be occurring. No. 2, too many facilities across the globe do not yet have the security safeguards we should demand for stockpiles of fissile material. Today, as many as 40 nations--40 nations--possess the key materials and components required to assemble a nuclear weapon. Surprisingly, we don't fully understand the magnitude of this problem. Among other experts, Dr. Matthew Bunn, a leading expert on nuclear terrorism, reports that neither the United States nor the International Atomic Energy Agency--we know from the news as IAEA--has a comprehensive prioritized list assessing which facilities around the world pose the most serious risk of nuclear theft. Finally, the third example I would cite in terms of why this is such an important issue and important question is, a columnist by the name of David Ignatius, with the Washington Post, reported last month that a senior Energy Department intelligence official had briefed the President and other administration officials that al-Qaida is engaged in a long-term mission--a long-term mission--to acquire a nuclear weapon to use against the United States. According to this report by a senior Energy Department official, al-Qaida may have held off against further attacks against our Nation since 9/11 to focus on attaining a nuclear weapon. Madam President, I do have good news in this area. It is a serious topic, but there is some good news to report, although it also presents a challenge to us. The good news is, we know exactly what needs to be done to address the threat of nuclear terrorism. And a terrorist group as sophisticated as al-Qaida cannot build a nuclear weapon from scratch. The production of nuclear weapons and the fissile material that gives these nuclear weapons their deadly explosive power remains a capacity limited to a national government. A terrorist group can acquire a nuclear weapon through several means: It can purchase or steal a completed warhead from a state, or it can acquire the weapons- grade plutonium or enriched uranium at the core of a nuclear warhead to devise an improvised nuclear device. Thus, if the United States works in concert with other nations to ``lock down'' nuclear warheads and weapons grade materials around the world, we can prevent terrorists from accessing this material in the first place. We are making some progress on this front through programs such as the Nunn-Lugar effort--named after Senators Nunn and Lugar. This effort to dismantle nuclear weapons and secure excess nuclear materials is playing out, but we are not moving fast enough. Additional funding is required but, perhaps even more important, high-level attention at the level of Presidents and Prime Ministers is necessary to break through the bureaucratic obstacles and political inertia blocking more rapid security gains. After 9/11, the President should have made nuclear terrorism a key international priority, raising it to the very top of the U.S.-Russian agenda, for example. Instead, this administration continued a business- as-usual approach. I believe this was a gross misjudgment. This issue cries out for Presidential leadership. But as vital as cooperative threat reduction programs are, we must go above and beyond them if we are to be successful in deterring a nuclear attack or nuclear terrorism. Not only should we do everything we can to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring the means to detonate a nuclear weapon, we must also fortify our capability to deter their use. A terrorist group such as al-Qaida is undeterred, but states, and certainly the states from which al-Qaida would acquire or steal a nuclear weapon, are not undeterred. We should make sure we keep pressure on them. We must enhance our ability to threaten overwhelming retribution against any state that by inattention or lax security enables a terrorist group to detonate a nuclear warhead in the United States. We can do this in a number of ways: First, we must elevate the cost for individuals and businesses that choose to facilitate illicit smuggling of fissile material and related nuclear components. Nuclear smugglers and nuclear smuggling networks rely upon middlemen to transport fissile material and nuclear components, to forge export licenses and Customs slips, and engage in other black market activities. Too often in the past, when such individuals and businesses are caught in the act, so to speak, or with their hands dirty, they receive minimal prison sentences. For example, the Russian citizen arrested in Georgia for nuclear smuggling was sentenced to only 8 years in prison. These lax criminal penalties cannot deter future actions of nuclear smuggling. Aiding and abetting nuclear smuggling is abhorrent and should be recognized for what it is--a crime against humanity. Just as the international community has banded together in the past to stigmatize the slave trade and genocide as crimes against humanity, so too should it now do the same thing for those who help terrorist groups acquire weapons of mass destruction. The United States should be a leader in this effort. No. 2, we should be working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to establish a global library, a library of nuclear fissile material. If the IAEA were to have nuclear samples from every weapons production facility in the world, when a nuclear device exploded somewhere in the world, we could, in short order, trace the nuclear material used in that explosion to the originating reactor or production facility. The capability of a library such as this could serve as a powerful deterrent. If a state knew it could be held ultimately responsible for a nuclear detonation, it would have a far greater incentive to secure and protect its nuclear materials. Those states that refuse to cooperate with such a global library would risk condemnation and suspicion in the event of a nuclear attack. Our colleague, Senator Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has worked with the Armed Services Committee to strengthen U.S. efforts to take the first steps toward such a global library. Today, a group such as al-Qaida can get away with a nuclear attack on the United States because it does not have a fixed address at which we can easily retaliate. The same, however, does not apply to a nation that intentionally or through lax security provides the means for a terrorist group to detonate a nuclear device. The United States must leverage the same type of deterrence against those nations as it did against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Finally, we must be doing more in the overall effort to combat nuclear proliferation among states. It is a very simple equation. The more states that acquire a nuclear weapon and fissile material, the more likely it is one of those states or some of those weapons and/or fissile material may be vulnerable to theft or illicit sale to terrorist groups. That is but one reason we must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is why we must work with our international allies and partners to continue to ensure that North Korea verifiably dismantles its nuclear facilities and weapons under the Six Party Talks. This link between nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism demonstrates the importance of reinforcing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It is very difficult to imagine the utter devastation of an American city by an improvised nuclear device. It is perhaps for that reason the spectre of nuclear terrorism remains an abstract threat today. Yet before 9/11, very few of us could appreciate the dangers by commercial jet airliners hijacked by those on a suicide mission. Madam President, the time for action on the challenge of nuclear terrorism is now. We must move to bolster existing threat reduction programs, strengthen our deterrence capability against those who would perpetrate acts of nuclear terrorism, and, finally, recommit ourselves to the effort to reduce the role and the number of nuclear weapons in our world today. We do not have the luxury of time to wait. Before I relinquish the floor, I want to thank one of our great staff members for his work on this and so many other areas of our work. Jofi Joseph is one of our great legislative assistants who did a lot of work on this to prepare these remarks, and in so many other areas, and I want to commend him for his work. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, today I congratulate William Prescott Elementary School, in Scranton, PA, on receiving the prestigious Blue Ribbon Schools award from the Department of Education for its outstanding achievement in providing students with a first-rate education. William Prescott Elementary School serves just fewer than 300 students from the east side of Scranton and is part of the Scranton School District. Like many schools throughout Scranton and all of Pennsylvania, William Prescott Elementary School strives to provide the best possible opportunities and to enrich the life of each student. The administration and staff work passionately to provide a comprehensive curriculum inclusive of language arts, lab-based science, computer education, art and music education, English as a second language, special education, as well as many other courses. For the past 13 years, and particularly during the last 3, the students at William Prescott Elementary School have demonstrated steady progress in the areas of Reading and Mathematics and have far exceeded Pennsylvania's State targets. I am proud to say that the school is truly a model of educational excellence. In addition to this, and I believe this is key, the school actively works to involve parents and the community in the learning process. Through partnerships with community organizations such as the Head Start Program, the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, and Scranton Area Foundation, William Prescott Elementary School demonstrates its commitment to a comprehensive educational program that builds on personal responsibility, accentuates individual respect, and develops a love of learning. Special credit for this achievement belongs to the principal, Mr. Albert P. O'Donnell, and the teachers, for creating a safe and challenging learning environment. During my brief experience as a teacher I learned firsthand how much dedication the students, the parents, and all involved must exhibit in order to succeed at this exceptional level. It is with great pride that I congratulate William Prescott Elementary School on this outstanding achievement. I hope that their dedication and hard work inspires both young students and those serving in the field of education alike.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today, once again, to talk about a threatened veto by the President of the United States. We spent many weeks debating the Children's Health Insurance Program, months, really, when you consider all the time. People worked very hard on both sides of the aisle on children's health insurance. Yet despite all that work, despite all that bipartisanship, despite all of the hours and the energy that went into getting a bipartisan bill on children's health insurance, we have the President of the United States vetoing that legislation and threatening to veto it yet again. Unfortunately, I stand today to talk about another threatened veto. President Bush is threatening to veto the farm bill, which makes no sense at all not only because of the work that went into this bill by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, that is reason enough for him not to veto important legislation such as this, but I think it is even graver than that. It is an even graver threat than talking about vetoing legislation because when the President of the United States, if he were to carry through on his threat to veto the farm bill, he is vetoing a lot of provisions that he should not be coming out against and fighting against. The President is vetoing a farm bill which does so much for nutrition, just taking one example. We know the committee this bill came out of is not just the Agriculture Committee, it is the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and that word ``nutrition'' is critically important. To give some examples of what this means for families across America, here is what we are talking about when we talk about nutrition programs. Of course, food stamps being a big part of that, I will go through some of the elements of that program in a moment, the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, No. 2; No. 3, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, known in Washington by the acronym TEFAP--all of these programs provide children and families who would otherwise go hungry with food. The farm bill reauthorizes those programs, a Washington word ``reauthorize'' for telling us we are going to fund them again. Finally, the overall title, the section of the bill that is entitled ``Nutrition,'' that title provides over $4 billion over 5 years to help on these important priorities. So what are we talking about with food stamps? A couple of points. While the rest of the world received an increase in wages or an increase in purchasing power in parts of our Government and economy, a lot of people on food stamps were left behind the last couple of years. What are we talking about? We are talking about a couple of changes that make a lot of sense. No. 1, ending benefit erosion, and the increases we provide in this farm bill will increase the purchasing power for families who benefit from food stamps. No. 2, deducting the cost of childcare from program eligibility. That shouldn't be part of eligibility, a necessity such as childcare for working families and poor families across America. They shouldn't have to factor in childcare costs. That is a mistake, and we have changed that. Thank goodness. No. 3, protecting family investments in prepaid college funds and retirement savings. Again, when a family's income is being evaluated for eligibility, we should not include prepaid college funds. No. 4, increasing purchasing power for fruits and vegetables with a new pilot program. At long last--and I say this not just because Pennsylvania will do well, and I am happy to say we have a part of the farm bill that speaks directly to so-called speciality crops, of which fruit and vegetables are a big part of the economy of Pennsylvania and America, but this is particularly important for poor families and for children. They should have every opportunity we can provide to have the benefit of getting fresh fruits and vegetables. It is a great idea. Along those lines is an actual program, the Fruit and Vegetable Program. We are committing over $1 billion over 5 years to this important program. It expands the already-existing program so schools in every single State can participate. Does it cover every school in every school district? No; there is not enough money to do that. But it does expand that program so at least some schools in every State can participate. Finally, the Fruit and Vegetable Program targets the program to focus on hungry children to give them the healthy foods they need the most. After food stamps and the Fruit and Vegetable Program is the Emergency Food Assistance Program, known as TEFAP. This bill provides $100 million each year to purchase food that is then distributed by local food banks. Again, in addition to that, there is $50 million for the Hunger-Free Communities Program. That particular program under TEFAP is for grants to local communities to combat hunger. What does this all mean? It means feeding children in America who would otherwise go hungry and providing basic health care for children is another element I talked about earlier when I spoke of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Both of these, whether it is the farm bill investments in nutrition or whether it is children's health insurance, are about investing in our children in the dawn of their lives, but also it is about building an economy many years from now. I hope the President, when he is making a final decision about the farm bill, will take a close look at what this bill does for children, what it does for families, and what it does for our farm families all across America. We don't have time today to go through all of it, but suffice it to say this is the first time in many years we have addressed these things, and I would ask the President to look at what this farm bill does for dairy farmers. I spent time back in the cold of the winter, in Wayne County, PA, and met a young man by the name of Joe Davitt, who has a dairy farm. His father had it before him and now it is his responsibility to take on that incredibly difficult job of long hours, year after year, trying to make ends meet. Our Government, frankly, hasn't done enough to help them make ends meet in this very difficult job, and they are not asking for anything a lot of us don't get help with. This farm bill allows us to give some measure of relief; not nearly enough, but some measure of relief for dairy farmers, who are salt-of- the-earth people, who helped build this country and build our farm economy. Finally, at long last, we have a piece of legislation which takes into consideration the struggles and the challenges of dairy farms across Pennsylvania but, indeed, across the country, from one shore to the other. There is a lot to recommend in this farm bill, whether it is helping dairy farmers, whether it is an investment--long overdue--in specialty crops, and what it does for nutrition for all of America, but especially those who are vulnerable, those who happen to be poor and need help with the basic necessities of life. I hope the President, when he looks at this legislation--after he has done so much over many years now for people who make $1 million a year, or maybe they make $10 million a year, or maybe they even make $100 million or more; those Americans have gotten an awful lot of help--he will see this farm bill focuses on families in America having trouble making ends meet, whether they are farm families or whether they happen to be poor Americans who can benefit from our nutrition programs. I hope the President will consider that in the interest of fairness, but also in the interest of investing in a stronger farm economy, investing in making sure our children have the nutrition they need, and also making investments in conservation, environmental protection, and a whole series of very important elements to the farm bill. Unfortunately, I think the President, in his veto threat, is overlooking all that. I hope he changes his mind. There are some Americans who have done fine, thank you, under this President. And so for him to veto the farm bill would be contrary not just to all those interests, important interests in America--children, families, farmers, and farm families--but also it would be contrary to a lot of the work that was done by Chairman Tom Harkin, the chairman of our committee, and Ranking Member Chambliss from the State of Georgia; and not only the work they put in, but the work their staffs put in, month after month after month, working in a bipartisan way, to get this bill on the right track. It is not perfect. There will be lots of criticism of this bill, but not nearly enough criticisms are warranted to justify the veto of this legislation. We have to get this done. It is the only time we will work on this in 5 years. We need to get it done. And the President, if he is thinking of the best interests of the country, will sign the legislation. I urge the President, as respectfully as I can, not to veto the farm bill. It has broad bipartisan support. We have to get this legislation done.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Caryn Long of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of the farm bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I believe on the Democratic side we may be out of time. On the Republican side, there is time left. I ask unanimous consent to borrow some of the Republican time.

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I have a limited amount of time, but I want to highlight a couple of things about the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation. All of America knows about it. We have been debating this for weeks, and we will continue. Obviously, there are differences of opinion about what to do about health care generally. I will focus on one argument that has been made against this, that somehow if the Federal Government continues the State Children's Health Insurance Program and adds funding--we had an overwhelming vote here in the Senate, and we will have that again today, a veto-proof endorsement of the program and the dollars to back it up by an increase in the cigarette tax--what has been debated back and forth is the coverage and who gets covered and who doesn't. People across America have heard a lot about 200 percent of poverty, 300 percent of poverty. These numbers get thrown around. Two hundred percent of poverty means a family of four is making $41,300. Most of the families covered by this program and that would continue to be covered or would be added to the coverage are in that range and below 200 percent of poverty. I want to put up a chart that walks through this in terms of a family. If we look at 32 States, we have about 32 States that set the income eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance Program at 200 percent of poverty, $41,300. Of course, 201 percent would be 1 percentage point above that. So let's say a State doesn't allow and the Federal Government won't allow States to go above 200 percent of poverty. Here is what families are facing, getting by on $41,507, for an example, in a rural county in Pennsylvania. If you look at a family of four with two children, take-home income is $2,893; housing, $726; childcare, $1,129--even if you got a child credit, it would still be a big number; $609 for food; $446 for transportation; phone service, $45; total $2,955. That is their expenses. Then you add in the number from up top, the income level, the monthly income, the differential between the income and the expenses, you get a minus of $62. Let's say that is off by a couple hundred dollars. Let's say those numbers are off by a few hundred dollars give or take. It doesn't matter. Because either way you cut it, if a family is faced with the basic necessities of life, not factoring in school supplies, not factoring in an emergency for a child hospitalization, not factoring in other things that families have to deal with every day, whether it is an extra rent payment or an increase in rent, whether it is a pair of shoes or sneakers for a child, none of that is factored in there, this family is still behind at 201 percent of the poverty level. I have been hearing for weeks from the President--we have all heard from him when he makes public pronouncements--that somehow this program is going to families who don't need it; their incomes are too high; it will go above that. Yet now you have Senate and House negotiators who have worked out an agreement where they put a ceiling at 300 percent because of objections that were raised. I don't know what more we can do. The President apparently thinks this program works. He says he supports it. His measly increase would actually lead to a reduction of the number of American children who are covered. But he says he supports the program. He says he wants to increase it. He said, when campaigning, that we should add millions more. Yet he is the roadblock in front of progress on this issue. This illustration is right on target in terms of what a real family faces. One more point about this. Think about what it costs; even if you have a family who has coverage through their employer, that family may have to deal with a similar situation. We all know that the average monthly premium for family coverage is about $300. In either scenario, they are up against a lot paying for children's health insurance, and this is at a fairly low income level for a family of four. That argument makes no sense. I will conclude with one other argument. There were representations made over many weeks now by the President. He kept pointing to States such as New York and New Jersey as examples of how these numbers would get too high and the income levels would get too high. I can debate him on that point, but I will put that aside for a moment. What he didn't talk about and what some of his allies have not talked about is the fact that this isn't just about what happens to children in urban areas. We know from history, from 10 years of evidence, this program not only works generally, but it works particularly well for poor kids. It works particularly well for African-American children. We have cut that rate of uninsured a lot. It works particularly well for urban children who happen to be Hispanic. But what the President doesn't want to admit is that it also helps a lot for rural children. Today in America one-third of all rural children--we have a lot in Pennsylvania, a lot of children who live in rural communities--get Medicaid or SCHIP. Thank God we have those programs for rural kids and for urban kids and all the rest. I will give you two examples, and then I will conclude. Pennsylvania has a broad middle. We have a lot of smaller counties, many of them rural. To give you two examples: Clarion County and Huntingdon County-- one is in the middle of Pennsylvania toward the southwest and one, Clarion, is up almost in the northwestern part of our State. Under the Bush plan, if the President were to get his way, under his children's health insurance proposal, here is what would happen in Clarion County, PA. Between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2012, it is estimated 146 children would lose coverage. OK. Go a couple counties away to Huntingdon County--a small rural county--and in that same time period of 2008 to 2012, 129 kids would lose their coverage. Now, I think it is a tragedy for 1 kid or 5 kids or 10 kids to lose coverage, but now you are talking about hundreds of kids in two small counties in terms of population. What is the comparison to the bipartisan children's health insurance proposal? Clarion County would gain 278 children, Huntingdon County would gain 247. So instead of losing about 130 to 150 in each of those small counties, we gain 250 children or more, maybe as high as 280 children. So that is the difference. We can talk all we want about percents of income in all the States. I am looking at two counties in Pennsylvania that happen to be smaller in population and that happen to be largely rural, and I know hundreds of children who get coverage now will not get that coverage in those two counties; and hundreds of children would get coverage under the bipartisan children's health insurance legislation. I do not know what more the Senate and the House can do on both sides of the aisle to plead with the President to go along with what the American people have told us overwhelmingly. There are a lot of things we disagree about in the Senate and across the country, but very few Americans now disagree that investing in children in the dawn of their lives is a good idea for that child, for his or her community, and for our economy long term. So we will continue to make the case up until and through the vote today. But I think this is critically important for the children of America, all the children of America--urban, suburban, rural or any other way we classify where our children live. For their sake, and for the sake of the long-term economic future of the country, I believe the State children's health insurance legislation is urgently needed. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007, offered by Senators Lautenberg and Lott. I signed on as a cosponsor of this bill soon after it was introduced because this legislation provides a much-needed and long overdue investment in the future of passenger rail in our country. The benefits of a strong passenger rail network are clear: Amtrak helps reduce congestion on our highways in an environmental-friendly manner. Anyone who travels regularly on our Nation's highways recognizes that we need a comprehensive solution to our congestion problems that involves multiple modes of transportation. We need to do so, however, in a way that reduces carbon emissions. Passenger rail is key to these efforts. Amtrak has made great strides in recent years in terms of its on-time performance, its commitment to high speed rail, and its emphasis on increased ridership. While Amtrak still has work to do on the longer distance routes serving Pennsylvania and other parts of the country, the well-documented ontime performance of the Acela Express in the Northeast corridor is a perfect example of the possibilities that result from appropriate investments in rail infrastructure. At the end of fiscal year 2007, Amtrak officials reported that ontime performance for Acela Express was 87.8 percent, up more than 3 percent over the same period in 2006. The Northeast corridor is not the only area where Amtrak is making progress. Pennsylvania's Keystone line, operating between Harrisburg and Philadelphia, ranks fifth in ridership and revenue growth among all Amtrak services. Many of my constituents use this line to travel between Harrisburg and Lancaster and on to Philadelphia and New York. The legislation we are considering here today also would create a new State Capital Grant Program for intercity passenger rail capital projects. The program would authorize the awarding of grants to a State, or a group of States, to pay for the capital costs of infrastructure, facilities, and equipment necessary to provide new or improved intercity passenger rail. This new program is particularly of interest in Pennsylvania, as we continue to look at reinstituting routes, particularly between Scranton and the New York metropolitan area. Finally, it is my hope that this new investment will spur Amtrak to address outstanding labor issues that have simply gone on for too long. Amtrak's infrastructure upgrades should be coupled with investments in its workforce, and I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate and the House, will continue to closely monitor this situation in the coming weeks and months. Thank you. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address not only a major public policy issue for the State of Pennsylvania but also a fundamental issue of fairness and the proper role of Government, which I think will have an impact on the country as a whole. Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy designated 52 counties--52 out of Pennsylvania's 67 counties--as part of a power transmission corridor, more formally known as the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor. This means the Government will be able to turn three-quarters of the State of Pennsylvania into a superhighway of transmission towers. Their authority to designate this corridor was granted in the Energy bill passed in 2005 in the previous Congress. This designation would allow the Federal Government to override State authority and construct high-voltage power transmission lines wherever they please--virtually wherever the Federal Government pleases. They could place the lines on farmland, through neighborhoods, through someone's backyard, and, for example, through a beautiful vineyard such as the one I saw most recently in Greene County in the furthermost southwestern corner of Pennsylvania, so virtually anywhere in the Commonwealth and anywhere in the country. Earlier this year, the Department had a public comment period where I and other public officials and most importantly my constituents spoke out loudly in opposition to the draft corridor plan. That draft plan is virtually identical to the final plan. Let me give my colleagues a sense of what we are talking about here. This is a map which depicts the draft Mid-Atlantic and Southwest area national corridor. There are people in Washington who for years have been talking about creating opportunities for more power, and this is a national priority, they say. Yet we can see just by the dotted areas that there are a lot of States in the Northeast that will be impacted-- obviously, New York and Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and a few others, and then out West in the furthermost reaches of the Southwest of our country, principally in the State of California. So for all of the talk about a national priority, there is very little that impacts the middle of our country. I sent letters, as Senator Specter did, to the Department of Energy, but so far, I am not happy to report the Department of Energy has ignored my constituents. I think this is an outrage, for a government bureaucracy to ignore the people they are supposed to serve. They pay their salaries--those taxpayers pay their salaries. The least this Department should do is respond not just in a timely way but to respond completely. But we haven't seen that yet. Last week, I met with an Assistant Secretary of Energy to discuss my opposition to the transmission corridor as it is presently drafted. I have sent letters to the Energy Secretary, Mr. Samuel Bodman, most recently in early October. We are still waiting for a response to that, a letter signed by both Senator Specter and me, waiting for a response. I know people get busy, but I think it is time now to respond to that letter. We are also waiting for Secretary Bodman to respond to my request for a meeting. We are getting a little resistance there as well. So while I am waiting for these responses from the Energy Secretary, I want to put him on notice and I want to put the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--which we know by the acronym FERC--I want to put FERC on notice and I want to put the Senate on notice that I have grave concerns, as a lot of people in Pennsylvania have grave concerns, about this transmission corridor as presently designed or drafted. I am outraged by how my constituents have been treated so far in this process. I would argue they have been ignored in this process. So I intend to use every means at my disposal--every means at my disposal--to prevent the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor from moving forward until Pennsylvania is at a minimum treated equitably. So I intend to place a hold on the renomination of Joseph Kelliher, who is now serving as the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC. I will place a hold on his renomination, and I will be introducing tomorrow, in connection with the amendments to the farm bill, an amendment to prevent the use of eminent domain to take farmland for use as a part of this power transmission corridor. One more chart before I conclude. The second chart here depicts the number of counties affected in the northeastern corner of the United States. I will speak just of Pennsylvania for today--52 out of those 67 counties. Basically, what the Federal Government has told us, in essence, implicitly--this is what I derive from their failure to respond to the State of Pennsylvania--is there is going to be a superhighway of power lines across Pennsylvania, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The Federal Government is going to take over this effort and put those lines across the State of Pennsylvania. Well, I have news for them. Pennsylvania is full of a lot of people who are concerned about this, whether they are in small towns or urban areas, and, as we are going to be speaking to tomorrow, rural areas in Pennsylvania, farm communities. Most of those counties designated there are in rural communities. If the Federal Government and the Department of Energy or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or anyone else in this town wants to fight about this, we are ready to fight, and we will fight morning, noon, and night until our State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is treated equitably.

Mr. CASEY

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation which was introduced this morning, America's Climate Security Act. I congratulate and commend a number of our colleagues but especially Senators Lieberman and Warner for their work on this important legislation that slows, stops, and reverses global warming. I also thank Senator Boxer for her continued leadership and unwavering commitment to bringing global warming legislation to the Senate. There are going to be people in this Chamber and other places who will find fault with this bill, I am sure. Some will say it goes too far. Some will say it doesn't go far enough. But the most important thing is that this legislation, America's Climate Security Act, is a bipartisan bill. I believe we must have a full and robust debate on global warming, and we need to do it now. That is why this bill is so important. This legislation is both thoughtful and comprehensive. It is what we need to bring global warming to the forefront in American policy. I personally thank Senators Lieberman and Warner for their willingness to work with me on issues critically important to working families in Pennsylvania and America. I come from a State with a lot of coal and a lot of manufacturing. I believe the future of Pennsylvania and the people living there is closely linked to the future of both of these industries: manufacturing overall and coal itself. I believe we have a moral obligation to end our contribution to global warming, but I am also optimistic that we can do this in a way that protects workers and creates manufacturing jobs. Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman understand how important this is to bring our workforce with us into the new jobs created by greenhouse gas reduction and the programs that support that. Both Senators have agreed and have graciously offered to work with me to refine a placeholder provision currently in their bill that we call the climate change worker assistance program which we worked together to draft. I look forward to my continued work with them on this program and their legislation. I am proud to say I am an original cosponsor. Finally, I thank Chelsea Maxwell from Senator Warner's staff and David McIntosh from Senator Lieberman's staff for their work with my staff, especially Kasey Gillette of my staff, who worked so hard to make this possible.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation which was introduced this morning, America's Climate Security Act. I congratulate and commend a number of our colleagues but especially Senators Lieberman and Warner for their work on this important legislation that slows, stops, and reverses global warming. I also thank Senator Boxer for her continued leadership and unwavering commitment to bringing global warming legislation to the Senate. There are going to be people in this Chamber and other places who will find fault with this bill, I am sure. Some will say it goes too far. Some will say it doesn't go far enough. But the most important thing is that this legislation, America's Climate Security Act, is a bipartisan bill. I believe we must have a full and robust debate on global warming, and we need to do it now. That is why this bill is so important. This legislation is both thoughtful and comprehensive. It is what we need to bring global warming to the forefront in American policy. I personally thank Senators Lieberman and Warner for their willingness to work with me on issues critically important to working families in Pennsylvania and America. I come from a State with a lot of coal and a lot of manufacturing. I believe the future of Pennsylvania and the people living there is closely linked to the future of both of these industries: manufacturing overall and coal itself. I believe we have a moral obligation to end our contribution to global warming, but I am also optimistic that we can do this in a way that protects workers and creates manufacturing jobs. Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman understand how important this is to bring our workforce with us into the new jobs created by greenhouse gas reduction and the programs that support that. Both Senators have agreed and have graciously offered to work with me to refine a placeholder provision currently in their bill that we call the climate change worker assistance program which we worked together to draft. I look forward to my continued work with them on this program and their legislation. I am proud to say I am an original cosponsor. Finally, I thank Chelsea Maxwell from Senator Warner's staff and David McIntosh from Senator Lieberman's staff for their work with my staff, especially Kasey Gillette of my staff, who worked so hard to make this possible.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I want to thank Chairman Mikulski for her leadership on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science and for engaging in this discussion on how we can best combat violent crime around the country. The chairman's expertise and experience in these matters is second to none and I am grateful for her leadership.