Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, August 2; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of the House message on S. 1, and there be 2 hours of debate prior to a cloture vote on the motion to concur, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that the two leaders be permitted to use their leader time at the expiration of the 2 hours, with the majority leader speaking immediately prior to the cloture vote; that upon the use of all of the time noted here, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture; that the mandatory quorums be waived with respect to the cloture motions filed today; further that upon disposition of the message on S. 1, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 976.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank Chairman Baucus for his leadership and for the way he has conducted the debate on this bill. I wish to make a couple of points that probably haven't been made yet--some have, in different ways--and the first thing I wish to say is that this bill, overall, provides what a lot of Americans expect us to provide in a bill such as this: It lowers the rates of uninsured children in America, just as the original Children's Health Insurance Program did some 10 years ago now; it strengthens the program by increasing and targeting funding for our children; and it also gives States the tools they need to do the outreach that is required to get our children enrolled and to do that in a way that spends money wisely. One of the things that has been missed in this debate is that this is really about all of America. This isn't simply about one State or one community. One of the population sectors that I think has been ignored often in this discussion by some people who have talked about this is rural children. You can see on this chart to my right what children's health insurance--this program--means to rural children. Rural children are far less likely to have access to employer-based health care plans because most of these families that have had to struggle are not getting jobs that offer affordable health insurance. That number has gone far too high in terms of the number of rural families that have lost jobs or are seeking jobs with health insurance. Secondly, rural children are difficult to enroll in children's health insurance even when they are clearly eligible. Outreach and enrollment efforts are critically important to those communities. That is why the features of this bill that deal with outreach--television advertising and other kinds of advertising--are critically important. The second point about children who live in rural communities across America--and I have to say in Pennsylvania we have literally millions of Pennsylvanians who live in communities that are defined demographically as rural--is that they are more likely to be poor. Nearly half of rural children live in low-income families at or below 200 percent of the poverty level. So you are talking about a doubling of the number, just a little more than $40,000 of family income. Additionally, rural children increasingly rely upon children's health insurance, this program. In rural America, more than one-third of all children--one-third of all rural children--rely upon the Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid. Another point on benefits, if we can go to the next chart. There has been a lot of talk about what this program means and how much it costs. It is interesting to debate that, but let us get back to what this program means to families. It means immunizations, routine checkups, prescription drugs, dental care, maternity care, mental health benefits, and down the list. You can see what this means to the life of a family and to the health of a nation. I think it bears repeating just how important those benefits are. In the next chart, we focus on an example from Pennsylvania. There has been a lot of talk on this floor already, some of it inaccurate talk, so let's get back to the facts. This is what the children's health insurance income levels mean in Pennsylvania. What we are talking about here is $41,300 of income and below, under 200 percent of the FPL, the federal poverty level. Care is free for those families, and the average premium is, of course, zero. But the next category, $41,301 to $61,950, above 200 percent of poverty, up to 300 percent, care is provided at a low cost but a cost nonetheless. They pay a premium--a range of a premium. Finally, looking at the higher income groups and some people, it is very misleading. For those with incomes of $61,951 and above, at that income level care is provided at cost, and the average premium is $150. We should stop misleading people, talking about wealthier families making $80,500. Others will discuss this later. We have already had a lot of misleading--and I hope it is not deliberate, but there has been misleading rhetoric on the Senate floor already about those families. Just for the record, not only are there no families at $80,000 in the Children's Health Insurance Program, there are only about 3,000 kids enrolled in the health care program today out of 6.6 million who have a family income of 300 percent of poverty or more. Let's speak the truth and adhere to the facts instead of what we have heard already: misleading statements on this floor about these income levels. One more point about minority children in America. We have heard a lot about what this means and whether it is working. We have lots of proof already that minority children have already been helped. Since the inception of this program 10 years ago, the percent of uninsured Hispanic children has decreased by nearly one-third; for African- American children by almost one-half. So don't tell us this is not working. Some people on the other side have made that point. This is working for rural kids, and it is working for minority children all across the country, not to mention what I have seen in Pennsylvania. This will be our last chart. We have heard a lot about what this means for the broad spectrum of America. Here is the fact again: 78 percent of the kids covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program are from working families. I think that is an important point to make when we talk about who is helped by this program. If we want to go the way the President has taken us and cut off kids from children's health insurance--1.4 million kids will lose their coverage under the President's plan--here is what happens when a child doesn't get dental care. We heard this story a couple of months ago. It bears repeating again--12-year-old Deamonte Driver, from Prince George's County here in Maryland, died because he didn't have coverage for a routine $80 dental procedure for his infected tooth. Without that simple treatment, the infection spread to Deamonte Driver's brain and killed him. Let's put aside some of the mythology about what we have heard from some people--not everyone but some people in this Chamber--about what this means. If that child had received an $80 dental procedure he might be alive today. But, of course, we hear political rhetoric in here to back up the President. I think it is important to remember why we are here. I have two more points to make, to keep within my time. John Dilulio, Jr., a distinguished Ph.D., worked for President Bush to lead his faith-based initiatives in the early part of the administration. He wrote an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer a few months ago. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. I will not read it, but I want to highlight some of what he said. He talked about the President and what has been happening with this debate on children's health insurance. He made this point in the second to the last paragraph: Treating health insurance for needy children as a political bargaining chip-- And he's referring to the President's other health care ideas---- would be wrong. He talks about the fact that Mitch Daniels, who worked in a Republican administration--he is the Governor now, Governor of Indiana, also a great supporter of this program. Mr. Dilulio concludes this way. He says: For compassion's sake, the President should compromise on

Mr. CASEY. My colleague from Montana has been generous with his time and has shown great leadership. I want to make sure I have the time I want on this, so I will wait. I will play it by ear, depending on my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: When the Senator said ``limit the time,'' I am not sure what the Senator meant by that.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus, my distinguished colleague from Montana, for not only the argument he is putting forth today on children's health insurance but in a special way his leadership on the Finance Committee. On the question of children's health insurance, the Senate is confronted with a very serious matter, a matter that has long-term implications for millions of families and our economic security. I believe at least two questions must be asked and answered this week, and they are as follows: Question 1: Will the Senate make a full commitment to the children of America and especially to their health care? Secondly, does the Senate want America to have a high-skilled workforce in the future to compete in an ever-changing economy and a furiously competitive world economy? For that reason and so many others, I thank the Senators in this Chamber who have provided the leadership on the Finance Committee, including Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus and, many years ago, Senators Kennedy and Hatch, who came together in a bipartisan way, as they are today, and Senator Grassley, among others. A lot of people watching today may ask what is this program we are talking about? We hear SCHIP, the acronym. Let's call it children's health insurance for short because the acronyms don't make a lot of sense sometimes. It is a 10-year program, where we have covered 6.6 million children, so they can have well-child visits, dental exams, preventive care, all of the things we see on this chart, when we are speaking about a well-child visit. Every child in America should have an opportunity to communicate, through their parents, with their physician. Every family should make sure that a child within their care gets six visits to the doctor in the first year of life, a complete record of physical exams, showing height, weight, and other milestones. They should have their hearing and vision checked. They should be checked for normal development, nutrition, sleep safety, infectious diseases and, of course, general preventive care. It is critically important that every child gets that, no matter what their income is or where they live in this country. In Pennsylvania, we have had more than a 10-year experiment; we have had children's health insurance since 1993. I am proud that my father, Governor Casey, and every succeeding Governor, including Republican Governors Ridge and Schweiker, and Governor Rendell, a Democrat, who strongly supported it and tried to expand this important program. Today, I wish to talk for a couple of minutes about the coverage overall across the country. In our State, it is 162,000 children. But across the country, even though we have covered well more than 6 million children, there are still 9 million American children today who have no health insurance at all. Of those 9 million, 6 million of them are eligible right now for either the Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid. Of those 6 million eligible but not enrolled, 78 percent are from working families. Let me say that again: Seventy-eight percent of the children right now who are eligible for children's health insurance or Medicaid are from working families. We should remember that as we debate this issue. There is a lot of talk in this Chamber that has been misleading on that question. We know what happens when a child has health insurance. They have access to preventive care, they perform better at school, and they are much more likely to have healthy emotional and social development. If we want--as I think every Member of the Senate wants--a skilled workforce in the future, that starts with giving quality early care and education to our children, giving them the blessing of health insurance so they can learn more now and earn more in this new century. There are people out there saying: How do we pay for this? You are talking about an increase in children's health insurance. We pay for it by making sure we are increasing a tax that should be increased for this purpose--the tobacco tax--by 61 cents. We are going to have a long debate, and I will wrap up in a minute. When we have this debate today and in the next couple of days of this week, and when people come down to the Senate floor and talk about how much it is going to cost and why we should not do this, I ask them--especially those arguing against an increase--to hold up this pamphlet. This is the health care every Senator gets. They come in here and talk against this program and say they don't want to increase it. But I think every Senator who argues against it and says health care for Senators is a higher priority than health care for kids should hold up the health care they get, and they should thank the American people, and then they can go argue against this. We have a long debate ahead of us. We will make sure that we make this a priority for the American people, the health care of our children.

Mr. CASEY. My colleague from Montana gave me a lot more time and I appreciate that. I think it is important that we talk about this program and talk about why some of the arguments have been framed and how they have been framed in the last couple of days. We have had a lot of bipartisanship here. A lot of Members of the Republican caucus in the Senate have been brave and independent enough and have focused on the needs of children enough to break with the President to say that we respect your view, Mr. President, but we have to expand this program. I appreciate that. I am grateful for their wisdom and leadership and their integrity. They have shown an ability, and both sides have to work together on this, to make sure that when we talk about the cost of this program--the President thinks we should only increase it by $1 billion a year, when there is a consensus across the country, by far, and in this Chamber and across the way in the House to increase it by at least $7 billion a year. That is the least we should do. I think we can go higher, but to get the job done we can compromise. I think it is very important to remember when we are talking about these numbers, one thing is abundantly clear: The President's proposal is going to have one dramatic and irreversible impact for children, and this is a fact: By 2012, if President Bush gets his way on this issue, 800,000 American children will lose their health insurance. So I want those on the other side of the aisle who have not yet come around to the thinking of most of the Members of the Senate to remember that. You are just not voting for an increase that may help some children; you are voting to cut 800,000 children off of health insurance. I know we are going to hear from some Members of the Senate that terminology about socialized medicine and Government-run health care and all of that. I ask them again to remember the health care they get as Senators when they go on about that point. The facts are otherwise when it comes to what we are talking about. For the Children's Health Insurance Program and for Medicaid beneficiaries, these are individuals who are covered through private managed-care plans, private insurance. In Pennsylvania, we have some nine private providers for the Children's Health Insurance Program. I defy anyone to tell us these American companies are part of some Government-run program they do not support. The support on this issue is overwhelming. The American Medical Association, all of the pharmaceutical companies virtually have not only supported it but they are advertising in favor of it, and the private insurance companies and trade associations and so many other major American companies. President Bush said he did not want to federalize this program. I don't understand it, though, because on the one hand, President Bush says he agrees the program has worked, and on the other hand he says he wants to cap it. I don't understand why he does that. I think it is important for us to remember the benefits all of us have in this Chamber at this time on our own health insurance. We are going to have a lot more time later this week to talk about other aspects of this legislation. I ask every parent out there who is watching this debate to remember for just a moment what happens to their child when they are sick and when they are hurt. Your first instinct is to hug your child and to give them all the warmth and support that you can provide them. But that is not enough. Often you have to take them to a doctor or to a hospital. But for the parents of children who don't have health insurance, all of the love they provide, the warmth and embrace of a hug is not enough either, and those families and those mothers and fathers are powerless to help their children and show the full measure of their love. I ask my colleagues and those watching today to consider what this means for a child and his or her family and also what it means for America, for our workforce, and for our economy in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, concerning the amendment I have filed to the pending bill on the floor regarding the use of Transit Security Grant Program funding for mass transit and commuter rail systems across the Nation. My fellow home State Senator, Mr. Specter, is a cosponsor of this amendment. As the chairman is aware, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, SEPTA, is the fifth largest public transportation system in the Nation. SEPTA's mulimodal transit system provides a network of fixed-route service, including bus, subway, subway-surface, regional rail, light rail, trackless trolley and paratransit service. The SEPTA service area includes the heavily populated southeastern Pennsylvania counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia. This area encompasses approximately 2,200 square miles. SEPTA serves over one-half million customers daily and provides over 303 million passenger trips annually. The safety and security of its passengers, infrastructure and equipment is a priority for SEPTA and it is a priority for me. The current SEPTA communications system does not permit communication inside the system's 20-mile commuter tunnel network and underground concourses. This puts significant limits on SEPTA's ability to deal with emergencies that occur in its underground facilities. To address this matter, SEPTA is working to develop a system that will allow the Authority to effectively participate in all emergency response and recovery actions which may occur in the system's tunnel network. This project will enable SEPTA to take measures to enhance safety and security. Based upon my conversations with SEPTA officials, I understand that it has been unable to fully utilize Federal homeland security funds in past years for this initiative. SEPTA officials report that Federal restrictions require expenditure of homeland security funds within a 3- year time period. SEPTA officials further report that implementing a system-wide underground communications network, including appropriate use of capital investment planning and effective procurement practices, is not possible within this existing time frame. SEPTA has therefore been unable to make the progress it desired on this project. Given the potential consequences of current restrictions, it was my hope that an amendment expanding the timeframe for expenditure of fiscal year 2008 Transit Security Grant Program funds from the existing 36 months to 48 months be adopted to enable transit systems across the nation, including SEPTA, to use their available funds in a more flexible manner. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as well as the chairman of the authorizing committee, the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, has several concerns regarding this amendment. I fully appreciate the valid points they raise and look forward to working with them to come to an appropriate solution. I would note that the distinguished Member from West Virginia has been very supportive of assistance in providing appropriate Federal funding for important homeland security initiatives in my home State and I wish to convey my gratitude.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask to be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I am honored to follow Senator Byrd to the floor. Today, as on so many other days in the Senate, we are reminded why he is not only our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, but why he is so revered. We thank him for what he talked about today.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about one of the most important issues facing our country, our world, and our children. The issue is global warming due to climate change. I know the Presiding Officer has a strong interest in this issue. We talked about it, and she has with many of her constituents in Minnesota and beyond. I appreciate that commitment. The problem, as you know, is so serious that it could physically and irrevocably change the world in which we live. I think we are confronted today with a moral duty to preserve the environment, not just so we can have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, but because this world that we live in is in our care for our children and our children's children--God's creation itself. In the State of Pennsylvania we have always held the environment in high regard. In our State, as in many States, we put it right in our constitution. Article I, section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads as follows: The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people. That is what our State constitution says. As a public official from that State, albeit in a Federal capacity, I feel an abiding obligation to give meaning to that constitutional directive through my work in the Senate. For all these reasons I firmly believe we must take action to slow, stop, and reverse our greenhouse gas emissions. The United States must stand up as a leader in the international arena to stop global warming. I am not a scientist, and I do not claim to be an expert on scientific theories. But I do know something about some of the literature that has been written the last couple of years. One thing I remember in particular, and this had a profound impact on me, is a very simple statement, but it tells what we are dealing with here. I remember reading back in 2005 that the percent of the Earth's surface which has been subjected to drought has doubled since about 1970. So in just about 35 years the percent of the Earth that had drought has doubled. That alone should tell us what the stakes are. We know what drought leads to. It leads to poverty and hunger and starvation and death and darkness. We know it from our recent history, the catastrophic storms and flooding, Katrina being an example of that; changes in habitat that threaten species and the potential of a mini ice age in northern Europe if melting ice sheets disrupt ocean currents; major ecological changes translating into major sociopolitical changes. We know various committees in this Senate--the Foreign Relations Committee being one-- are dealing with this issue as well, focusing on the implications of global warming to national security and the military readiness of our troops. There are so many examples. Even in Darfur, a terrible horror that we see unfolding every day--part of that was caused by changes in our environment. Drought caused people to move into new areas, causing conflict. Consider the implications of widespread global drought, storms, coastal flooding, and crop failures among others. Inflicting this future on the children of the world and the children of America is unimaginable, and I think unforgivable. Yet that is exactly what we are doing if we do not take action, the action we must take. The evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming. Global warming exists, and human activities are a major factor. The evidence--rising average temperatures, melting glaciers, shifts in migratory bird patterns--is telling us something. It is telling us that we are failing in our duties as stewards of God's creation. What shall we do about it? It is a question I have asked and so many others have asked over the course of many months in this Senate and many years. I spent, as did a lot of my colleagues, many hours talking with what we might call stakeholders. People in the manufacturing field, people who might own businesses, labor unions, environmentalists, scientists--all the way down the list of people and groups that have an interest. They are all determined that a national climate change program that we develop to combat it must accomplish a number of basic goals. I will read quickly through about 10 of them: Making mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. The operative word there being ``mandatory,'' not voluntary. No. 2. Reduce greenhouse gases at rates and levels identified by international scientists at 80 percent by 2050. No. 3. Take immediate actions to reduce emissions in the short term. No. 4. Reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions. No. 5. Use a market-based approach to reduce emissions while providing some stability in the market, specially in the early years. No. 6. Balance regional differences in the sources of greenhouse gases and the solutions. No. 7. Position the United States as a global leader on climate change while bringing developing countries like China, India, and Mexico to the table. No. 8. Hold States accountable for their own carbon consumption. No. 9. Make major Federal investments in carbon capture and storage research and clean coal technologies. No. 10. Continue reducing other pollutants that pose threats to public health. Guided by these 10 principles, I am a cosponsor of three global warming bills. The first is the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act introduced by our colleagues, Senator Sanders and Senator Boxer. I commend my distinguished colleagues from Vermont and California for drafting such an important bill. I believe their bill will be the starting point for the Senate's work on global warming. This legislation makes strong and significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. The near-term goal of reducing emissions levels by the year of 2020 to 1990 levels is a good start, as is the long-term goal, meaning reductions of 80 percent from 2006 levels by 2050. We know the scientists must guide us in this work. We must not do any less than what the scientists tell us we need to do to prevent the catastrophic changes in the Earth's atmosphere. The second bill I am cosponsoring, the Low Carbon Economy Act, introduced by Senators Bingaman and Specter--I applaud them for their work in putting together a comprehensive and detailed piece of legislation. Many of the things we will debate in this Senate will be critically important to my home State of Pennsylvania. Any climate change program must include a number of things: First of all, a detailed proposal for a cap-and-trade program for carbon credits; second, measures to keep our manufacturers competitive--we must again bring our international trading partners to the table--and a commitment to provide some measure of stability to the new carbon economy. The third and final bill I am cosponsoring is Senator Carper's Clean Air Planning Act. This legislation keeps other hazardous air pollutants at the forefront of our decision. Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury continue to have deleterious effects on the health of Pennsylvania and America, in terms of asthma in our children, harmful impacts of mercury on early childhood development, and women's reproductive health. All of this compels us to take action. Each of these bills does. Each of these bills has strengths that must be included in any climate change proposal developed by the Environment and Public Works Committee and the full Senate. I have discussed with Chairman Boxer her legislation. I appreciate her longstanding commitment to getting a climate bill to the Senate floor. I commend, as well, I must say, her leadership on a wide range of environmental issues over many years. I thank her for her continuing commitment to work with colleagues like me so we will be at the table to work on priorities for our country, as well as Pennsylvania's priorities in any chairman's mark on a climate bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join the call of the thousands of people who have visited Capitol Hill and come to our offices to talk to us about global warming, not to mention the millions of Americans who care very deeply about this issue--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, east and west, north and south. We have no time to waste when dealing with the problem of this magnitude and gravity for our world. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor of the following legislation: S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act; S. 1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act; and, S. 1177, the Clean Air Planning Act.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes, and if I could have a 2-minute warning so I don't go over time.

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, we are gathered here at this early morning hour, as we have now for hour after hour, to talk about the situation in Iraq. We are here in particular to focus on one amendment, the Levin-Reed amendment. I rise this morning to support that amendment for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons I think it should be passed is not just because of the policy contained within it but also because it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the product of a lot of work over a long period of time. Many months of work have gone into this important amendment. The question we face is very basic. It is the same question we have faced for a long time when it comes to the policy in Iraq. The question is, Where do you stand? Do you stand for a new direction in Iraq, a new policy, or do you stand for the other side of the coin, more of the same, stay the course, supporting the President's policy? I argue to a large extent what has happened in the Congress the last couple of years, including this year by some Members of the House and Senate, is rubberstamping of the Bush policy in Iraq. That is what we are here to talk about: Where do you stand? You are either on one side or the other. I argue that we should all stand for a new direction for a variety of reasons. We know the numbers pretty well: 3,600 Americans--more than that now--have lost their lives. From my home State of Pennsylvania, 69 lives have been lost. They gave, as Abraham Lincoln said, the last full measure of devotion to their country. The number we don't talk enough about is the number of wounded. Nationally, over 25,000 have been wounded. Again, in Pennsylvania, the number is very high as well. Over 1,100 Pennsylvanians have been wounded. Even that doesn't give the full sense of what we are talking about. Many of these soldiers have been grievously, permanently, irreparably wounded in this conflict. So we are thinking about them today. We are thinking about those who perished already. We are thinking about their families who have had to endure this suffering and trauma and heartache for a long time now. The troops have done their job. There was a lot of talk in the last couple of hours, last night and this morning, and I am sure it will go on into tomorrow, about defeat, that if this amendment is adopted, that somehow there will be a defeat. I don't believe that. I don't believe that for a moment. Our troops have done their job. They took down a dictator. They allowed a government to take shape in a country. They have done their job. It is about time that, as the troops have done their job, this Congress and this President do our jobs. One of the jobs we should never ask our troops to do is what we have asked them to do at least in the last couple of months, if not for more than a year. Unlike any American fighting men and women in the history of the country, this Government has asked our troops to referee a civil war. We should never ask Americans to referee a civil war, not in this war and not in any war. All this talk about defeat not only misses the point, it is misleading. I am afraid it is deliberately misleading. To adopt this amendment is not adopting defeat. Adopting this amendment is about talking about a light at the end of the tunnel and to make sure we make the right decision on this policy. We hear a lot about Levin-Reed. Let me spend 30 seconds on who Levin and Reed are. Senator Carl Levin and Senator Jack Reed are both members of the Armed Services Committee. They bring to bear decades of experience in this body combined when they talk about the war in Iraq and when they talk about armed services and defense matters. They both bring distinguished references even beyond their service on that committee. Some people in this body remember that Senator Jack Reed was an Army Ranger and paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division. Senator Carl Levin, long a supporter of a strong national defense, was given in 2003 the Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest honor given to a civilian. So these are not two rookies talking about our policy in Iraq; these are people of broad experience who have already proven their credentials in supporting the armed services. They are also people who have worked very hard with the other Members of the Senate over many years to get this right. I mentioned before that several Senators on the Republican side are cosponsors. I won't do biographical sketches of each of them, but suffice it to say, there is an awful lot of military and U.S. Senate experience with the cosponsors of this amendment. What is this amendment? What does it say? It says a number of things. I won't read all of it, of course, but it does talk about, in the opening lines of this amendment, a deadline for commencement of a reduction of forces. It says that the Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of U.S. forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the act. It talks in subpart (b) about a comprehensive strategy, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy. It talks about sustained engagement with a focus on stability in Iraq. It also speaks to an international mediator in Iraq to help our Government get this policy right. Finally, the amendment speaks of a limited presence of our troops in Iraq and to focus the mission on protecting the United States and coalition personnel, infrastructure, training and equipping, providing support for Iraqi security forces and, thirdly, engaging in targeted counterterrorism. It talks about a limited presence and a limited mission. But it doesn't talk about, as some have mischaracterized it, a precipitous withdrawal. Just because you say that 100 times, as the other side has said it hour after hour, doesn't mean it is true. That is not what we are talking about here. A couple of months ago, almost more than 6 months ago now, the President justified his surge policy by arguing that additional U.S. forces would provide security in Baghdad and other areas, providing so- called breathing space. Remember what the President said at that time, way back in January: I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people, and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. So said the President back in January. Six months later, any fair and objective evaluation of the situation in Iraq would conclude that the surge strategy has not succeeded and the Iraqi Government has failed to follow through on its promises. It should come as no surprise the American people no longer support an open-ended involvement of our combat forces in this growing civil war. We know it from the numbers on sectarian violence. We know the violence that has moved from one part of the country to another. We also know that despite the President's pledges, there is no substantive evidence Iraqi security forces are successfully holding territory that has been cleared of insurgents and militia fighting forces by U.S. troops. When it comes to the clear and hold strategy, there is a lot of clearing, but the holding remains woefully inadequate. We know the problems with the Iraqi Government: Cabinet members boycotting meetings, the Iraqi Government talking about taking a break for 30 days, on and on. The evidence is clear that they have not made the kinds of commitments they should be making to meet the benchmarks and to inspire confidence in our country that this is the kind of political commitment we are going to need to bring stability. I have to say when it comes to what the President says, and who pays the price, it is very clear what happens. Every time the President asks for more time, every time the President says we need to stay the course, every time the President says: Ratify my policy yet again, every time the President says: Just give us a little more time, we will get this right this time--every time he promises, and it does not come true, and every time he asks for more support, who pays the price for that? It is not a Senator or a Congressman or the President. It is no one in his civilian leadership. In fact, it is not a lot of Americans. Every time the President asks for more time on his policy in Iraq, there is only one group of Americans that pays the price for that: the troops and their families. Over and over and over again, they pay with their sacrifice. They do all the dying, all the bleeding for this policy. Yet the President talks about this policy as if it is a Democratic and Republican fight. No, this is about the troops in the field. They are paying the price over and over again. I will make one more point because I am short on time. When it comes to who is doing the fighting in Iraq against us, the President said the other day: ``The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq are the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.'' Actually, he is not accurate when he says that. There is a group in Iraq consisting primarily of Sunni extremists and relying on the assistance of foreign fighters seeking to intensify sectarian conflict and create unacceptable levels of violence. They were founded in 2003, after the invasion, and this group goes by the name of al-Qaida in Iraq. While this group draws inspiration from the al-Qaida that attacked the United States on September 11, the two groups are distinct enemies. Our intelligence community has reported that the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi and draws its financing from kidnapping and other local crimes, and seeks largely to incite ethnic cleansing and massacres against Shiite militias. But there is absolutely no evidence--no evidence--that this group is responsible for various terrorist plots in Western Europe or the United States. We saw in the last couple of hours the report that al-Qaida around the world is as strong as they were on September 11, 2001. So how can it be--if the President is telling us the truth, and if the President's policy is right--how can it be that we made this commitment in Iraq, with all the mistakes of our civilian leadership, all the incompetence of our civilian leadership--despite the brave and noble service of our troops--how can that be with this commitment in Iraq at the same time that al-Qaida is as strong as it was on September 11, 2001? No, I think it is very clear that this vote and this choice is very simple. We can either stay the course or we can chart a new course. That is what this is about. I say in conclusion, this is also about whether this Congress will do what it must to prove ourselves worthy of the valor of our troops. That is part of what we have to do. I am not saying one amendment or one vote or one debate will do that. We have a long way to go to prove ourselves worthy of their valor. But I think this amendment is one way to move in that direction, one way to show our troops and their families that we will do everything possible to get this policy right. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about children's health insurance for a number of reasons, but principally because the President of the United States, several times in the last couple of weeks and months--but especially this past week--has spoken to this issue in a way that I think is misleading, in a way that I think does not do justice to this important, compelling issue: whether or not this country is going to make a real commitment to insuring all of our children. This is an issue that you and I, Mr. President, have spoken about, as have many others in this Chamber. It is a major priority for the American people. I will give the bad news first. The bad news is we have 9 million American children who have no health insurance. That number stares us in the face every day. There is no reason this Congress and this Senate should not do something about that. It is particularly disturbing and insulting that we have not only 9 million uninsured American children, but we have that number in the face of some other numbers, like tax cuts for very wealthy people. Over and over again, in the last couple of years, this Congress and the Congress before it, has made judgments about priorities. I am afraid there are some people who are making that judgment again about tax cuts for very wealthy people over health care for children. That is the reality. Unfortunately, we have now not only the 9 million uninsured, but here is another number. Of that 9 million, 6 million children of that 9 million are eligible for programs that can help them now, either Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The final bit of bad news and the challenge for us, not only as a Senate but as a people, is that 80 percent of the 6 million who could be helped right now by both programs--80 percent of them come from working families. That should be disturbing to all of us. Here is the good news. We can solve this problem. Not in one budget, not in one year, but over time if we make a real commitment. We can do it by supporting the SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. In my home State we call it CHIP, but the Federal Government refers to it as SCHIP. In our State, over 160,000 kids are served by this program now, but there are tens of thousands of other children who are not covered right now. We need to cover them in Pennsylvania and across the country. We know there are millions of children right now across the country who are not covered today who could be covered if we make the full commitment. When we talk about children's health insurance, a lot of people watching and a lot of people thinking about this issue say: Oh, it is another Government program. It will cost a lot of money. Why are we doing this? Here is the evidence. We have a 10-year experiment in this country on children's health insurance. Thank God, under a Democratic President-- Clinton--and a divided Congress, 10 years ago that commitment was made, and now we have the evidence. We know for all these children, 6 million covered--9 million not covered but 6 million covered, we know the tremendous benefit that means to employers way down the road. We also know what that means for the skills that are developed for one child and for many others. It is better for economic growth to ensure children. It is better for gross national product. It is better to build a skilled workforce with children's health insurance. Here is the challenge we have, in terms of this year's budget. I and many others, including the Presiding Officer and many people in this Chamber--mostly on this side but even some on the other side of the aisle--supported a proposal to say that over 5 years we would spend $50 billion on children's health insurance. It sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it. But when you break it down, $10 billion a year for children's health insurance is a small investment over the life of that child and over the life of our country. That is what the goal was, and that still is the goal. Here is the difficulty. We have to deal with the realities of the budget. Senator Max Baucus and others on the Finance Committee--and, frankly, in both parties but mostly on the Democratic side--have worked out an agreement on $35 billion, which is a very good start. We can grow that, but they deserve a lot of credit for making sure that money was put in the Finance Committee proposal that is still being worked on. But Here is the problem. In the face of that bipartisanship 10 years ago, and every year since on children's health insurance--in the face of all the benefits to our economy, not to mention the life of a child, and also in the face of the consensus that is emerging now in this body about the priority of children's health insurance, to get at least the $35 billion over 5 years--here is the problem. We have a President who thinks something else. President Bush recently talked about this initiative, to get $50 billion or even to get $35 billion, as somehow a federalization of health care for children, which is, I guess, to some people a scary word, a word that causes them concern. But there are a lot of Governors across this country, Republicans and Democrats, who think otherwise. So I think I have a basic question for the President, and I will conclude with this because he has been misleading people on this issue. Here is the question for the President of the United States. If you can give a tax cut in 1 year for people making over $200,000 a year, that amounts to $100 billion, if that is your policy, to give $100 billion in tax cuts to very wealthy people, why would you not be willing to spend $10 billion a year for children's health insurance? That is the question I have for the President. So if this President and this Congress are concerned about a skilled workforce and developing entrepreneurs and people to contribute to our economy, we better make a commitment to children in the dawn of their lives to make sure they can have the skills they need down the road. But even apart from the skills, it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, if you can help the millionaires, the multimillionaires, and the billionaires, why won't you make a full commitment to help the children of America, the working poor and middle-income children? I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I honor COL Stephen L. Hill and the exceptional service he has provided as commander of the Pittsburgh District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the period from July 16, 2004, to July 13, 2007. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, has joined me to honor Colonel Hill. On Friday, July 13 in Pittsburgh, PA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pittsburgh District military Change of Command ceremony will honor the services of the outgoing commander, COL Stephen L. Hill, and welcome the incoming commander, COL Michael P. Crall. Colonel Hill will leave a legacy of excellence. His leadership focused the district's capabilities on executing vital programs for the region and the Nation. His superb managerial skills and emphasis on building relationships and encouraging open and honest communication increased confidence in the ability of the district to accomplish its mission. During his tenure as district commander, the district's workload expanded and its annual operating budget increased from less than $100 million in Fiscal Year 2004 to over $184 million in Fiscal Year 2007. Colonel Hill skillfully managed resources and reengineered district processes to efficiently accomplish the planning, engineering, construction, operation and maintenance of Pittsburgh district's 23 locks and dams, 16 multipurpose reservoirs, local flood protection projects and environmental infrastructure projects covering 26,000 square miles and portions of five States. Colonel Hill knew that an important aspect of commanding the district was developing relationships with key leaders in the region. He took the time to meet with officials, visit projects, evaluate the issues, and work to understand the various perspectives of the experts in the region. He established and improved relations with local, State and Federal officials, culminating in changes to outdated lock and dam operating schedules, resulting in cost savings and efficiencies. Colonel Hill's partnerships resulted in the revitalization in projects affecting the critical waterways in the Lower Monongahela and Upper Ohio River. He championed efforts with the Upper Ohio River Study, Asset Management, Charleroi construction, the district's Strategic Business Initiative, SBI, and a number of other high priority projects. These efforts and accomplishments greatly improved the district's image and reputation among the public, stakeholders, congressional staff and the workforce. Colonel Hill recognized the importance of working across and beyond the district's boundaries. He led by example, deploying to Louisiana to assist in the Hurricane Katrina recovery effort, serving as part of Task Force Hope. More than 25 percent of the Pittsburgh District team members also deployed to assist in the hurricane recovery effort. Colonel Hill's exceptional service reflects great credit upon himself, the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Army. Colonel Hill's next duty assignment is Commander of the gulf region South District at Base Camp Adder, Iraq. The South District covers more than 65,000 square miles, manages more than 1,500 projects that are valued at over $3.3 billion. Colonel Hill will oversee 107 U.S. military and civilian professionals, 263 contract security personnel and nearly 124 Iraq professionals who work side-by-side to provide the transitional support in order to create a viable and stable democracy in the country. Pennsylvania has been honored to experience the leadership and passion that COL Stephen Hill provided to the Pittsburgh District. Along with my colleague, Senator Specter, I thank the colonel for his service to our country and wish him a safe tour of duty in Iraq and much success throughout his entire career. I ask to have printed in the Record a biography of Colonel Hill. The material follows: Colonel Stephen L. Hill assumed command of the Pittsburgh District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 17, 2004. He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. with a Bachelor of Science Degree and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant of Engineers in 1982. He holds a Master of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from Purdue University and a Masters Degree in Strategic Planning and Policy from the Army War College. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the Armor Officer Advanced Course and the Engineer Officer Basic Course. Since graduation from the Military Academy, Col. Hill has served in command and staff positions in Germany, Haiti, Japan, Kuwait, Egypt and the United States. Prior to his assignment in Pittsburgh, Col. Hill served as the Senior Engineer Trainer--Sidewinder 07--at the Army's National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, Calif. training soldiers and leaders while assisting in the development of training doctrine for contemporary operations and emerging asymmetric threats. He commanded the 317th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division and led the battalion during deployments to Kuwait, Egypt and the NTC. Prior to battalion command, he served with Headquarters, U.S. Forces, Japan as a joint engineer staff officer responsible for bilateral negotiations with the Government of Japan and management of a $1 billion facility improvement program. Before duties in Japan, Col. Hill served as an operations officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and staff engineer for the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C. He served as program and project manager for classified special mission unit projects throughout the country and deployed to Haiti with Task Force Black to assist the Ambassador and country team with initial efforts to restore security and democratic leadership. Earlier in his career, Col. Hill commanded the 58th Combat Engineer Company, 11th Armored Calvary Regiment and Delta Company, 54th Engineer Battalion with missions along the Fulda Gap. He served as project officer and assistant Resident Engineer for the Corps of Engineers' Seattle District at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Mont. He also managed several EPA superfund projects and assisted with the development of the environmental project and program management baseline plan for Seattle's engineering division. Col. Hill's next duty assignment is Commander of the Gulf Region South District at Base Camp Adder, Iraq. Col. Hill's awards and decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal (five oak leaf clusters), Joint Service Commendation Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Army Superior Unit Award and other unit and service awards. He is a SAME fellow, Master Parachutist and wears the Air Assault Badge. He is qualified as a Joint Specialty Officer. Col. Hill is married to his high school sweetheart, the former Susan Mills from Nichols, N.Y. They have a son, Ross, who recently completed his freshman year in Chemistry at Boston University.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the Senate is once again debating future U.S. policy in Iraq. I, like others, have long advocated a new direction for our policy. I will continue to vote in a manner consistent with changing course in Iraq. However, today I rise not to speak about policy, tactics, or strategy. I will speak today only about our troops and their families. First, the numbers are important. At last count, 3,609 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, including 169 from Pennsylvania, the third highest death toll in the Nation. Over 25,000 have been wounded in Iraq, including more than 1,100 from Pennsylvania. Approximately 156,000 Americans, both Active-Duty and Reserve forces, are currently serving in Iraq, including more than 8,000 from Pennsylvania. Certainly, numbers don't tell the whole story, especially when we consider the traumatic effect this war has had on individual families. These fighting men and women were born into families, not divisions and brigades. They are sons and daughters, wives and husbands, brothers and sisters, and, of course, fathers and mothers. Their love for their families is matched only by their devotion to our Nation. This war has impacted these families in many different ways. We remember today and every day with gratitude and reverence those more than 3,600 soldiers and marines who have died, who gave, as President Lincoln said, the last full measure of devotion to their country. Their families have loved and lost, and the sharp pain of that loss may, we pray, diminish over time, but certainly the ache and the hurt will long endure because someone they loved, someone whose strong, warm embrace gave them comfort, will no longer be there for them. In fact, that person in the family is missing. Some families have a loved one who served in Iraq and returned home, thank God, but, like 25,000 others, was wounded in Iraq. These families have paid a terrible price for the courage and dedication of their family members. Today, we remember the bravery of our fighting men and women. Their bravery is so inspiring to all of us. I met one of them in March who represents so many across this land of the brave, this country we call America, our America. His name is Joshua Humberger, of Grapeville, Westmoreland County, PA, 20 years old from a small town, like many of our fighting men and women from small communities across America, in this case southwestern Pennsylvania. Joshua is in the Army National Guard. He received a Purple Heart and other commendations after he was wounded when the vehicle he was riding in was hit by a bomb, killing his commander, SFC Daniel Brozovich of Greenville, PA, way up in Mercer County near the Ohio border. Two others, Ryan Griffin and Robert Kaminiski, both of Allegheny County, were injured as well in the attack. To say that Joshua was injured in this attack is an understatement. Here is what one news article said about his injuries: His left leg was amputated at the knee. His stomach was pierced by shrapnel and surgeons had to remove part of his lower bowel. Despite all of the pain he and his wife Jessica have endured, he said during my visit: I want to go back. I want to go back to continue serving. Where do these young men and women find the strength? We have to ask that. I have to say I don't know because it is hard for me to fully appreciate or comprehend such courage. They must be finding this courage from a reservoir of faith, love for and from their family, and an abiding allegiance to this Nation. We know other families have loved ones who are in Iraq now or have had family members there for a long time. But even if a soldier returns home from Iraq and is not killed or wounded, even if that is the case, in a family, they are still missing while they are there, even if the Lord keeps them safe. Today, we think of a lot of expressions of how to talk about this. One of them that comes to mind is from the great rock music icon Bruce Springsteen, who has roots in New Jersey, the Presiding Officer's State. I know he is proud of that. His words come to mind today. Written in the aftermath of 9/11, they help explain what our families have endured during this war. Bruce Springsteen's song ``You're Missing'' says in part: Your house is waiting. Your house is waiting for you to walk in. But you're missing. You're missing when I shut out the lights. You're missing when I close my eyes. You're missing when I see the sun rise. You're missing. Children are asking if it's alright. Will you be in our arms tonight? We ask that question as well, Mr. President. To pay small tribute to those who are missing from their homes and families because they lost their lives far away on a battlefield in Iraq, I wish to take a few moments to read the names and hometowns of the 169 Pennsylvanians killed in action: Shawn M. Davies, Aliquippa/Hopewell; Aric J. Barr, Allegheny; Joseph P. Goodrich, Allegheny; Luis O. Rodriguez, Contrera-Allentown; Larry Parks, Jr., Altoona; Russell G. Culbertson III, Amity; Stevon Alexander Booker, Apollo; Joshua J. Henry, Avonmore; Todd M. Siebert, Baden; Allan R. Bevington, Beaver Falls; Clint Richard Matthews, Bedford; Russell A. Kurtz, Bethel Park; Christopher D. Coffin, Bethlehem; Frederick A. Carlson, Bethlehem; Brent W. Dunkleberger, Bloomfield; Paul D. Karpowich, Bridgeport; John H. Todd III, Bridgeport; Christopher E. Loudon, Brockport; Tristan Smith, Bryn Athyn; and Carl J. Morgain, Butler. George A. Pugliese, Carbondale; Oliver J. Brown, Carbondale; Kimberly A. Voelz, Carlisle; Nicholas B. Morrison, Carlisle; Gregory A. Cox, Carmichaels; Aaron M. Genevie, Chambersburg; Brandon M. Hardy, Cochranville; John T. Bubeck, Collegeville; Nils George Thompson, Confluence; Shelby J. Feniello, Connellsville; Timmy R. Brown, Jr., Conway; Matthew C. Bowe, Coraopolis; Michael W. Franklin, Coudersport; Michael J. Cleary, Dallas; Joseph M. Kane, Darby; Jason A. Shaffer, Derry; Kenneth E. Zeigler II, Dillsburg; Colby J. Umbrell, Doylestown; Travis L. Manion, Doylestown; and Steven R. Tudor, Dunmore. Corey L. Small, East Berlin; Christopher Scott Seifert, Easton; Joshua P. Klinger, Easton; Ashly L. Moyer, Emmaus; Ernest G. Bucklew, Enon Valley; Donald Samuel Oaks, Jr., Erie; Victor M. Cortes III, Erie; Jeremy R. Horton, Erie; Mark T. Resh, Fogelsville; Bradli N. Coleman, Ford City; Sean P. Huey, Fredericktown; Dylan R. Paytas, Freedom; Mark P. Phelan, Green Lane; Roger Alan Napper, Jr., Greenburg; Eric W. Slebodnik, Greenfield Township; Michael A. Marzano, Greenville; Daniel A. Brozovich, Greenville; William L. Evans, Hallstead; Lee A. Wiegand, Hallstead; and John Kulick, Harleysville. Sean Michael Thomas, Harrisburg; Barton R. Humlhanz, Hellertown; Ronald E. Baum, Hollidaysburg; Brandon E. Adams, Hollidaysburg; Daniel R. Lightner, Jr., Hollidaysburg; Curtis J. Forshey, Hollidaysburg; Keith A. Bennett, Holtwood; Landon S. Giles, Indiana; Randy D. McCaulley, Indiana; Bradley G. Kritzer, Irvona; Robert H. Dembowski, Ivyland; Michael R. Cohen, Jacobus; David Michael Veverka, Jamestown; Dennis J. Veater, Jessup; Andrew Joseph Baddick, Jim Thorpe; Raymond R. Buchan, Johnstown; Christopher A. Golby, Johnstown; Aaron J. Rusin, Johnstown; Andrew R. Jodon, Karthaus; and Ross A. McGinnis, Knox. Jacob Walter Beisel, Lackawaxen; Jason L. Frye, Landisburg; Jsoeph Basil Maglione III, Lansdale; Maurice J. Johnson, Levittown; Jae S. Moon, Levittown; Ryan S. Ostrom, Liberty; Stephen P. Snowberger III, Lopez; David E. Dietrich, Marysville; Keith A. Callahan, McClure; Christopher E. Cutchall, McConnellsburg; Mark Joseph Kasecky, McKees Rocks; Edward W. Carman, McKeesport; Micheal J. Smith, Media; Michael E. McLaughlin, Mercer; Jeremy M. Campbell, Middlebury; Louis E. Allen, Milford; Zachariah W. Long, Milton; Edward W. Shaffer, Mont Alto; Daniel L. Arnold, Montrose; and Nathaniel E. Detample, Morrisville. Thor H. Ingraham, Murrysville; Travis C. Zimmerman, New Berlinville; Clifford L. Moxley, Jr., New Castle; Albert Pasquale Gettings, New Castle; Orlando E. Gonzalez, New Freedom; Jennifer M. Hartman, New Ringgold; Brandon J. Van Parys, New Tripoli; Timothy L. Hayslett, Newville; Kyle J. Grimes, Northampton; Justin W. Dreese, Northumberland; Brett D. Swank, Northumberland; John R. Priestner, Leraysville; Jonathan Roy Kephart, Oil City; Kyle J. Renehan, Oxford; Jeremy E. Maresh, Penn Forest Township; Brian R. Faunce, Philadelphia; Francis J. Straub, Jr., Philadelphia; Adam C. Conboy, Philadelphia; Carl W. Johnson II, Philadelphia; and Edward W. Brabazon, Philadelphia. Joseph M. Nolan, Philadelphia; Rodney A. Jones, Philadelphia; Nicholas J. Zangara, Philadelphia; Brahim J. Jeffcoat, Philadelphia; Gennaro Pellegrini, Jr., Philadelphia; Albert M. Nelson, Philadelphia; Wesley J. Williams, Philadelphia; David R. Bernstein, Phoenixville; Douglas J. Weismantle, Pittsburgh; Rafael L. Navea, Pittsburgh; Nicholas A. Tomko, Pittsburgh; Robert E. Hall Jr., Pittsburgh; Patrick Brian Kenny, Pittsburgh; Mark W. Melcher, Pittsburgh; Jason M. West, Pittsburgh; Thomas E. Vandling, Jr., Pittsburgh; Steven Freund, Pleasant Hills; Andrew W. Brown, Pleasant Mount; Sherwood R. Baker, Plymouth; and Jaror C. Puello-Coronado, Pocono Summit. Craig S. Ivory, Port Matilda; Anthony L. Sherman, Pottstown; Scott R. Smith, Punxsutawney; Tamarra J. Ramos, Quakertown; William V. Fernandez, Reading; Joseph Minucci II, Richeyville; Tony L. Knier, Sabinsvilie; Timothy J. Lauer, Saegertown; Robert T. Mininger, Sellersville; Matthew J. Sandri, Shamokin; Douglas E. Kashmer, Sharon; Kurt E. Krout, Spinnerstown; William R. Sturges, Jr., Spring Church; Tristan Neil Aitken, State College; Eric A. McIntosh, Trafford; Carl F. Curran, Union City; Eric R. Hull, Uniontown; Jeffrey P. Toczylowski, Upper Moreland; Lonny D. Wells, Vandergrift; and Neil Anthony Santoriello, Verona. Steven W. Szwydek, Warfordsburg; Michael T. Gleason, Warren; Ryan J. Kovacicek, Washington; Dale Thomas Lloyd, Watsontown; Brent A. Adam, West View; William J. Maher III, Yardley; Allen J. Dunckley, Yardley; Martin W. Kondor, York; and, finally, Sean R. Mitchell, Youngsville. May they rest in peace. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Summer Food Service Rural Expansion Act. This bill will provide critical meals to children living in poverty in rural areas. I am pleased to introduce this bill with Senator Specter. Congressman Platts is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. During the summer, low-income children lose their access to regular daily school meals. The Summer Food Service Program is intended to help fill this nutritional gap by providing summer meals to children from low-income families who receive school meals. For those of my colleagues who do not know much about the Summer Food Service Program, it was authorized through the National School Lunch Act of 1968. The program allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide grants to nonprofit food service programs that in turn provide meals for children from low-income families through sites such as nonprofit schools, local governments, and nonprofit summer camps. Yet, despite the best efforts of this program, only 2 in 10 low-income children who receive school lunch also receive summer food when school is out. So where do these children get food? Sadly, the answer is that many of them go hungry. Traditionally, the majority of sponsors and sites participating in the Summer Food Service Program have tended to be located in urban areas. As we know, however, hunger is not just an urban issue. Thanks to the tremendous effort by Congressman Platts, the Child Nutrition Act of 2004 recognized the void of such programs in predominantly rural areas and established a 2-year pilot program to increase participation rates in rural communities. The existing Summer Food Service Program is available to areas in which at least 50 percent of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. However, to encourage more sponsors and more sites to participate in the program, the pilot allowed that threshold to be reduced to 40 percent in rural communities. The pilot, which ran in my home state during calendar years 2005 and 2006, was a tremendous success. During the first year of the pilot program, 20 sponsors offered 40 meal sites in rural areas. Of the sponsors, 8 were new sponsors of the program and 12 were sponsors in the prior years who added meal sites. During the first year of the program, the total numbers of meals served in rural communities increased by 73,000 meals, or 11 percent over the previous year. By the second year, there were 9 new sponsors, 16 returning sponsors, and 77 pilot sites; and the number of meals served increased over the previous year by an additional 4.3 percent, or 31,000 meals. Unfortunately, because of the expiration of the pilot program, 37 of the sites established under the pilot will not be able to participate this summer. That means nearly half of the children who participated in this program over the past 2 years will no longer be able to count on receiving nutritious meals during the summer months. For this reason, I am introducing legislation to help not only the children of Pennsylvania, but also the needy children in rural areas of every single State who deserve access to nutritious lunches during the summer months. Through this bill, the Summer Food Service Pilot Program for rural areas would become a permanent program and would apply to rural areas of every State beginning in calendar year 2007 and each calendar year thereafter. Through this bill, the numbers of children participating in the program will dramatically increase, and needy children in rural areas throughout the country will receive nutritious meals they might not otherwise get during the summer months. I urge all of my colleagues to join in the effort to combat childhood hunger in rural areas by cosponsoring the Summer Food Service Rural Expansion Act. 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 Summer Food Service Rural Expansion Act. This bill will provide critical meals to children living in poverty in rural areas. I am pleased to introduce this bill with Senator Specter. Congressman Platts is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. During the summer, low-income children lose their access to regular daily school meals. The Summer Food Service Program is intended to help fill this nutritional gap by providing summer meals to children from low-income families who receive school meals. For those of my colleagues who do not know much about the Summer Food Service Program, it was authorized through the National School Lunch Act of 1968. The program allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide grants to nonprofit food service programs that in turn provide meals for children from low-income families through sites such as nonprofit schools, local governments, and nonprofit summer camps. Yet, despite the best efforts of this program, only 2 in 10 low-income children who receive school lunch also receive summer food when school is out. So where do these children get food? Sadly, the answer is that many of them go hungry. Traditionally, the majority of sponsors and sites participating in the Summer Food Service Program have tended to be located in urban areas. As we know, however, hunger is not just an urban issue. Thanks to the tremendous effort by Congressman Platts, the Child Nutrition Act of 2004 recognized the void of such programs in predominantly rural areas and established a 2-year pilot program to increase participation rates in rural communities. The existing Summer Food Service Program is available to areas in which at least 50 percent of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. However, to encourage more sponsors and more sites to participate in the program, the pilot allowed that threshold to be reduced to 40 percent in rural communities. The pilot, which ran in my home state during calendar years 2005 and 2006, was a tremendous success. During the first year of the pilot program, 20 sponsors offered 40 meal sites in rural areas. Of the sponsors, 8 were new sponsors of the program and 12 were sponsors in the prior years who added meal sites. During the first year of the program, the total numbers of meals served in rural communities increased by 73,000 meals, or 11 percent over the previous year. By the second year, there were 9 new sponsors, 16 returning sponsors, and 77 pilot sites; and the number of meals served increased over the previous year by an additional 4.3 percent, or 31,000 meals. Unfortunately, because of the expiration of the pilot program, 37 of the sites established under the pilot will not be able to participate this summer. That means nearly half of the children who participated in this program over the past 2 years will no longer be able to count on receiving nutritious meals during the summer months. For this reason, I am introducing legislation to help not only the children of Pennsylvania, but also the needy children in rural areas of every single State who deserve access to nutritious lunches during the summer months. Through this bill, the Summer Food Service Pilot Program for rural areas would become a permanent program and would apply to rural areas of every State beginning in calendar year 2007 and each calendar year thereafter. Through this bill, the numbers of children participating in the program will dramatically increase, and needy children in rural areas throughout the country will receive nutritious meals they might not otherwise get during the summer months. I urge all of my colleagues to join in the effort to combat childhood hunger in rural areas by cosponsoring the Summer Food Service Rural Expansion Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise for a brief period of time to pay tribute to a Pennsylvanian who just passed away this past week, a constituent of mine whose family I have known for many years. I think he is like a lot of people in our communities and in our States who lead lives of service and struggle and achievement, and often their lives are not the subject of big stories and headlines. When I think of Alex George, Sr.--who is the father of Bill George, or William George, who is the president of the AFL-CIO in Pennsylvania--I think of those people who grew up in parts of western Pennsylvania, where over many generations steel was the foundation of the economy, and in places like where Mr. George lived, Aliquippa, PA, which is a very strong community that had a thriving steel industry that is now largely gone from the city and that community. It is not nearly what it was when thousands of people were employed. Alex George, like a lot of Pennsylvanians and, frankly, a lot of Americans, lived a life of triumph where he had to overcome difficulties in his own life, and then he became a union leader of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steelworkers, which was the forerunner, of course, of the modern day Steelworkers Union that his son, Bill George, joined many years later. We think of his life today and what he did for the labor movement of western Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania generally, and also what he did as a law enforcement officer. He was a police officer as well in his later years. I rise briefly to pay tribute to him and his life of work for the benefit of labor, doing everything possible to make sure they have lives that are rewarded, in the sense that they are allowed to organize and allowed to have the opportunity to have the dignity of their labor be part of the fabric of their lives. We pay tribute to Alex George today and the many others who built the middle class in America. He is the proud son of Aliquippa, PA. In a special way, I express my condolences to the entire George family, and especially Bill George, president of the AFL-CIO of Pennsylvania. Alex George leaves behind three sons: Bill, who I have mentioned, Robert, and Alex, Jr., as well as nine grandchildren and many great-grandchildren. In the spirit of condolence, but also in the spirit of tribute, I pay tribute to Alex George and the legacy he leaves behind for the George family and for the labor family of Pennsylvania. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Carper for his presentation and his wisdom. I appreciate that. I rise tonight very briefly to express hope that is contained in an amendment I have. I know we have an agreement in place, and this is for the purpose of talking about this amendment as opposed to formally speaking on it. This is a very simple amendment I have. It is an idea I had based on some of my work in State government. It is simply to do this, to offer a proposal that allows low-income families to purchase home appliances which are energy efficient and that will allow them to not only heat their homes or wash their clothes or use other appliances but to do it in an energy-efficient way. It is based upon my experience in State government, as a State treasurer, where we started a program in Pennsylvania called Keystone Help, back in the last couple of years. Right now, that program has helped people in 60 out of our 67 counties. It is simple. What the Federal version of this would do is to dedicate $4 million over 5 years. It is not a lot of money, and it is paid for by the current $750-million-per-year authorization for weatherization programs in the Federal Government. So it is just $4 million out of the $750 million that is already in the bill and already paid for. These funds would be used to help low-income families purchase Energy Star certified appliances. This means they have been certified by the Department of Energy for their energy-efficient qualities. Here is what the appliances are that would be allowed to be paid for out of the money applied in this program: refrigerators, water heaters, washers and dryers, home heating systems and air-conditioning--basic necessities of life in America today. The amendment would also require that the families who receive these grants out of the $4 million of grant money over 5 years provide a 5- percent match that they would have to come up with. I recognize for a lot of families even a 5-percent match is a lot of money. An extra $50 or so, depending on the amount of money, would be significant. But I think it is important that families have that requirement. There are some families who will not be able to meet that, so we allow charitable assistance or State and local initiatives to come up with the 5 percent. But I wish to make one point among several. First of all, this is not a new program in the sense that it requires a big expenditure of money or requires administrative work that cannot already be done within the existing weatherization program. The grants in this amendment are intended to work as a complement to and work within the current weatherization program. The amendment will not increase administrative costs and it will not require new expenditures of dollars. It is within the $750 million already allocated for weatherization. I believe this amendment, and the features of this program called for by this amendment, helps families. It helps our low-income families pay for Energy Star certified appliances for their homes. It helps the environment. It is good all around. We already have a program that helps these same families properly insulate and weatherize their homes. What this does is take the next step. We should take that next step to help low-income families use less energy for the basic necessities of heating and cooling their homes as well as laundry and some other basic necessities. I hope the managers on both sides of the aisle, I hope both parties, can agree to adopt this. It may not happen, but I am hopeful that will happen tomorrow.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m. Thursday, June 21; that on Thursday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 6, as under the previous order; that Members have until 11 a.m. to file any germane second-degree amendments to the Baucus amendment No. 1704.