Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about unemployment insurance, and I will be brief. At the end of my remarks I will be offering a unanimous consent request. First of all, I wish to cite a study just released today by the Council of Economic Advisers. I commend to my colleagues this report entitled ``The Economic Impact of Recent Temporary Unemployment Insurance Extensions'' dated December 2, a report by the Executive Office of the President and the Council of Economic Advisers. I ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary of the report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CASEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. So with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. I would not. I object to that for the simple reason that the construction of that amendment involves dollars already allocated to Federal programs across the board. Although the money has not been spent yet, it has been allocated. If there is a concern, as there seems to be--and I would categorize it as an alleged concern--about the deficit, there doesn't seem to be the same concern about running up the deficit not by billions but by hundreds of billions to extend tax cuts to Americans above the $250,000 income tax bracket. So if there is that concern about the deficits, I wish that logic and concern was applied to the tax cut debate.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the next time we sit down to eat dinner with our families, are we sure that the food on our tables is safe to eat? I understand that many Americans are concerned about food safety issues. We all want food for our families that is nutritious and free from foodborne pathogens and contaminants. Ensuring that our food supply, both domestic and foreign food products, is safe is a high priority for me. I am focused on food safety not only as a lawmaker but also as a consumer and a father. Americans have every right to expect a safe food supply. We need solutions to give Americans peace of mind that the foods they eat and give to their families are safe to consume. There are 76 million cases of foodborne illness in this country every year. These illnesses send an estimated 300,000 Americans to the hospital each year and they kill an estimated 5,000 individuals yearly. Many of these deaths occur in vulnerable members of our communities: young children, the elderly, or those with chronic illnesses. I will share with you the story, a real story, of Kevin Kowalcyk, a 2-year-old boy, who was sickened with an E. coli O157:H7 infection that he acquired from eating a common food. I want to speak about Kevin because I want to be clear that when we are not talking about statistics today, we are talking about real people, real lives. Kevin's illness started with vomiting and diarrhea, but soon he was passing large amounts of blood. On the third day of his illness, he was diagnosed and hospitalized. On the following day, his kidneys started to fail. The medical staff, while brutally honest about how hemolytic uremic syndrome, HUS, affected children, felt that Kevin would live. They told Kevin's parents that he would go to the brink of death--which he did on several occasions--because ``this is the way it is for HUS kids.'' On day 12 of his illness, this normally healthy little boy looked as sick as a child can look. His body was swollen to three times its normal size, and he was hooked up to a dialysis machine and a respirator. His heart raced at 200 beats per minute, and light from huge sun lamps focused on him, in attempt to raise his body temperature. Kevin could not speak or cry. His loving family could not hold him. He suffered three heart attacks as they struggled to put him on a heart-lung machine. And then Kevin died. The autopsy later showed that his entire intestinal tract had been destroyed by gangrene. One month after Kevin's August 11, 2001, death, America experienced the horrible 9/11 attack, and the Kowalcyk family were told that they were having another baby. Kevin's grandmother, Pat Buck, a Pennsylvania resident, was very concerned about her daughter and her new grandchild, and she was horrified by the type of death that her grandson had endured. So Pat did what any teacher would do and started studying foodborne illnesses. What she learned shocked and appalled her. By March 2002, Kevin's family was actively involved in food safety advocacy. In April 2003, Senator Harkin declared that the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act would be renamed Kevin's Law. In 2006, after the spinach outbreak, Barbara Kowalcyk, Kevin's mother, and Pat Buck founded the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention, CFI, a national nonprofit dedicated to preventing foodborne illness through research, education, advocacy, and service. In 2007, Barbara and Pat were asked to participate in the filming of the Oscar-nominated documentary, ``Food Inc.'' Today, CFI is viewed as a credible organization that is looking for science-based solutions to America's food safety challenges. I tell you about Kevin's story because it is a powerful reminder that real people are being affected by foodborne disease, not just once in awhile but every day. I want to thank Barbara and Pat Buck for sharing their story and becoming involved in such an important issue that affects all of our lives. In particular, I am thankful to them for turning their family's tragedy into an action that will help to ensure no child would ever again go through Kevin's horrible experience. As Pat said to me once while visiting my office, ``It is time to move forward. Too many people are being sickened, too many are suffering negative, long-term health consequences and too many are dying because they ate a common food, such as peanut butter, cookie dough or fresh produce. The 1938 law governing the Food and Drug Administration is too obsolete and it does not provide the Agency with the authorities or resources needed to develop a proactive approach to food safety. S. 510 will help FDA to become more proactive. This legislation is needed to help America meet the food challenges of the 21st century.'' The U.S. Senate must modernize the U.S. system of food safety and inspection. That is why I am pleased to support passage of S. 510, Senator Durbin's Food Safety Modernization Act. We must provide the agencies that regulate food safety with additional authorities to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply. We must provide increased resources to the FDA so that it can hire more personnel and so it can invest in improvements to domestic and imported food products inspection systems. We must mandate science-based regulations to ensure the safety of food products that carry the most risk. We must improve coordination between USDA, FDA, and the various other Federal and State agencies charged with regulating food safety. We must implement a national traceability system so we have consistency and know where our food comes from. And we must ensure the safety of both domestic and foreign food products. With Senator Grassley, I introduced the EAT SAFE Act, which is designed to address a critical aspect of the food and agricultural import system: food being smuggled into the United States. The greatest 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. Some examples of prohibited products discovered in U.S. commerce in recent years include unpasteurized raw cheeses from Mexico containing a bacterium that causes tuberculosis and strawberries from Mexico contaminated with hepatitis A. 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. I am grateful to Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, Senator Durbin, Senator Dodd, Senator Gregg, and Senator Burr for incorporating portions of the EAT SAFE Act into S. 510. These provisions would add personnel to detect, track, and remove smuggled food, call for the development and implementation of strategies to stop food from being smuggled into the United States, and require data sharing amongst Federal agencies dealing with food safety and foodborne illnesses. I am thankful that this important issue is being addressed so that mothers and fathers across the Nation won't have to be concerned when they pack their children's lunches, sit down to eat a family dinner, or give their child a snack. In the Senate, we owe it every American consumer to make needed improvements to our food safety system before another outbreak sickens our citizens, and we need to make sure that we are vigilant and vigorously monitor and update our food safety system so that Americans can continue to be confident that the food they eat is safe.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our economy and some of the debates and discussions we are engaged in now about tax policy as well as to emphasize the need to be guided during these debates by the two essential priorities on which we must focus. Obviously, those priorities are job creation and continuing economic growth, continuing our recovery. We also must make sure that in the process of doing that, we don't take steps that will increase long-term deficits. So while we debate these many tax issues, I think it is critically important that we don't forget about provisions that both combat poverty and assist those who fall in the lower income brackets. Last month, the Nation added over 150,000 jobs, which is strong evidence that we are slowly recovering from the devastating impacts of the recent recession. But we are certainly not out of the woods yet, and the Senate must continue to pass legislation that will spur economic growth as well as to focus on ways we can extend certain tax provisions that are set to expire this year. The debate, unfortunately, has largely focused only on whether to extend the current income tax rates. I am 100 percent in favor of extending income tax rates for middle and lower income tax brackets. Now is not the time to raise taxes on those middle-income families who are still recovering from the recession. Plus, the more money we put in the pockets of those middle-income families means more money is being pumped into the economy through the purchase of goods and services. That is for sure, and I think we will even have consensus on that point alone. Even as our recovery is slow, there have been a number of bright spots. One bright spot in the recovery is the rate of private sector hiring. In fact, according to the figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more private sector jobs have been created in 2010 when compared to the entire 8 years under President Bush. Private sector jobs decreased by 673,000 in the 8 years of President Bush's Presidency--a decrease of 673,000 private sector jobs. The increase I speak of occurred within this calendar year of 2010--an increase of 874,000 private sector jobs in 2010, and the year, of course, is not over yet. The tax cuts for upper income folks implemented by President Bush had limited impact on jobs in those years, and the income tax breaks for upper income folks added hundreds of billions to our deficit. However, due to the current condition of the economy and to take every step necessary that we must take to continue the recovery, I believe it is imperative that we maintain certainty. That is what economists have talked to many of us about--to take steps not just to further economic growth and to continue to push forward the recovery but to do that in a way that creates some measure of certainty. Whether a small business owner--hundreds and hundreds of thousands across the country--or a large company, uncertainty and change often tend to make businesses less willing to expand and less willing to hire. Over the last few months, many of our colleagues in the Senate and I have spoken to both business owners and economists to get their views on how we should handle the expiring tax provisions. What I learned, among several lessons from these experts, is that certainty and consistency are needed when the economy is still in a fragile condition. So I will have more to say as the debate continues about tax cuts, but during these discussions about the income tax cuts and what we should do between now and the end of the year, two important provisions have been barely mentioned: the child tax credit and the marriage penalty under the so-called earned-income tax credit. Both provisions provide necessary tax relief for those in the lower income brackets, and both provisions are necessary to help working families barely getting by for their children during this recession, at a time when poverty levels, unfortunately, are increasing. At this time, this Senate must act to provide tax relief to those who are in desperate need of assistance while they recover from the effects of the recession. First, the child tax credit. This provides tax relief to working families with children of up to $1,000 per child. The tax credit was first enacted in 1997 and was expanded last year in the Recovery Act to increase the number of families eligible to receive the credit. As a result of this expansion of the child tax credit, millions of previously ineligible families received critical relief during these tough economic times. These expanded tax cuts will expire if they are not extended by the end of the year. Here are the numbers from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: 7.6 million children will lose their child tax credit if we don't continue it. An additional 10.5 million children will see those credits reduced or the credits their families receive reduced. In Pennsylvania, half a million children will lose that credit. To put this in perspective, if you have a family with two children and earning minimum wage, that family would see its child tax credit reduced by $825. That is the equivalent of almost 3 weeks of pretax wages for a minimum wage worker--$825-- which would have an adverse impact even on a middle-income family, but to say that about a family earning the minimum wage I think speaks volumes about the impact of not extending the child tax credit. That would be a horrific result for a minimum wage-earning family. This vital tax relief is necessary to help families struggling to provide their children with basic essentials. If that argument is not convincing enough for folks in the Senate as a reason to extend it, consider that the money that child tax credit results in will be spent immediately and go right back into local economies. It is the same argument we have made on unemployment insurance--that it has an impact on the overall economy. The child tax credit is not the only poverty-fighting tax provision that is in jeopardy of being reversed. Enhancements to the earned- income tax credit are also set to expire. The so-called EITC--the earned-income tax credit--encourages and rewards work by providing a refundable credit for working people against their payroll and income taxes. Millions of working families with incomes of up to $48,000 are eligible for the Federal earned-income tax credit. The Recovery Act we passed in 2009 reduced the so-called marriage penalty in the earned-income tax credit by increasing the income level at which it phases out for married couples. If this expanded tax relief is not extended, 6 million workers will see their earned-income tax credit reduced and 11 million children will be affected. So children get harmed by both. They get harmed by the failure to extend the earned-income tax credit and the failure to extend the child tax credit. So while the debate has been focused on the extension of tax rates on income, the Senate must not overlook sound tax policy that both fights poverty and spurs economic growth. So I would encourage all Members of the Senate to push for an extension of the provisions that expand eligibility for the child tax credit as well as the earned-income tax credit. Finally, in addition to those tax provisions, we must not forget that today, November 30, 2010, is the day that federally funded unemployment insurance programs will expire. I encourage other Members of the Senate to not block legislation that will reauthorize unemployment insurance programs through the end of 2011--in other words, unemployment insurance to help the newly unemployed still suffering through and fighting through this recession. If folks in the Senate block this legislation today--an extension of unemployment insurance--if they block it, I hope they will have an answer for the following question or two: What is your strategy to help these folks get through this time when they have lost a job through no fault of their own? What are you going to do? What action are you going to take to try to help them? That is one question. If you don't have an answer to that question, you should also have to answer this question: What are you doing affirmatively to put in place strategies to create jobs? Are you just talking about job creation, are you just talking about helping people, or are you going to take action to extend unemployment insurance or have something else that will help those who are going through this difficult period in their lives--many families who never dreamed they would be in this position--and are you going to do something to help the overall economy to grow and to continue the recovery? Because unemployment insurance does both. It helps the vulnerable get through this recession. It is the right thing to do. It also has a substantial, immeasurable impact on economic growth. All the studies show that. It is irrefutable that it is probably the best thing we can do to create jobs and to continue the recovery--pass a reauthorization of unemployment insurance. So I encourage my colleagues to not block, but if they block, they need to have an answer to those basic questions. In Pennsylvania, the unemployment rate now is 8.8 percent. Thank goodness it fell below 9, but 8.8 percent in our State means 560,000 people out of work. In the summer, it went as high as 592,000, so it was approaching 600,000. We have approximately 560,000 unemployed Pennsylvanians right now. We have to have an answer for those folks. We can't just say: Well, it got a little difficult in Washington, or put some other institutional or policy argument out there without having an answer or an alternative for those who are unemployed. As have many of the Members of the Senate, I have discussed the impact of the expiration of unemployment insurance with folks in Pennsylvania and others who will be suffering through this. In the course of those discussions, we have had a chance to review what the impact would be on the economy as well as on Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. There is one group we often don't mention. We talk about unemployment, jobless Americans and the economy. We often don't talk about the adverse impact specifically on children. Mr. President, 1 in 10 Pennsylvania children has an unemployed parent, and that is true across the country--roughly 1 in 10 in many States. That translates to 265,000 children under the age of 18 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are directly impacted by unemployment--265,300 children who are affected just by unemployment. So as we address ways to improve the economic outlook in our country and discuss the tax provisions, we must recognize the impact the economy has on our children. I will end with a line from the Scriptures that says that ``a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter.'' It goes on to talk about how important having a faithful friend in life is. There are a lot of folks, politicians especially, who talk nonstop about helping children and the importance of doing that and the priority placed on our children and the priority to protect our children from harm and to help them especially in a recession. You have to do more than talk. If you consider yourself a friend of children, you would support an extension of the child tax credit. You would support other provisions, such as unemployment insurance, that help families such as those families who have 265,000 children who are affected by unemployment in Pennsylvania. If you are going to say you are a faithful friend and want to be a sturdy shelter for children, what are you going to do about it? The question we must ask ourselves, among many, is: Will the Senate be a faithful friend to children, not just by talk and rhetoric but by actions, taking steps to help children get through this recession, helping their families and also spur and continue economic growth and recovery? With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a piece of legislation just introduced, S. 3849, the Job Preservation for Parents in Poverty Act, which is simply an extension of a program that has placed tens of thousands of people into jobs in this recession and is working. We want to make sure it is extended because of how effective it has been to help people find and keep jobs. This legislation is fully offset. I wish to spend a couple minutes talking about the provisions that make it so effective. First, I thank a number of Senators who have led the fight--Senator Kerry, as well as our assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, for the work they have done, as well as others--and for the testimony we received from people across the country. I know in my case one person who spent a good deal of time making it clear to me and to others across southern Pennsylvania and even across the State about the effectiveness of this program was Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia who, like any mayor in the country in the middle of a recession, doesn't have the luxury of dealing with programs that don't work. He can only support and endorse programs that are working to create jobs. In a city such as Philadelphia, which still has a high unemployment rate, Mayor Nutter has relied upon this program, which is a rapid attachment effort to create jobs and keep people in those jobs. We know the unemployment rates are intolerably too high. In our State we have 585,000 people out of work, just about 9.5 percent unemployment. Our poverty figures are going through the roof at the same time. We are seeing, in short, the real impact of this horrific recession. One of the best ways to deal with that crisis is to have an extension of an important program that we refer to in Pennsylvania as the Pennsylvania Way to Work Program. It is helping keep people out of poverty and providing people with jobs; in this case, 12,000 people in Pennsylvania. I could go down the list of other States as well, but I won't. In our State, 12,864 adults have been helped by this program as well as summer youth, more than 7,800, for a total of 20,718. It is fully offset. If we don't extend it, in many, if not most, States, these programs will be shut down. It is working. It is not only creating jobs, it is keeping people out of poverty because they are working. I would think everyone would want to support programs that are working and keeping people out of poverty. It is critically important that we extend the program. I am grateful for the help our assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, has provided. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I commend the work of my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, on a very important set of challenges we have. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the conflict in Afghanistan enters its ninth year next month. Over the past few months, the United States has experienced the most casualties since the war began in 2001. In June, 60 U.S. troops were killed; in July, 66; in the month of August, 55 service members gave their lives. We always recall the words of Lincoln when we recall those who are killed in action, those who gave, as he said, the last full measure of devotion to their country. These are difficult days, and that is an understatement--very difficult days for the American people and especially for the families and the troops. I also believe these are days that have tried the patience of Americans and tested the resolve of our commitment to this conflict. At a minimum, we--when I say ``we,'' I mean those Members of the U.S. Congress--we owe the families of these service members every assurance that their elected officials, their elected representatives in Washington are vigilantly exercising oversight of the war. We also owe it to them that we ask and demand answers to very tough questions and, finally, that we are doing everything we can to make sure we get this policy and this strategy that goes with it right. Since I last spoke on the floor on the issue of Afghanistan, there have been many important developments with respect to the war. First, we have been confronted with new revelations of corruption by the Afghan Government--more about that in a moment--second, reports of ballot box stuffing and voter intimidation in the parliamentary elections earlier this month have raised long-held doubts by the Afghan people as to the durability of the country's democratic experiment. The number of IED attacks has increased, and while deaths due to the IEDs are, in fact, down, the number of injuries is, unfortunately, up. ISAF has also begun operations in Kandahar. We saw a story about this yesterday. This is notable because this is reportedly the first operation to be primarily made up of Afghan troops. I wish to spend a couple moments today to draw attention to the international response to the floods in Pakistan. The United States has played an important leading role. We were the first, and with the most assistance, of any country. While this may be the case, we also have a responsibility to encourage generosity from the public and private sectors in the international community. I mentioned before the issue of corruption in Afghanistan. This issue has nationwide implications and could serve to undermine the totality of our efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops are fighting and dying to help extend the reach of the Afghan Government outside of the capital of Kabul to show the Afghan people that their government has a monopoly on the use of force and is capable of providing goods and services to its people. But we need to put this very simply. We cannot be complicit. Our forces, our government, cannot be complicit in helping to extend the reach of a corrupt government. Afghanistan is a sovereign country, and if the fight against corruption is going to be effective, Afghans--Afghans--can and must own the process. The United States should support the work of the Major Crimes Task Force and the Special Investigations Unit, but, frankly, the track record to date has been very disappointing, and unless serious progress is made, support for U.S. engagement in Afghanistan will be seriously eroded. As a former auditor general of Pennsylvania who oversaw the auditing of government programs at the State level, I perhaps have a heightened sensitivity to the vital role transparency and accountability have in government--in any government. The importance of these basic elements of a representative democracy is especially compelling when the lives of courageous Americans, ISAF, and Afghan forces are, indeed, on the line. Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that there is a U.S. criminal investigation into President Karzai's older brother Mahmood, and prosecutors are trying to determine whether they can bring charges of tax evasion, racketeering, or extortion against him. Reportedly, he will travel to the United States this week to amend his tax returns. But these are serious allegations that we read about time after time. I have spoken and many in this Chamber have spoken about the allegations of corruption against Ahmed Wali Karzai, who has been implicated in local corruption schemes involving the opium trade. These are allegations, they are charges, but they are charges that are very serious and potentially damaging to the overall U.S. effort in the country, as it strikes to the heart of trust in the Afghan Government. Without this trust from Afghans and from the international community, I am concerned that support for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan will erode. On September 18, Afghans went to the polls to vote for a new parliament. This has also become a serious cause for concern. On Sunday, the Afghan election officials ordered recounts in seven provinces. A government antifraud elections watchdog has received more than 3,500 complaints--3,500 complaints--about this election. They are concerned that up to 57 percent of these complaints could change the outcome of the vote. The Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan, the main independent Afghan observer group, observed ballot box stuffing in 280 voting sites in 28 provinces. We don't expect elections in a developing country to be perfect, especially a country that is in a war zone, but these reports are alarming, to say the least, because they indicate that not enough progress has been made over the past 9 years to create an Afghanistan in which the people resolve their own differences through politics and not violence. Next let me move to the question of security, which is so fundamental to our strategy. I have sought to highlight the threat posed by ammonium nitrate, the fertilizer that is a key ingredient in the improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan. According to a recent report from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, known by the acronym JIEDDO, there have been 1,062 effective IED attacks against coalition forces in 2010 that killed 292 soldiers and wounded another 2,178 others. In the first 8 months of 2009, there were 820 such attacks that killed 322 and wounded 1,813. So while the number of deaths in the comparable period of 2009 versus 2010 may be down-- instead of it being 322 deaths in those 8 months, it is 292--even though the number of deaths is down, the number of wounded, the number of injuries has risen dramatically in 2010. It is essential that we highlight this threat and support U.S. and international efforts to crack down on the proliferation of dangerous chemicals such as ammonium nitrate that can be used in IEDs. I sponsored a resolution which was passed by unanimous consent--which we know is hard to do in this body these days--calling for increased focus by the Governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asian nations to effectively monitor and regulate the use of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in order to prevent terrorist organizations from transporting ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan. As we know, a lot of the inflow, a lot of the movement of this precursor chemical that is used in IEDs comes from Pakistan into Afghanistan. As a show of bipartisan strength on this resolution, Senators Kyl, Snowe, Reid, and Levin--two Democrats, two Republicans--were original cosponsors of this resolution. I also had language inserted into the foreign operations funding bill which requires the State Department to report on its efforts to encourage Pakistani assistance on this issue. We must remain vigilant and persistent to address this ongoing problem. This is about protecting our troops from the horror of an IED attack. We must do all we can to minimize the threat to our brave men and women fighting for us in the field. At a different level, at a strategic level, ISAF has launched Operation Dragon Strike, a joint operation with Afghan forces which will look to eradicate Taliban elements in Kandahar. This operation could mark a crucial and critical turning point in the war, and we will be watching closely in the coming weeks to gauge the progress as it moves forward. This operation is notable as there are more Afghan troops than ISAF troops on the ground, and this is indeed an encouraging sign that the training of the Afghan National Army is beginning to reap benefits. That is a bit of good news--more good news--as it relates to the training of the Afghan Army; not such good news--in fact, some bad news--as it relates to the training of the Afghan National Police. Let me move finally to the floods in Pakistan. I wish to draw attention to the devastating humanitarian crisis that continues to plague Pakistan after the flood. This has affected millions of people in Pakistan across the country--maybe not always directly but in some way or another through displacement, death, injury--in so many ways this has adversely affected the people of Pakistan. This is the worst natural disaster in the history of the country. To assist the people of Pakistan during this difficult time, the United States has provided more than $340 million to support immediate relief and recovery efforts. The United States has provided food, infrastructure support, and air support to transport goods and rescue thousands stranded by the floods. These floods will require a substantial international commitment of assistance. The United Nations has issued appeals, but the response from the international community has been, in a word, weak, and that might be an understatement. Private contributions have slowed to a trickle. Last week, we heard from Cameron Munter, the President's nominee to be Ambassador to Pakistan, who described at our hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee the administration's plans to bolster support for the Pakistan relief fund. The American response to the flood has been substantial, but we can and must do more to rally the international community and the private sector to be generous in Pakistan's time of need. The Pakistani-American community has led an important effort to draw attention to the devastation wrought by the flood. We should bolster their work and use our platforms as public officials to broaden their appeals for help. So we have many challenges in this area to get our strategy right in Afghanistan as it relates to governance. Increasingly, that word really means anticorruption, mostly--obviously on security in terms of what our strategy is but also in terms of training the Afghan National Army and police so that we can eventually draw down our troops and have them take over the fight and govern their own country. Finally, on development, which I didn't speak much about today, there is the ability for the Afghans to develop the infrastructure and support they need to govern themselves, whether that is services, water and sewer--any indication, any element any country would need to have in place so that people can live in peace and security. Finally, there are the efforts we are making to help the people of Pakistan at a time of great need. We have all kinds of important humanitarian reasons to be helpful and to show solidarity with suffering people, and we also have several security imperatives that come into play when it comes to the flood and the aftermath. So for all of these reasons, it is critically important to continue to debate and discuss and even argue about what our policy in Afghanistan should be. That is the least the Senate can do when our troops are fighting and sometimes dying in the field to carry out this mission. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a piece of legislation just introduced, S. 3849, the Job Preservation for Parents in Poverty Act, which is simply an extension of a program that has placed tens of thousands of people into jobs in this recession and is working. We want to make sure it is extended because of how effective it has been to help people find and keep jobs. This legislation is fully offset. I wish to spend a couple minutes talking about the provisions that make it so effective. First, I thank a number of Senators who have led the fight--Senator Kerry, as well as our assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, for the work they have done, as well as others--and for the testimony we received from people across the country. I know in my case one person who spent a good deal of time making it clear to me and to others across southern Pennsylvania and even across the State about the effectiveness of this program was Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia who, like any mayor in the country in the middle of a recession, doesn't have the luxury of dealing with programs that don't work. He can only support and endorse programs that are working to create jobs. In a city such as Philadelphia, which still has a high unemployment rate, Mayor Nutter has relied upon this program, which is a rapid attachment effort to create jobs and keep people in those jobs. We know the unemployment rates are intolerably too high. In our State we have 585,000 people out of work, just about 9.5 percent unemployment. Our poverty figures are going through the roof at the same time. We are seeing, in short, the real impact of this horrific recession. One of the best ways to deal with that crisis is to have an extension of an important program that we refer to in Pennsylvania as the Pennsylvania Way to Work Program. It is helping keep people out of poverty and providing people with jobs; in this case, 12,000 people in Pennsylvania. I could go down the list of other States as well, but I won't. In our State, 12,864 adults have been helped by this program as well as summer youth, more than 7,800, for a total of 20,718. It is fully offset. If we don't extend it, in many, if not most, States, these programs will be shut down. It is working. It is not only creating jobs, it is keeping people out of poverty because they are working. I would think everyone would want to support programs that are working and keeping people out of poverty. It is critically important that we extend the program. I am grateful for the help our assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, has provided. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2923, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent the Senate concur in the House amendments and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate; and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 321, H.R. 946.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3847, introduced earlier today.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 618 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendments to the Senate bill, with an amendment which is at the desk; that the motion to concur be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further that the Senate agree to the title amendment.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act, received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent the Feinstein-Bond substitute amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, that after the reading of the Conrad pay- go letter into the Record the Senate bill be passed, as amended, that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I commend the remarks by the Senator from Alaska and before him the Senator from Rhode Island and others tonight. One of the reasons we are here tonight is because we have been trying, over the last 18 months, to get some of our colleagues on the other side to join us in job creation strategies. We had almost no Senators-- at the time just three on the other side--join our side to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That legislation, which we passed in the early part of 2009, has created--one rather conservative estimate--about 3 million jobs. But in an economy where we lost 8 million, we have to keep going and put in place other strategies. We passed the HIRE Act not too long ago. When we pass a lot of legislation, it goes right by people. That HIRE Act provided a payroll tax credit for the hiring of an individual who has been unemployed for 60 or more days. That has created a number of jobs. We just passed a bill, and the President signed into law today, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, a direct infusion to small businesses across the United States of America--$12 billion in tax breaks directly to small businesses. In addition to that, there is a loan fund for our smaller banks, our community banks, to provide most of the capital to most of the businesses in America because we know small businesses create most of the jobs. We have been taking step after step. None of it is perfect. Not one bill will lead to a full recovery. But we have been trying to push this economy--the image of coming out of the ditch we have all used is a good analogy. One bill is one push. One bill is not enough to get this economy fully recovered, but we have been making progress. Today we come together, once again, to try something we have advocated again: to try to take some steps to stop the offshoring of jobs, the shipping of jobs overseas because we have the wrong tax policies in place. What does this bill do? What does the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act do? Basically, three things. It is not tremendously complicated for those who are running businesses but critically important to our jobs, our families, and our future. No. 1, it would create a payroll tax holiday for companies that return jobs to the United States from overseas. What happens there is we would be providing relief from the employer's share of the Social Security payroll tax on wages paid to new U.S. employees performing services in the United States. It is as simple as that. We should have done it a long time ago. We could have taken these steps before, but our friends on the other side, just like they have blocked almost every job creation bill I can think of in the last 18 months, they blocked this over and over again. No. 2, this bill would end subsidies for plant closing costs. As some of my colleagues have noted, the bill would prohibit a firm from taking any deduction loss or credit for amounts paid in connection with reducing or ending the operation of a trade or business in the United States, starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas. We have made it easier. We have created incentives to ship jobs overseas instead of creating disincentives for companies to send jobs overseas. It would end that basic policy that ships jobs overseas. No. 3, we would end tax breaks for runaway plants--plants that go overseas and have no penalty applied to moving jobs overseas, instead of keeping jobs in America. I mentioned before the HIRE Act, legislation that provides a payroll tax credit for the hiring of an individual who has been unemployed for 60 or more days. We are building on that policy. I commend our majority leader, Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, our Presiding Officer, Senator Schumer, and others for building upon what we did in the HIRE Act earlier this year and introducing this bill to provide employer relief from the employer share of the Social Security payroll tax on wages paid to a new U.S. employee performing services here. In other words, we are trying to bring jobs back to the United States. We are not saying this bill is a magic wand that solves all our economic problems. One bill is not a recovery, but it is another forward step in furtherance of that objective to lift this economy completely out of the ditch it has been in for far too long. We know this did not happen overnight. We know our economy did not fall into a ditch overnight. We also know the loss of manufacturing jobs did not just occur over the last several years. It occurred over many years. But if you just look at the last 9 or 10 years, I know, for example, in Pennsylvania we lost over 200,000 jobs. The best estimate is 207,000 jobs just in Pennsylvania that are categorized as manufacturing jobs. In some States it is a lot higher than that. My colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, was remarking earlier that Michigan had lost over 1 million jobs in that time period, just manufacturing jobs. We know the unemployment rate across the country is intolerably too high. In our State, fortunately, it is below 10. A lot of States cannot say that. But 9.3 or 9.5 roughly in Pennsylvania over many months equates to almost 600,000 people. It got as high as 592,000 people out of work. Now we are down a little but down to only 585,000 people out of work. I went across Pennsylvania during the latter part of the summer. In 4 weeks, I was in some 31 counties, most of them small and rural counties, most of them counties that have a lot of small towns in them and a lot of geography, a lot of space. Whether you go to a county such as Potter County, which has less than 20,000 people in it and almost 100 percent rural, their unemployment rate is 11.5 percent. Philadelphia, the biggest city and biggest county as well, has an unemployment rate of 12 percent now. More than 75,000 people are out of work in the city of Philadelphia. Whether you go to a small town or rural community or whether you go to the biggest city in our State, the unemployment rate is far too high. It is my obligation to not just say the Recovery Act created 3 million jobs. It may not have been perfect or popular, but it created a lot of jobs. But that is not enough. That is why we supported the HIRE Act. That is why we supported the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act. The community bankers, by the way--this is not a number from a Democratic office--tell us it will create 500,000 jobs. What if they are off by a big number? What if it is only 400,000? My goodness, if we can pass any bill that will create 400,000 jobs, that will be remarkable. If they are right, it will be more than that. It will be 500,000 jobs. We are pushing and pushing to move this economy fully out of the ditch, to have a full and robust recovery because we know what happens when the economy recovers. We saw it in the late 1990s, during President Clinton's two terms in office. We not only had recovery but tremendous growth. We were investing in priorities such as health care and education and the skills of our workers for the future for a stronger economy. We had not only eliminated the deficit--the Congress and the President at the time--but the surplus was $236 billion when President Clinton left office. He handed that to President Bush. When President Bush handed over the keys to the White House, so to speak, to President Obama, the $236 billion in surplus was now $1.3 trillion in deficit. That is where we are today. We are still recovering, despite a lot of steps, to have a full recovery. But we cannot fully recover if we are going to continue to subsidize the movement of jobs overseas. It is hard to comprehend the strange and almost perverse policy that has led to taxpayers being called upon because of the policy that has been in place for far too long, the policy where taxpayers are subsidizing the costs associated with the closing of a plant in the United States of America. We should not just lament that, we should end the policy and instead have taxpayer support strategies to keep jobs here or support strategies that actually pull jobs back from overseas. You cannot lament the movement of jobs overseas and then just keep voting the way some are voting against tax policies to keep jobs in America. You cannot lament job loss and vote against, whether it is a Recovery Act, the HIRE Act or the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act. You cannot say you are in favor of helping small business and then turn around the next day and vote against $12 billion in tax cuts for small business. You cannot say you support small communities and the small banks in America and then vote against a loan fund that will help those very same small banks across America help their small businesses to invest and grow and hire more people and help us recover. What tomorrow's vote is about is not the bill itself. Tomorrow's vote, of course, as everyone knows, is just to get over that procedural hurdle to allow us to debate. Having a debate about ending the offshoring or doing everything we can to end the offshoring of jobs is worthy of at least 1 day or a couple hours of debate. Someone over there might say: I am not going to vote for this bill for this or that reason. They have that right. It is hard to say I do not like the fact we have been shipping jobs overseas and have tax policies that incentivize that and we have other policies we can put in place to change that and to turn that around and move in the direction of helping taxpayers keep jobs here and pulling jobs back from overseas, you cannot say all that, make a big speech on it and then vote the next day and say: I am not only going to vote against the bill but vote against any debate on the bill. That is a pretty hard argument to make. I am not sure there are many people who can make it with a straight face and with any degree of integrity. We will see what they do. We will see if they are going to vote against debating obviously one of the most important issues for people, stopping jobs from going overseas. I hope the other side does not do what it did with the small business bill and say it supports small businesses and then vote against tax cuts and vote against community banks to help our small businesses. Maybe tomorrow there will be a flash of light in the darkness of this political debate and folks on the other side will let us debate this for a couple hours and then maybe vote the right way: to stop jobs from going overseas. But we will see. We will see what the morning light brings.

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration S. 1338 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.