Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I rise in recognition of Computer Science Education Week, which started on Sunday, December 9, 2012, and continues through Saturday, December 15, 2012. This week long celebration is an opportunity for educators and students to participate in activities that will elevate computer science education at all levels. The date for Computer Science Week honors Grace Murray Hopper, who was born on December 9, 1906, and who pioneered new programming languages and standards for computer systems that laid the foundation for many subsequent advances in computer science. In my home State of Pennsylvania and across the Nation, this annual celebration helps to spark interest in a subject of critical importance to our economy now and in the future. Computers touch nearly every corner of our economy and mastery of computer science is a valuable skill set for jobseekers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there will be 9.2 million jobs in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, fields by the year 2020. Half of these jobs, or 4.6 million, will be in computing. That is one in every two STEM jobs. Unfortunately, not enough high school students are mastering these STEM subjects. According to the College Board, in 2011, 3.4 million advanced placement exams were administered to high school students. Fewer than 1 million of these exams tested a STEM subject. Only about 20,000 of these exams were in the subject of computer science, accounting for 2 percent of the total science exams and 1 percent of all AP exams administered last year. Of even greater concern, only 4,000 females took this AP exam. Our policies, schools, and education systems must respond to the demand for a larger, more diverse computing talent pipeline. Computer Science Education Week brings attention to these issues and builds enthusiasm for potential solutions. In Pennsylvania, computer science educators and supporters have planned a number of events to observe Computer Science Week. At a high school outside of Philadelphia, ninth graders are converting room numbers to binary representation and relabeling the classrooms in their school. Springfield will further host an event for students, families, and community members to present information about that district's upcoming computer science curriculum, as well as hold an exposition of student projects. For the third consecutive year, students from Haverford and Bryn Mawr Colleges will present their summer and senior work in computing. At Villanova University, computer science projects and computer scientists are being showcased at the library all month. Drexel University will host a series of events that honor computer science's contribution to society and raise awareness of its importance in education, economic growth, and technological innovations. The inclusion of computer science in K-12 education is of vital importance to prepare students for work in this field and to access emerging available jobs. Earlier this Congress, I was pleased to introduce S. 1614, the Computer Science Education Act, which would strengthen computer science education in elementary schools and high schools. The Computer Science Education Act would help to ensure that American students not only use technology in school but also learn the technical computing skills needed to grow our economy and invent the technology that will drive our economic future. Technology firms and backers of computer science education in Pennsylvania and elsewhere strongly support this legislation as a necessary investment in our future economic competitiveness. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues. America simply cannot afford to continue wasting talent and opportunities in the computing field. This Computer Science Education Week, I applaud the efforts of educators, students, and activities organizers who are showcasing the importance of this subject.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about where we are with regard to the end of the year and especially where we are with regard to the focus we should bring to bear on middle-income families. We have had a lot of discussion in the last couple weeks, using terms such as ``fiscal cliff'' and terms that involve tax policy. All that is important to debate, but sometimes what is lost in the midst of all that is what is happening to middle-income families. The sense I have, in talking to a lot of those families in Pennsylvania, is they have been asking their representatives in Washington to do at least two things: No. 1 is to try to work together to get agreements, not just in the near term but over a long period of time; and No. 2--and not in second place, because they are as fervent about this as they are about No. 1--they ask me all the time to do something to create jobs at a faster pace, to put in place strategies that will lead to job creation that is more accelerated. The good news is we have had some progress. If we look at the numbers for August, September, and October, it is right around 511,000 jobs created. That is good news and it is good progress. It is a lot better than where we were in the spring. If memory serves me, in the time period of April, May, and June, we had only created about 200,000. So this 3-month period with more than half a million jobs created is progress. But we have a long way to go, and we need to move the job-creation pace or the pace has to be accelerated. We have in the midst of all that a good bit of uncertainty. Middle-income families look at Washington and don't see enough progress on jobs, they don't see folks coming together yet. I think we will, but until they see that, until they have a sense there is something substantial that is decided that affects their lives, they are going to be very uncertain. I hear this from taxpayers. I also hear a lot about uncertainty from small business owners. At the same time, the House has something they can do about it right now. On July 24 we passed in the Senate a tax cut for middle-income families, meaning we would continue tax rates for those families. That kind of certainty is badly needed right now. So one of the best things that could happen right now is the House could vote and then the President would sign into law legislation that would provide certainty for middle-income families--98 percent of American families and some 97 percent of small businesses. So it is time for the House to act. Secondly, we have to take steps to make sure we are creating jobs at a faster pace. As I mentioned before, I am introducing legislation today to help middle-class families and to boost hiring. The bill is called the Middle-Class and Small Business Tax Cut Act, and it would expand the payroll tax cut from last year for 1 year and give employers a tax credit for hiring. The payroll tax cut we put into place last year had a number of benefits. I won't go through all those today, but the Joint Economic Committee--the committee of which I am the chairman--put out a fact sheet in the last 24 hours that highlights some of the benefits of the payroll tax cut. I wish to highlight a few of those. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Joint Economic Committee fact sheet on the payroll tax cut dated December 4, 2012.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, just a couple of points when you look at the economic impact on families when they have dollars to spend. The payroll tax cut puts $1,000 on average in the pockets of most families in America. Families making under $150,000 are responsible for almost 82 percent of consumer spending. So the reason we are creating jobs with the payroll tax cut or a tax credit--the idea I mentioned before-- is because we are giving consumers, families, and small businesses the opportunity to create jobs because of economic activity. I mentioned the job impact of the payroll tax cut. It created or saved 400,000 jobs in the last year, and it didn't in any way harm the Social Security trust fund. In fact, it enhanced our ability to have more payroll revenue over time because of that job creation. So I think we should do both--continue the payroll tax cut as well as have a tax credit for businesses so that if they hire in year one versus a year after the year the credit is in place, that hiring can be given credit and they can be incentivized to hire more. Tomorrow our Joint Economic Committee will be engaged in a hearing on fiscal cliff issues. We will discuss strategies to create jobs, and we will discuss the implications of the fiscal cliff and what will happen if we don't get some work done by the House to pass the middle-income tax cut that was passed here in a bipartisan fashion. So we have a lot of work to do, but I think one thing we have to make sure we do is to continue to focus on middle-income families, their lives, their struggles, and what we can do to make sure they have more dollars in their pockets to continue economic growth. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss what more we can do to prevent the scourge of suicides among our servicemembers. I have been concerned for quite some time about the physical and psychological challenges facing the men and women who serve in our military, including the unique challenges faced by members of the National Guard and Reserve. Despite a variety of programs to address the rate of suicide among National Guard and Reserve personnel, current statistics raise ongoing concerns about what more we can do to address this serious issue. In 2011, 165 Active-Duty soldiers and 118 Guard and Reservists took their lives, and the Army is on track to meet or surpass the same number of suicide related deaths again this year. I appreciate that the Armed Services Committee has included Section 512 in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which establishes a suicide prevention and resiliency program specifically for the reserve component of the military. In order for these programs to succeed, all members of a community must work together and watch out for one another. This includes involving the private sector and universities, who can contribute valuable resources. I would note that the Department's Office of Suicide Prevention, in carrying out Section 512 and 722 of this bill, must work with private sector and university partners to develop and implement suicide prevention training for community-based organizations, including schools, hospitals, religious organizations and employers, to raise awareness and provide tools for intervention to members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Universities and researchers, including those throughout Pennsylvania, have explored this issue and stand ready to support our returning servicemembers. This is a national challenge and Congress must work hand in hand with the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs as well with State and local community leaders to end this terrible epidemic. Amendment No. 3232

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to include the remarks made by Mr. Gordon Felt, former President of the Families of Flight 93, for the Record in honor of the Congressional tribute held earlier this morning. I want to extend my gratitude to Mr. Felt and the Families of Flight 93 for their tireless commitment to honoring the heroic sacrifice of their loved ones.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss several issues of importance to the future of our Nation's military. The National Defense Authorization Act before us this year will affect the size and strength of the U.S. Armed Forces and the resources and programs available to our service members and their families. According to GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``capability is more important than size.'' As the size of our military begins to decrease, there is more need than ever to ensure that they have the right equipment to fulfill their missions. Therefore, I am pleased that the committee has given the Pentagon the authority through this bill to negotiate multiyear procurements for the military's workhorse, the CH-47 Chinook, and for the V-22 Osprey and the unique capabilities it brings to the field. I also want to note my frustration with the Army's lack of strategic and long-term thinking related to armored combat vehicles. The Army's desire to temporarily cease production of tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles without long- term plans as to what will replace them is nonsense. These proposals, should they be approved, jeopardize the Nation's combat vehicle industrial base, our national security and the livelihoods of many individuals throughout the Nation. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy both in Pennsylvania and across the Nation. Given their importance, I am committed to advocating for the needs of businesses, particularly women and minority business enterprises, in the U.S. Senate. My amendment, No. 2986, would ensure that subcontractors are aware of their inclusion on bids for Federal contracts and establish a system to report fraudulent procurement practices. In order to secure government contracts, big companies routinely list small businesses as subcontractors on their bids in order to strengthen their applications without the intention of actually giving the work to the named subcontractor. This especially happens with women and minority owned businesses. Currently, there is no legal requirement to notify subcontractors of their inclusion on Federal bids and no way to report this. This is taking business away from hard working men and women and it is time for this fraudulent activity to end. Amendment No. 2986 would prohibit prime contractors from using small businesses as straw men to win government bids. First, it would require that subcontractors identified on a solicitation for a competitive proposal are notified by the prime contractor before the application is submitted. Second, it would establish a reporting mechanism that allows subcontractors to report any fraudulent activity. This amendment is in direct response to concerns raised by my constituents, Alexander Nicholas of the Western Pennsylvania Minority Supplier Development Council, and Craig Bingham, owner of DCI Logistics in Carnegie, PA. I ask my colleagues to join me in support for promoting transparency and accountability in Federal procurement processes and support amendment No. 2986. Another long-term objective that the Nation and our military must recognize is the need for a secure and reliable source of strategic materials, such as rare earths. In filing amendment No. 2994 to the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, I want the Department of Defense to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the feasibility of recycling heavy rare earth elements from fluorescent lighting waste. New innovations by Pennsylvanian businesses have taken the theory of recycling rare earths and made it a reality. With China controlling 95 percent of the world supply of rare earth elements, the United States must look at methods, including the recycling of products, to increase our domestic supply of rare earths. Investing in alternative fuels and energy technology is also critical to sustaining our national defense capabilities in the 21st century. DOD is the largest single user of oil in the world and their fuel bill was more than $17 billion in fiscal year 2011. DOD recognizes that this type of expenditure, not to mention where we have to go in the world to get that oil, is unsustainable. That is why they began investing in alternative fuels and energy technology under Secretary Rumsfeld back in the early 2000s. I think it would be a mistake to disinvest in that effort now when the return on investment could be so beneficial to our country. As they are currently written, sections 313 and 2823 of the NDAA put unnecessary restrictions on our military's ability to invest in alternative fuels, which could prove harmful to our national defense capabilities and our economy by keeping our military dependent on imported fossil fuels. I think it is very important that we fix sections 313 and 2823 with Senator Udall's amendment 2985 and Senator Hagan's amendment 3095, respectively. Currently, DOD invests only a small portion of their budget in alternative fuel development but this is an important investment for American businesses that focus on alternative fuel development and energy technology research. Therefore, our Nation benefits three times from the fruits of these investments: once by improving our national defense capabilities, a second time by supporting jobs in the energy research and development sector, and again because these innovations can be applied in the marketplace benefiting all Americans. It is a smart investment to keep our military strong and develop 21st century energy solutions that we can use here and export abroad. Therefore, I support my colleagues' amendments to strike sections 313 and 2823 from the NDAA. Lastly, we must take care of the military families who continue to sacrifice without complaint. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I studied the economic effects that the military lifestyle has on the earnings of military spouses. In 2010, the unemployment rate for military wives was 15.0 percent compared to 7.3 percent for civilian wives. One cause of this disparity may have to do with the numerous relocations military families undergo. In this same time period, 24.1 percent of military wives moved across State lines, compared with only 2.4 percent of civilian wives. Frequent moves coupled with military spouses holding jobs that require State-level relicensing create barriers that spouses must overcome when seeking employment. Therefore, I introduced S. 697, the Military Spouse Job Continuity Act, which would provide a $500 tax credit for military spouses who need to renew or transfer their professional licenses or certifications due to military relocations. While this specific bill cannot be taken up today for procedural reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in a sense-of-the-Senate amendment recognizing that we must work with the Pentagon and State and local governments to reduce the employment barriers for military spouses, without whom we would not have the superb military we have today. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these important amendments.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our Nation's military in light of the legislation we are considering. I commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain and all those who are working on it. I just have some comments on a number of amendments and a few issues. For more than a decade now our Nation has been at war. In that time period, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces have courageously served in Afghanistan and Iraq, assisted communities after disasters, and continued to provide stability across the world. As the military draws down from foreign engagements and strategic directions are reassessed, the Senate should do the same with regard to these issues. Unlike previous debates on the National Defense Authorization Act, this year the bill before us seeks to clarify the role of the military for the next decade or more. We are being asked to evaluate how large our military needs to be as we assess our near- and long-term threats. We are being asked to evaluate what equipment and resources this fighting force will need to keep the peace and to combat new aggressors, all while we are being asked to evaluate programs we have introduced over the past decade to support our servicemembers and their families. There are just a couple issues that are relevant to this debate, one which has particular significance for southwestern Pennsylvania. This is with regard to the military's force structure. I have been alarmed at two proposals submitted by the Air Force as it seeks to restructure. In Pennsylvania, the Air Force has sought to eliminate the Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station where approximately 1,500 Reservists and civilians are committed to serving our Nation. After numerous briefings and hearings, the Air Force has yet to provide us--to provide my office and I think other offices as well--with a thorough analysis of several of their proposals. These proposals, as presented, have failed to reflect the low overhead costs, efficiencies, and the value of the 911th Airlift Wing. For example, the 911th has developed an aircraft maintenance program that has resulted in more aircraft availability days while saving the Department more than $42 million over the last 5 years. The Air Force continues to reiterate that they must find savings in this tight budget environment. If this is true, I am not convinced the closing of one of their most efficient bases meets this objective of cost savings. I am also disturbed to see how the Air Force Reserve continues to be treated during this process. While the Guard and Active components have been mostly protected, the Air Force Reserve, including the 911th in Pittsburgh, has borne the brunt of these proposed cuts. Therefore, I am pleased Chairman Levin and the members of the Armed Services Committee have worked to prevent the Air Force from moving forward with these proposals in fiscal year 2013. I ask other colleagues to join Senators Begich, Gillibrand, and me on amendment No. 2952 that seeks to prevent the military from using a backdoor BRAC process to substantially reduce or close bases, especially without justifying to Congress their intentions. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Air Force Reserve, I will continue to fight for a reasoned and balanced restructuring of the Air Force. The second issue I wish to raise is the so-called TAA Program. We know our long-term strategic interests must also secure the future of servicemembers and veterans alike. Today, I have introduced an amendment that provides assistance to our servicemembers and their families. It is amendment No. 2297, the Transition Assistance Advisors Program, the so-called TAA Program. It seeks to make permanent and increase the numbers of transition assistance advisors in every State. These advisors coordinate resources for the Reserve component members and their families to help these individuals navigate the myriad of service programs provided by the VA, TRICARE, veterans service organizations, and other supporting agencies. These advisors are considered a force multiplier by the National Guard Bureau. The TAA assistance advisors enhance the Bureau's outreach capabilities, serve as a vital link between servicemembers and the benefits to which they are entitled. In the last 2 years, since this initiative was launched, 62 of these advisors have reached more than 194,000 veterans and their families. Yet 62 advisors can only do so much. All too often, I hear from my National Guard constituents and their spouses about how confusing it is to navigate military procedures and benefits, especially as they go on and off duty every 2 years. Our citizen soldiers have answered the call to serve our Nation in times of need. Should we not be doing everything we can to help them navigate these complicated measures when they return home? I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Last year, Congress authorized end strengths of 464,900 guardsmen and women in the Army and Air National Guard. On average, this comes to an average of 1 transition assistance advisor--just 1--per 7,498 servicemembers and their families, obviously not enough advisors to help our families. I believe this ratio does a disservice to citizen soldiers and to airmen as well as others and their families. I ask my colleagues to support and strengthen this program as our veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan try to reintegrate back into their lives. I thank Senators Leahy, Blumenthal, Tester, Mikulski, and Wyden for cosponsoring this important amendment. Finally, my last issue. This involves women in Afghanistan. In addition to making important adjustments to the size and strength of our military, the authorization act also helps to shape strategic priorities in critical regions. In Afghanistan, we are reducing the U.S. presence and transitioning security responsibilities to Afghan forces. It is critical this process protects the gains that have been made over the last 10 years, particularly with regard to the rights and opportunities of Afghan women and girls. I am concerned that as our international forces draw down, extremists threaten to once again restrict Afghan women's mobility and opportunities for participation in public life. Women who are active in public life face serious threats to their personal safety in Afghanistan. Girls have been the targets of extremist violence simply for going to school. We all know the story that was written about the acid thrown in the face of two young girls. That was repeated numerous times across the country. Afghan forces are not doing enough to counter these influences and protect women in their communities. This just does not threaten Afghan women and Afghan girls, it threatens the success of the security transition in Afghanistan that we are paying for, that we have invested in, that our fighting men and women have fought and died for. We know that when women's security deteriorates, it can be an early indicator of a worsening security condition overall. I am very concerned that if we neglect women's security in Afghanistan during this transition period and if we stand by while women are forced out of public life and have their voice silenced by extremists, we will see a less stable and a less secure Afghanistan in 2014 and beyond. That is why Senator Hutchison and I have introduced the Afghan Women and Girls Security Promotion Act and offered it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. We are proud to be joined by Senators Mikulski, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Murkowski, Snowe, Lautenberg, Cardin, and Boxer. Here is what the legislation does: It requires the Department of Defense to produce a plan--just a plan--to produce a plan to promote the security of Afghan women and girls during the transition process, including monitoring and responding to changes in women's security. Second, the Department of Defense must work to improve gender sensitivity and responsiveness among Afghan national security forces personnel. Third, it increases recruitment and retention of women in the Afghan national security forces. It will also require that the Department of Defense report on the implementation of this strategy and its results in semiannual reports that are filed. When I last visited Afghanistan, leading a CODEL in August of 2011, I was privileged to meet with a group of Afghan women leaders. I was impressed and inspired--that is an understatement--inspired by their determination to continue to fight for women's rights even in the face of extraordinary oppression and violence. One member of Parliament, Fawzia Kofi, lost her father and her husband as a result of her family's involvement in politics. But she is still determined to be a leader in protecting women's rights and advancing Afghanistan's democratic development. She and her colleagues, along with women across Afghanistan, are prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure their rights are protected and that they have a voice in their country's future. Supporting them is not only in line with our American values, it is critical to discouraging extremism and laying a foundation for a peaceful future in Afghanistan. I am glad several of my colleagues have joined us as cosponsors in this important amendment. I hope we can see more support as we move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to spend a couple moments talking about the work we have to do between now and the end of the year. There are various ways to describe this, but it is usually described under the broad umbrella terminology called the fiscal cliff. Some debate the use of those words, but there is no question that we have very difficult decisions to make in the next couple of weeks. My primary concern--and I think this is a concern that is widely shared in the Senate and across the country--is, What will all this mean for middle-income families? What will their tax rates be? What will their near-term economic security be? And what can they expect for their families and for the communities within which they live, especially at this time of year? A lot of families are not just preparing for the new year and what will happen, they are also trying to make decisions about spending, about holiday shopping, about investments, about priorities in which they have to invest in their own lives. We know from some of the data, when it comes to debating what will happen to middle-income families and their tax rates, the positive side of extending those tax rates for middle-income families. We also know the downside of not getting that work done, not extending them. Just to give two examples, the Congressional Budget Office says extending the tax rates for the middle-class would boost gross domestic product by 1.3 percent and would increase jobs by 1.6 million. So those are two very positive impacts if we can get the agreement, which I think we can arrive at working with Democrats and Republicans to do this, to extend the tax rates for middle-income families. So GDP up by 1.3 percent if we get the work done to extend those middle-class tax cuts, and increasing the number of jobs by 1.6 million. Another way to look at this is from the negative side of it as well, the consequences of not getting this work done to extend middle-income tax rates. Mark Zandi, an economist who is widely quoted across the country and by many of my colleagues in the Senate--I am not quoting, but this is a summary--says that the economic impact of ending these tax cuts, not getting an agreement, would reduce gross domestic product by $174 billion. We do not want to do that. That would be a very bad result for everyone. So whether we read the CBO numbers or we talk to economists or read about their assessments or we talk to CEOs, they all agree we have to deal with both the tax rate question for middle-income families as well as making sure we are avoiding the across-the-board cuts, which I will get to in a moment. So there is much to do to solve our year-end challenge, and we certainly have more challenges in 2013. But it is basically about getting our fiscal house in order. Part of that is spending cuts, part of that is getting more revenue, and, as well, even as we are getting our fiscal house in order, dealing with various tax challenges along the way. We should point out that there has been a lot of progress made. I will just give two examples of that. We know when the national job numbers were announced in October, part of the reporting that was done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was that we had an October number, but then we had a September and an August number that was revised upward, thank goodness. When we combine the August, September, and October job growth numbers, it means in those 3 months we created more than 500,000 jobs across the country. I should say the economy created 500,000 jobs. The exact number is about 511,000 jobs. So that is a measure of progress. I was just looking at some housing assessments. We are releasing a report or a summary of some data this week in the Joint Economic Committee. Just to give you two examples on housing progress: The number of privately owned housing units that were started last month increased by 31,000 units to 894,000 units at an annual rate. What that means is it is up about 3.6 percent. That is good news, maybe even better news because we want to get the assessment of people in the trenches. One bit of good news on housing is that confidence among homebuilders rose again in November. That will also be part of that report. So it is an increase in jobs the last couple months, more economic growth, more progress, more momentum and good information or good news on housing. The problem is it is not good enough. We are not creating jobs fast enough. The pace of the recovery needs to accelerate. It is not moving fast enough for us to fully recover. I like to say and many have used this analogy: We have been in a ditch. We have been down in a pretty deep hole. We have been climbing out the last couple years, but we are not out yet fully. We will be out and have a full recovery when we see those job numbers increase. So these decisions we make on tax policy, on the end-of-the-year agreements we have to reach, are vitally important to continue that progress, and, in fact, to move or accelerate the job growth numbers even faster. As I mentioned before, part of this is not just about tax rates, it is also about reducing spending. Fortunately, there is a track record. Despite all the rancor and partisanship in Washington, there is also another story of bipartisan progress that was made over the last couple years by agreeing to spending cuts. We agreed to a little less than $1 trillion of spending cuts over the next 10 years. So it shows we can come together. The main point I started with is on middle-income families. We need to give middle-class Americans certainty by the end of the year. Frankly, we should do it even before the end of the year. We should do it in the next couple days or weeks. We can do that by saying to our friends in the other body, the House of Representatives: Pass the bill we passed in the Senate which gives tax certainty, a continuation of tax breaks to 98 percent of taxpayers. We should do that because it will provide some certainty for the end of the year and for going into next year. I have an additional point to make about that as it relates to the payroll tax cut. We came together last year, late 2011 into 2012, as we had done a year earlier, to cut the payroll tax, to reduce that tax so most workers, most families in this country would have about $1,000 extra to put in their pockets, more take-home pay that they could spend on their priorities and invest in the priorities of their own families, whether it is making a purchase for that family, whether it is paying for education, whether it is just getting from point A to point B, putting gas in the car. Whatever it is that family decides to use those extra dollars for, it has had an enormously positive impact--122 million households were positively impacted by that payroll tax cut. What it means in terms of jobs--about 400,000 jobs created. So one of the reasons we can say we are making progress in developing some momentum behind the job creation numbers is because of the payroll tax cut that was put in place in 2012. We know the kind of progress we are making, the kind of certainty we want for middle-income families can be badly undermined if we do not get an agreement not only on tax rates but also on this across-the-board indiscriminate cut that would take place if we do not have a bipartisan agreement. This is known by that fancy term ``sequester'' or the other term ``sequestration.'' What that means, and I am not sure many people heard that terminology before a year or two ago--but what that means is across-the-board cutting. Some people say: That sometimes makes sense. In my family, in my business or when we have to make a decision, sometimes we have to cut spending across the board. Unfortunately, if we do not make cuts that help our economy grow, we will badly injure our ability to grow the economy in the near term and in the future. So we all agree cuts have to be made. The question is, How do we do that? Do we make cuts that are smart and that help us grow or do we make cuts that are indiscriminate, without any kind of a strategy behind them? Fortunately, I think there is agreement that across-the-board cuts, whether they are defense cuts which will impact jobs or whether they are nondefense cuts which will also impact the economy, do not make a lot of sense. It does not make sense to say all cuts are equal; therefore, medical research should be cut in the same way an inefficient program should be cut. That does not make sense. I think most Americans understand that. We have to get an agreement to avoid those automatic cuts. I think we can. I think Democrats and Republicans agree it would be the wrong approach to allow that to happen. I think we can get agreement on that. What we need is a balance. Just as when any family has to make a decision about their own budget or about their own spending priorities, they need a balance. Obviously, the balance is two parts; one is revenue and one is spending. So we need to get that balance in place. We also need, in order to achieve that kind of balance, Democrats and Republicans to be willing to work together--compromising, not getting everything you want but getting enough of an agreement that we can move the country forward. Despite all the problems, I have a high degree of confidence we can get an agreement. Folks will come together and compromise. Part of that starts with putting in place an agreement, which is already one element to the compromise. That is not just voting on but having the agreement that says: Let's have certainty right now for middle-income families. Everyone agrees, with very limited exception, that we should extend tax rates--keep the tax rates the same for about 98 percent of the American people. There is broad agreement on that. Some on the other side do not want to have a conclusion to that because they want to have a debate about what happens to the wealthiest among us, the very top income earners, roughly about 2 percent of income earners. But look, we have agreement on the other 98 percent. So what I would say is whatever it takes to give meaning or integrity to the vote we had in the Senate to get an agreement here but also encourage the House to vote to say: Let's give middle-income families the certainty they deserve, let's just say we are going to agree, Democrats and Republicans, that 98 percent of taxpayers across the country are going to have their tax rates continue. Then we can have a big debate after that about what happens to the wealthiest among us. I think it makes sense, at a time of high deficits and a debt problem that will confront us for years, that we have some part of that revenue come from the wealthiest among us. People across the aisle might disagree with that. We can have a big debate about that. But let's put in place, in law, the kind of certainty middle- income families should have. I think we can do that. So let's get in place an agreement for the 98 percent, and then we will have a big debate about the wealthiest 2 percent. Let's get in place tax rates that will allow us to do that. I think a little history is instructive. We know that in the 1990s and the 2000s, we know there is, according to the data, no relationship between lower marginal rates for the wealthiest among us and faster accelerated economic growth. I emphasize no relationship because I think some have made the case. Two examples. During the Clinton administration, to address the growing budget deficit at the time, which was not as severe as today, but it was a pretty substantial deficit, the top marginal tax rate was raised. It went up on the wealthiest individuals. The economy grew at the fastest rate in a generation and more than 22,000 jobs were added. So that is what happened during President Clinton's two terms in office. During the following 8 years, the top marginal rate was lowered--not raised but lowered--for the wealthiest individuals. The economy never regained the strength of the previous decade, the 1990s. Job growth slowed and wages stagnated, leaving middle-income families especially vulnerable when the great recession began toward the end of 2007. That is some of the history. That is part of the foundation or undergirding for the debate we are going to have on tax rates. This is not a lot of theory or a lot of maybes. We have data and information and kind of a track record trying it two different ways, the way we tried this under President Clinton and the way we tried it under the next administration. I think that is instructive. Finally, I would say that for all the challenges we have, for all the disagreements we have, I think most people in the Senate, no matter who they are--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--whether they were running for office this year or not, all heard the same message. They all heard maybe two basic messages from people. At least that is what I heard in Pennsylvania, all across the State, for longer than 2012 but certainly most fervently with a sense of urgency this year. Here is what I heard, a two-part message: Do something to create jobs or do more to create jobs, move the economy faster. No question, I heard that over and over. Soon thereafter, within seconds of saying that, families or taxpayers whom I ran into across the State would say to me: You have to work together with people in the other party to get this done. You know why they say that. That is not some unreal expectation that the American people have of us. It makes a lot of sense. Because in every family out there, whether it is in Pennsylvania or across the country, in every business, small business or larger business, in every one of those circumstances, in a family or in a business, those individuals have had to sit down over the last couple years especially, work out differences, set priorities, set goals, reduce spending sometimes, make investments they knew they needed to make to grow their business or to create more economic certainty for their family. They have had to do that. All they are saying to us is just take a lesson from the life of a lot of families in America. Sit down, set priorities, work on coming together, and get an agreement. I think we can do that. Despite all the differences, I think both parties understand the urgency of those questions, whether it is the tax rates, whether it is across-the-board spending cuts, which would be indiscriminate and harmful, whether it is what we do about individual programs, what we do in the near term to reduce deficit and debt. We have to come together, as families have to come together, and make agreements with people whom we are sometimes disagreeing with or not getting along with every day of the week and make decisions that businesses have to make almost every day of the week or at least every month on their spending, on their priorities and on their investments. I think we can do that. I know we have to do that. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, thank all the Members who are cosponsors, led by Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and our team doing this. This is bipartisan on a very important issue. I think it does three things. It adds a sense of urgency because of the threat posed by an Iranian nuclear program, it adds clarity, and also the resolve of the American people to stop them. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I have the honor of highlighting the Devereux Foundation, a nonprofit behavioral health organization that supports many underserved and vulnerable communities. The Devereux Foundation is based in Villanova, PA, but provides critical services throughout the entire country. They are about to celebrate their 100th anniversary. The Devereux Foundation began as the Devereux School, which was established in 1912 by Helena Devereux. Helena Devereux was a Philadelphia schoolteacher known for her success at working with special needs children. Devereux attempted an integrated, residential therapy approach, where lessons were integrated into daily routines. This was a radical approach for its time, but it was one based on Helena Devereux's firsthand experiences as a teacher. The results were a resounding success: by 1920, 22 children out of her 30 students had improved significantly. By 1938, the State of Pennsylvania granted the Devereux Schools a nonprofit charter, and the Devereux Foundation was established. The foundation expanded to the west coast in the 1940s, and in the 1950s, it began research and clinical training efforts. Today, the Devereux Foundation operates a national network of clinical, therapeutic, educational and employment programs that serve children, adolescents, and adults. Their services include, but are not limited to, residential and day treatment programs, foster care homes, special education day schools, family counseling, and prevocational training. In this role, the Devereux Foundation has played a critical part in uplifting the needy and assisting the vulnerable, in Pennsylvania and across the Nation. I am grateful for all of the work that Devereux and its employees have done over the last century, and I am proud that Devereux, a national leader in the field of behavioral health care, calls Pennsylvania home. I have heard stories of the many individuals with special needs whom Devereux supports and nurtures. Many are children, and I have seen how these families struggle to find the appropriate care and educational services for them. There is a line in Scripture that says, ``Every child has a light.'' Devereux plays an especially important role in nurturing children who need a little more help to reach their full potential, a little extra to let their light shine out. I congratulate them on a century of hard work and wish them many more years of success. As we move forward with the fight to ensure that quality and affordable health care is accessible to all Americans, I call on us to recognize and emulate the efforts of the Devereux Foundation and the role they have played in bringing about positive change throughout the country.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise tonight to speak about one subject, but a very important subject for our country and for our system of justice, and that is the confirmation of Federal district court judges. I will focus tonight on one Federal district in Pennsylvania, the Middle District. By way of background, I will review where we are in the Senate. Earlier today Majority Leader Reid was required to ask for unanimous consent in order to proceed on Senate confirmation votes for 17 district court nominees. Of course, this is from district courts across the country. As the majority leader and many of our Senate colleagues have noted, the district court nominees on the Senate Calendar are nearly all noncontroversial and have received significant bipartisan support. The judges I will speak about tonight fit that description. Historically the Senate has deferred to the nomination of the President and the support of home State Senators. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case today in too many instances. Of course, not in every instance but too many instances. There is an old expression in the law that many of us have heard, and it is very simple, but I think it has substantial consequences for real people. The expression is: Justice delayed is justice denied. When we have a situation where we have two judges in the Middle District of Pennsylvania--I should say for the record and for the description of the geography in our State we have three Federal judicial districts: the Eastern District, the Middle District, and the Western District. When we have two district court nominees in Pennsylvania, or in any of the other States that have judges who are still pending, we can imagine the number of cases. It is not just hundreds but thousands of cases. In this case 17 judges could be handling these cases right now across our country. That old expression, justice delayed is justice denied, has real significance for real people out there, people who come before the district court as litigants. Whether they are individuals, corporations, or whatever the party, they come for basic justice and that gets very difficult when there is a backlog and there are not enough judges. It is especially egregious and outrageous that they are held up here when in many cases they get out of the Judiciary Committee after a long process of getting to the Judiciary Committee. Sometimes there are many months of vetting and investigation work. Often the names are available for voting here in the Senate after not just getting through the Judiciary Committee, but part and parcel of that means in almost every instance the two Senators from that State have agreed they should come up for a vote. Yet when it lands here on the Senate floor after committee consideration, judicial nominees are held up. The ability of the Federal courts to provide justice for the American people has indeed been threatened by the vacancy crisis and the overburdened Federal district courts. Families, communities, and small businesses are not able to get a fair hearing or have their claims resolved in a timely fashion. These Federal court vacancies need to be filled to mature a functioning democracy and a functioning judicial system. The Pennsylvania nominees to the Senate Calendar are two individuals, Malachy Mannion and Matthew Brann. Both are to be confirmed as U.S. district judges for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. I won't go through their backgrounds and qualifications today. We have done that already. They don't need me to do that. They are through the Judiciary Committee. These men are both very well qualified to be U.S. district judges. Both of these judges would fill judicial emergency vacancies in Pennsylvania's Middle District. Just to give my colleagues a sense of what we are talking about, the Middle District of Pennsylvania has six posts, six judicial slots, and these are two vacancies for those six. The Middle District is the largest Federal district in Pennsylvania geographically, and there are four courthouses, one of which is several hours' drive from the others. Because of the vacancies, the judges with senior status still continue to hear cases. Three of these judges are at least 86 years old. Let me say that again. Three of these senior judges who have to do extra work because of the vacancies are at least 86 years old. Mal Mannion and Matthew Brann were both reported by voice vote out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, and both nominees were supported by Senator Toomey as well as me. Both of us came together through the process of introducing both of these nominees to the Judiciary Committee. They are, as I said before, through that process. I strongly urge that we move forward and allow a vote on all of these highly qualified, noncontroversial U.S. district court nominees, two in particular in Pennsylvania. I should mention that there was an article written--I won't summarize it here--in the Atlantic magazine just last week by Andrew Cohen that highlighted some of the impacts this crisis has on real people when they appear before district courts such as the Middle District of Pennsylvania. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I rise to honor and remember Henry L. Moore for his exceptional service to his community, Commonwealth, an country. Born April 8, 1921 in Ocilla, GA, the son of Andrew and Eliza Moore, Henry entered the armed services on September 22, 1942. Though originally from the Peach State, Henry spent his adult life living in Pennsylvania. Henry was a man of service, a man of science, and a man of faith. Today I wish to honor him as such. As a man of service, Henry distinguished himself as one of the Tuskegee Airmen who so faithfully served our country during one of its darkest hours. Drafted in 1942, Henry graduated from the only class of African-American airplane mechanics at Lincoln Airbase in Nebraska in June 1943. After graduation he was assigned to the ground crew of the Fifteenth Air Force 332nd Fighter group. By 1944 Henry had become a crew chief working on B-25 bombers in the Mediterranean theater. The Tuskegee Airmen hold a special place in American history, and Henry never forgot his part in it. Throughout the rest of his life, he remained active in the Tuskegee Airmen Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to honoring the accomplishments of African Americans in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WWII and introducing young people across the Nation to the world of aviation and science through local and national programs. At the time of his passing, Henry was serving his second term as the national parliamentarian of that organization. As a man of science, Henry graduated from West Virginia State College with a bachelor of science in physics and electrical engineering and later with a master of science from Temple University. Following graduation, Henry began a career physics and electronic engineering until retiring from government service after 26 years. Henry loved science, and, following his retirement, he continued to pass this passion on by teaching science and math, first at Roosevelt Middle School and then later at Abraham Lincoln High School in the Philadelphia school district. As a man of faith, Henry was very active in his church. Always involved, Henry served on a number of boards and was president of both the deacons and trustees. His love of music intertwined with his church life as he sang in the choir and on special occasions played his trumpet. As Henry's family and friends mourn his loss, I pray that they will be comforted by the knowledge that this great Nation will never forget the service and sacrifice of Henry L. Moore. May he rest in peace.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, in honor of Arnold Palmer, and the presentation of his Gold Medal to him on September 12, 2012, in the U.S. Capitol, for a lifetime of service to his Nation and contributions in the game of golf which has earned him the title of ``The King''. I ask that this poem penned in his honor on this occasion by Albert Caswell be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President: I would like to take this occasion to extend congratulations to His Majesty King Mohammed VI and the people of Morocco on the 225th anniversary of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco. Negotiations for this treaty began in 1783 and the draft was signed in 1786. Future Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the American signatories. The treaty was then presented to the Senate, which ratified it on July 18, 1787, making it the first treaty to receive U.S. Senate ratification. The treaty represented the second time that Morocco and the United States affirmed diplomatic relations between the two countries. It is also worthy of mention that that Sultan, Mohammed III, was the first head of state, and Morocco the first country, to recognize the new United States as an independent country in 1777. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship, whose anniversary we commemorate this month, provided for the United States' diplomatic representation in Morocco and open commerce at any Moroccan port on the basis of ``most favored nation.'' It also established the principle of non- hostility when either country was engaged in war with any other nation. Most importantly, the treaty provided for the protection of U.S. shipping vessels at a time when American merchant ships were at risk of harassment by various European warships. The treaty specifically stated: If any Vessel belonging to the United States shall be in any of the Ports of His Majesty's Dominions, or within Gunshot of his Forts, she shall he protected as much as possible and no Vessel whatever belonging either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War, shall be permitted to follow or engage her, as we now deem the Citizens of America our good Friends. A further indication of the early and close relationship between the United States and Morocco can be seen in a letter President George Washington wrote to Sultan Mohammed III on December 1, 1789. President Washington wrote: It gives me pleasure to have this opportunity of assuring your majesty that I shall not cease to promote every measure that may conduce to the friendship and harmony which so happily subsist between your empire and these . . . This young nation, just recovering from the waste and desolation of long war, has not, as yet, had time to acquire riches by agriculture or commerce. But our soil is beautiful, and our people industrious and we have reason to flatter ourselves that we shall gradually become useful to our friends. United States relations with Morocco have strengthened in the decades and centuries following the historic treaty. For example, during World War I, Morocco was aligned with the Allied forces, and in 1917 and 1918, Moroccan soldiers fought valiantly alongside United States Marines at Chateau Thierry, Mont Blanc, and Soissons. During World War II, Moroccan national defense forces aided American and British forces in the region. Morocco hosted one of the most pivotal meetings of the Allied leaders in World War II. In January 1943, United States President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Free French commander Charles De Gaulle met for 4 days in the Casablanca neighborhood of Anfa to discuss strategy against the Axis powers. It was during this series of meetings that the Allies agreed to launch their continental counter push against Axis aggression through a beach head landing on the French Atlantic coast. Following Morocco's independence in 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower communicated to King Mohammed V that ``my government renews its wishes for the peace and prosperity of Morocco.'' The King responded by reassuring President Eisenhower that Morocco would be a staunch ally in the fight against the proliferation of communism in the region. The United States Agency for International Development, USAID, and its predecessor agencies, as well as the Peace Corps, have been active in Morocco since 1953. Currently, there are more than 200 volunteers in Morocco working in the areas of health, youth development, small business and the environment. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Morocco was one of the first nations to express its solidarity with the United States and immediately renewed its commitment as a strong ally to combat terrorism. Cooperation between the United States and Morocco on these issues includes data sharing, law enforcement partnerships, improved capabilities to oversee strategic checkpoints, and joint efforts to terminate terrorist organization financing. It is important to extend our warm congratulations to His Majesty King Mohammed VI as well as to the people of Morocco on the anniversary of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which set the stage for continued and sustained engagement between our two countries.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to join what so many have spoken of tonight, which is our system of electing officials to various levels of government. In the case of the Federal Government we are always concerned about how that process plays out. We live in a country where for generations now we have urged people to come to the public square, in a sense, to vote, to participate, to use their free speech rights, their freedom of association--the rights they have to participate in elections. What we are confronted with now, without the passage or in the absence of the passage of this legislation, is what I would say are special rules for secret money--or maybe better said, special rules for a small group of individuals or entities to spend secret money. We, in Pennsylvania, as one of the buildings in the Capital area, have the finance building. It is a building I worked in for a decade. When it was built in the 1930s, they had as inscriptions around the border, the perimeter at the top of the building, precepts about government, what it should be, so people who worked in that building would aspire to higher ideals. One of the inscriptions says the following: Open to every inspection. Secure from every suspicion. A pretty simple precept. I think we all understand what that means. If we have a system or a candidate or an organization or a process that is open to inspection, the chances of there being suspicion about that candidate or about that process or about that organization would be diminished. So more disclosure, more scrutiny. We all know the old direction--I am not quite sure who said this, but we have all used this--the idea of sunlight being the best disinfectant, to make sure we keep our political process open. It is baffling to me why someone would not want to vote for this legislation when we consider the language. It is legislation which barely gets to the 20th page. It is not very long. I was looking at page 5 of the authors of the bill--Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who has done great work on this, and so many others who worked with him--the language on page 5 says as follows: It is under the title ``Disclosure Statement.'' It is very simple language: Any covered organization that makes campaign-related disbursements aggregating more than $10,000 in an election reporting cycle shall-- And this is the mandatory part-- not later than 24 hours after each disclosure date, file a statement with the [Federal Election] Commission made under penalty of perjury that contains information described in paragraph (2). Then it goes on to describe what you have to disclose. It is very simple. I don't know how you could be opposed to that if you believe in debates in the public square. It is not as if we say to people: Come to the public square, but a few of you can go into a corner. We are going to cloak you in secrecy. You are going to be in the shadows. Everyone else in the public square is going to know who is on the square, is going to know what your point of view is, what is your position in the light because there are a couple of others who we are going to be put in the shadows, but the rest of you don't worry about it. It sounds strange, doesn't it? It doesn't sound very American. I think when people see what happened in the last couple of years, they are very concerned that we have a system now that has too much of this secret money. There is too much money in the shadows without the sunlight providing the disinfectant. When you consider what we are doing now and compare it to what has happened over the last generation where candidates not only file reports about who has contributed to their campaigns but even their advertising--they have disclaimers at the bottom of the advertising. Now in the more recent period the candidate, himself or herself, has to identify themselves by name and say that they paid for the ad. This legislation doesn't get to that. It focuses on the basic question of disclosure so a citizen can say: This organization made this assertion in an advertisement, and I am going to find out who they are so I can make a judgment about the advertisement before I vote. It is very simple. It is how our system works. People go to the public square, they have a debate, there is a lot of sunlight, a lot of disclosure, and the debates are freewheeling. They are tough, but they are in the open, and they comply with that precept I started with. They are open to every inspection, and therefore the chances of suspicion are lessened because everything is out in the open. That is all this is. It is providing a measure or degree of sunlight into that process, into that public square. So if all these generations of reform have told us--which I think they have told us, and I know this is true in Pennsylvania--that more disclosure, more sunlight, more scrutiny is going to lead to better elections and better participation, I don't think we should run counter to that history. I am not trying to assert that everything else about our elections is perfect. We still have a lot of other reforms we could institute. But at least we can give people some measure of confidence that when they hear an assertion in that public square they are going to know where it comes from. They are going to know the origin of that statement. They are going to know the bias or point of view, and they are going to make a judgment about that before they exercise their right to vote. We should allow people that opportunity to maybe be a little bit suspicious, but it is hard to be secure in your knowledge about information if you do not know where it comes from, if you do not know who is the real speaker, and you do not know their point of view. I think there are a lot of Americans who know our system is not perfect even with passage of this legislation, but they at least say to us: Let's at least remove the possibility, which I think is evident now, that you have a small group of people who are allowed to spend this secret money and, therefore, elevate or raise suspicion, and maybe even cynicism, about our system. Let's be open to every inspection and to every measure of scrutiny, and let's bring our points of view to the public square as we have for so many generations. Let's pass the DISCLOSE Act and make sure that at a minimum, as tough as times are for a lot of people right now, at least they are going to have the information they need about point of view before they vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wish to commend the senior Senator from Louisiana not only for her work on this legislation but for her many years laboring in the vineyard, so to speak, on small business issues and job-creation strategies to help our small business owners across the United States. I rise to speak about this legislation as well because when I go to Pennsylvania and travel across our State, I get two basic messages from the people of our State. They are very clear. They say two things: First, work on job creation. Put your time into putting in place ways to create and incentivize the creation of jobs. The second message is work together and get things done. Work with people in both parties to move a strategy forward to create jobs. I think this legislation does both. It is focused on creating jobs, especially as it relates to our small business owners and their workers and their communities, but it also is a way to bring Democrats and Republicans together to create jobs. The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act will, indeed, help small businesses hire people by reducing the cost to small firms of bringing on a new worker or increasing their hours or pay. The economics of this are clear and compelling. By providing small businesses with new incentives to hire, we can create jobs and bolster economic recovery. Small businesses are at the center of the economy of the United States and are vital to our recovery. I know in Pennsylvania there are nearly 250,000 small businesses. Four out of every five firms in the State are small businesses. This legislation is commonsense legislation and I hope will have strong bipartisan support when we vote on the bill itself. It includes a business payroll tax incentive similar to legislation I introduced back in the year 2010 that will make it easier for small businesses to grow and to encourage economic growth throughout the country. It will give businesses a 10-percent income tax credit on new payroll for hiring new workers or increasing employee wages. It is, in fact, targeted legislation. It is targeted to small business owners. It is because it is capped at $500,000 per firm or 10 percent of a payroll increase of $5 million. In addition to being targeted, it is timely. It will be available immediately for any new hires or increased wages for the remainder of 2012. Thirdly, it is very effective. The Congressional Budget Office, known around here by the acronym CBO, said a tax credit based on increased payroll would create the most jobs and have the greatest positive impact on America's gross domestic product when compared to other job creation policies that have been proposed. Under this legislation small businesses that hire a new worker would, on average, see more than $4,000 in tax savings per worker hired. That is a substantial help to a small firm, and people can just do the math as they hire more than one person. That is a smart step in the right direction to help these small businesses themselves as well as boost job creation throughout our country. As the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, our committee just produced a report recently--I know my colleagues can't see all the lettering on this report I am holding, but it is a very simple report that is just a couple of pages--outlining in very clear fashion the impact that small businesses have on our economy in terms of the predominance of small businesses when we consider businesses across the board. The name of the report is ``Tax Incentives for Small Business Hiring and Investment: Strengthening the Backbone of the Economy.'' In fact, that is the truth. The backbone of the American economy is our small business sector. The report finds that enacting a tax credit for businesses that hire additional workers or increase the hours and wages of existing employees will help both sustain and accelerate the recovery. Across the Nation, 79 percent of business establishments are either single- establishment businesses with fewer than 100 employees or are parts of multi-establishment companies with total employment of under 100 employees. Small businesses are responsible for more hiring in the U.S. economy than medium-sized or large businesses. As the labor market has begun to recover, small businesses have led the way again and again. If we look at the time period of February 2010 to February 2012, small establishments were responsible for 46 percent of the hires versus 34 percent for medium-sized businesses and 20 percent for large establishments. This is a critical point: Small firms accounted for nearly half of the hiring from early 2010 to early 2012. Small businesses truly are the engines that power our economy. The recent monthly unemployment reports, which show job growth at a slower pace than earlier in the year, underscore the need to provide new incentives to hire and invest in businesses. Many small firms want to hire more workers, and they also want to increase hours. This legislation will help them do that. In addition to the payroll tax credit, the legislation will extend the 100 percent depreciation deduction for major purchases through the end of 2012 so that businesses that want to make a big investment--a new building, a new significant piece of equipment--can get the benefit of that this year. An extension of this business expensing would reduce the cost of investment and promote economic growth. So, in summary, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act would help create jobs and strengthen the economy and move our recovery forward. These are objectives we all share. I hope we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to pass this legislation because, in the end, it meets that two-part test my constituents give to me every day; that is, they want me to do everything I can to help create jobs, and they want me to do it in a bipartisan way. This legislation, in fact, does this. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I support passage of the 2012 farm bill, S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012. I have made it a priority to keep Pennsylvania's agricultural industry and our rural economies strong to support Pennsylvanian families. Agriculture is the Commonwealth's largest industry. Pennsylvania's farm gate value that is cash receipts to growers, in 2010, was $5.7 billion. Agribusiness in Pennsylvania is a $46.4 billion industry, and 17.5 percent of Pennsylvanians are employed in the food and fiber system. What does this mean? It means that the Senate MUST pass this farm bill, that the House must pass a farm bill, and that the President must sign a farm bill into law before it expires at the end of September. The farm bill creates economic opportunities in our rural areas and sustains the consumers and businesses that rely on our rural economy. When the cows need to be milked, dairy farmers go out to the barn and do their jobs. We should follow their example and reauthorize the farm bill in a responsible way that helps contribute to deficit reduction. If passed into law, this farm bill would reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion through the elimination of some subsidies, the consolidation of programs, and producing greater efficiencies in program delivery. Dairy is the Commonwealth's No. 1 agricultural sector. The dairy industry annually generates more than $1.6 billion in on-farm cash receipts, which represent about 42 percent of Pennsylvania's total agricultural receipts. I introduced two dairy bills this Congress: the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act, S. 1640, and the Dairy Advancement Act, S. 1682. These bills are aimed to ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their milk to increase price transparency, to protect against price volatility, and to encourage processor innovation. I am concerned that while the proposed dairy program to manage the Nation's milk supply will reduce the volatility of dairy farming, that program will discourage innovation and exports, as well as send the wrong signals to our trading partners. I secured language which requires USDA to thoroughly examine if the dairy market stabilization program is working, and if it is not working, make recommendations on how to fix it. This bill also contains my amendment to codify the frequency of dairy product reporting that is important for the dairy industry to make business decisions. It would also require USDA to examine whether it would be practical to move to a two-class system for milk that could help to simplify the Federal milk marketing orders. Dairy farmers deserve the best dairy program possible. The Senate bill contains many improvements that I support. Making risk management and crop insurance products work better for Pennsylvanians, especially small farmers, specialty crop farmers, and organic farmers is very important. This bill contains language similar to an amendment that I offered during the Agriculture Committee's markup that would help to improve crop insurance for organic farmers. Providing funding through risk management, conservation, and agricultural marketing agencies to underserved States, the Agricultural Management Assistance, AMA, Program helps to make the farm bill more equitable among regions. I sincerely appreciate the chairwoman's and ranking member's work to enhance the Agricultural Management Assistance Program, including support for organic transition assistance. The improvements in this bill to crop insurance delivery are critical. We have worked to address the unique concerns of specialty crop farmers and beginning farmers--and we have done so in a bipartisan way. Specialty crops are very important to Pennsylvanian agriculture. After working with the chairwoman and ranking member, I was able to ensure improvements in promotion programs within the farm bill and direct USDA to assess the feasibility of allowing organic producers to participate in an organic foods promotion program. The Specialty Crops Research Initiative, SCRI, Specialty Crops Block Grant Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program all advance the specialty crops industry, playing a key role in ensuring that this important agricultural sector receives continued acknowledgement in the farm bill. These programs remain strong under this bill. In addition, the Nation's organic industry has grown exponentially from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $29 billion in 2010, with an annual growth rate of 19 percent from 1997 to 2008. In 2008, Pennsylvania was ranked sixth in number of organic farms with 586 and third in sales at $212.7 million. Through research, we develop more efficient and effective farming methods. Research also helps producers maintain a competitive edge in the global market by fighting threatening diseases and pests. I am pleased that the farm bill invests in relevant and targeted research and maintains the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service programs that work to eradicate the invasive species that threaten our Nation's forests and farms. The U.S. Forest Service's State and private forestry programs are essential for assisting forest landowners in managing threats and enhancing stewardship. I am pleased that the farm bill continues the Forest Stewardship Program, FSP, so that forest owners can create long- term management plans with the technical assistance of State forestry agency partners. I am also grateful to the chairwoman and ranking member for working with me to fix USDA's Biopreferred Program to even the playing field for Pennsylvanian forestry products. Revenues from Pennsylvania's forest products industry exceed $5.5 billion annually. Over 10 percent of the State's manufacturing workforce is involved in the forest products industry. I am appreciative to the committee for the inclusion of my provision directing USDA to work with the Food and Drug Administration toward the development of a standard of identity for honey, a tool which will promote honesty and fair dealing and serve the interest of consumers and Pennsylvania's honey industry. The majority of our honey is imported, but because there is no standard, contaminated, low-quality honey continues to pass through customs and undercut our domestic product. Pennsylvania is a major player in the honey industry. Honey bee pollination can be directly attributed to the production of about $60 million of agricultural produce in Pennsylvania annually. I am committed to keeping Pennsylvania's rural communities strong and support rural development programs that provide access to capital for rural businesses to provide economic opportunities and create jobs. A rural community's viability in attracting and keeping businesses is often directly related to the condition of its infrastructure and facilities. USDA's rural development programs empower rural communities, transform local economies, and preserve the quality of life in small towns across the Commonwealth. A rural economic development program that saves and creates jobs in rural economies and improves rural life is extremely important for Pennsylvanian families. I introduced the Growing Opportunities for Agriculture and Responding to Markets, GO FARM, Act, which will help to enhance local food systems and encourage production of food for local communities. The GO FARM Act would provide loans to third parties to lend to producers growing products for local markets. In addition to the GO FARM Act, I support increasing the availability of healthy foods, addressing the issue of food deserts and developing and improving local food systems. Farmers are the original stewards of the land and continue to lead the charge in protecting our natural resources. I believe the voluntary conservation programs in the farm bill provide important tools to help farmers comply with Federal and State regulations while keeping farmers in business. I am committed to making conservation programs more efficient, effective, and relevant to farmers. Conservation programs are an extremely important resource for many Pennsylvanian farmers. I worked with my Senate colleagues to support enhancements to conservation programs through this process in an effort to ensure that these remodeled programs would better serve the needs of Pennsylvanians. Pennsylvania's watersheds contribute more than half of the fresh water flowing to the Chesapeake Bay. While Pennsylvania does not border the bay, activities in the Commonwealth profoundly affect the bay's health. The bay, the largest estuarine ecosystem in the U.S., and its tributaries, such as Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers, are important to the region's economy, culture, and outdoor recreation. Under the 2008 farm bill, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative, CBWI, provided essential support to farmers facing Federal and state regulations concerning water quality and helped to meet demand for conservation programs. In advance of the Agriculture Committee's consideration of the 2012 farm bill, I introduced the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Fairness Act, which among other things reauthorized the CBWI, because I know Pennsylvania farmers used this program very well. I am grateful that the 2012 farm bill contains portions of this legislation which are aimed at equipping farmers with the tools necessary to better meet water quality goals. However, in this bill, CBWI is not continued. Due to the committee's desire to reduce the number of conservation programs, the farm bill consolidates four different programs into one that will provide competitive funds to regional partnerships and will also provide conservation funding directly to producers. CBWI was one of the programs that got folded into this new program. I worked very closely with other Senators from the watershed to strengthen the conservation title to better benefit our region. Together we secured significant policy improvements. The current bill focuses on the most critical conservation areas and will help farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed participate in conservation programs so that they can help the region meet water quality standards. Pennsylvania's agricultural producers and forestland owners use the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to implement conservation practices, which might otherwise be cost prohibitive, to protect valuable natural resources. Further, the Farmland Protection Program, FPP, protects prime farmland from development. FPP should remain a permanent easement program to keep working lands preserved as farm land; should keep State, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations as partners; and should certify successful entities like the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Farmland Protection to improve the efficiency of this program. We worked very hard to make improvements to FPP during the last farm bill and those developments continue. While I do not mention all of the farm bill conservation programs, I do believe that each serves an important purpose. Ending hunger remains one of my top priorities, as it cuts across all of the major challenges we face as a country. There is no better opportunity to strengthen nutrition policy and programs than through a well-crafted farm bill. The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, SNAP, is the Federal Government's primary response to the food insecurity experienced by so many people. SNAP is an integral part of the overall safety net, which enables people to get back on their feet. Similarly, The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, enables food banks, shelters, and other providers to deliver necessary food packages and meals to people with emergency food needs. The Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program also provide vital food resources to low-income seniors who are often not helped by other food assistance programs. I support these programs as they assist the most vulnerable of our society--children, seniors, and families experiencing food insecurity. As Congress works to authorize the 2012 farm bill, I will continue to fight to protect the needs of Pennsylvanians. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this farm bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I am calling up this amendment, which is very simple. It is about two things: First of all, it would increase the frequency of so-called dairy price reporting that goes on already. The Department of Agriculture does this reporting on a rather frequent basis. We are just going to suggest that we codify, or make law, what the USDA is already doing. So, first, it would increase the frequency of reporting from ``no less than once a month'' to ``more than once a month.'' So it just puts into law what is already in practice. Secondly, this amendment would require the USDA to study--only to study--the feasibility of having two classes of milk as opposed to four. This would help clarify whether folks who want to do that--it requires that study. But, particularly, in the first part of the amendment, we need to make sure our farmers have as much information about pricing to help the farmers themselves, dairy buyers, and dairy suppliers. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. CASEY. I call up my amendment No. 2238.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to commemorate a great Pennsylvanian who passed away on May 23, 2012. Those who worked alongside this high-spirited citizen of Erie, PA knew him as a hard worker, those who served alongside him in World War II knew him as a selfless soldier, while others who worked with him at the United States Post Office knew him as a devoted civil servant; still, many more around the world knew this great Pennsylvanian as World War II veteran Private Lesniewski, of the 101st Airborne Division, immortalized in the book and HBO series ``Band of Brothers.'' Today I would like to commemorate and take stock of this remarkable life: Joseph A. Lesniewski, an influential and inspirational citizen of Pennsylvania. Mr. Joseph A. Lesniewski passed away at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center at the age of 91; he was survived by his wife of 38 years, Phyllis Schindley Lesniewski; and his four daughters, two sons, two sisters, six grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. From Mr. Lesniewki's work with General Electric, to his service in World War II, to his 37 years serving our country at the Erie Post Office, Mr. Lesniewski embodied the American spirit of dedication to country and unyielding resolve during several of our country's most trying times. After graduating from Erie Technical High School in 1940 and faced with a battered world economy, Mr. Lesniewski joined the Civilian Conservation Corps, a New Deal Program that helped weather the Great Depression and achieve the skills necessary for a position as a tool and die maker in General Electric's Erie, PA factory. Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Mr. Lesniewski enlisted in the United States Army in 1942, where he served in the storied 101st Airborne Division during the momentous Battle of Normandy, Operation Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge. Mr. Lesniewski and his comrades were later immortalized in historian Stephen E. Ambrose's book, Band of Brothers, which illustrated the common acts of heroism displayed in World War II by our soldiers. Ambrose wrote that Lesniewski took German-grenade shrapnel to his neck while alerting his fellow comrades to take cover after he discovered a machine gun nest and an entire company of SS soldiers just yards away. Lesniewki's selfless actions led to the capture of both the machine gun nest and the company of SS soldiers. In another incident, Private Lesniewski disregarded his own safety during a German artillery barrage and marked the spot where an unexploded German shell had burrowed itself into the ground. This action helped to ensure the safety of his fellow soldiers. After helping to keep others alive on numerous occasions, and serving as a source of strength and inspiration to the soldiers around him, Mr. Lesniewski re-entered the civilian workforce in 1945 and served for 37 years at the United States Post Office in Erie, PA. A historian and close friend of Mr. Lesniewski once said: Over the years I saw a thousand acts of random kindness come from him. He had a heart of gold. He never stopped giving, as he was proudly involved in numerous charitable causes in his community. As a testament to his heroism, Senator John Kerry invited Mr. Lesniewski to join him at the 2004 dedication of the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. As we commemorate the valiant life of Joseph Lesniewski, we should not forget that our country has survived seemingly insurmountable challenges in our history. We survived these dire times due to the dedication to country and unyielding resolve found uniquely in our citizenry, symbolized so clearly through the life of Joseph A. Lesniewski. Let us not forget the words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, ``It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.'' So then, with reflection on the life of Mr. Lesniewski, who so nobly advanced our country in both military and civilian roles, let us continue our dedication to the unfinished work before us: the work of building a better country and ensuring that the lives of our children can and will be better than that of our own.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the brave men and women serving our country in the military, the National Guard and the Reserves have sacrificed time away from their families, jobs and lives throughout Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even upon their safe return, many of these men and women suffer physical, personal, and financial effects from their deployment and time in combat. This is compounded when our servicemembers return home from their deployment or service to find that their employers will not promptly reinstate them in their civilian jobs, as required by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, USERRA. Although USERRA should protect servicemembers against this type of discrimination, the process for filing a complaint can be unwieldy and expensive. No single Federal agency has oversight over this process, and investigations can drag on for months, including while servicemembers are deployed overseas. Our military personnel and their families should not be burdened by this additional stress and financial strain. Pennsylvania has the nation's largest Army National Guard and fourth- largest Air National Guard. We owe it to these brave men and women to renew America's social commitment to the National Guard and Reserve, and to update National Guard and Reserve programs and benefits to reflect the operation tempo of their service. This is why I am today reintroducing the Servicemembers Access to Justice Act, which would eliminate loopholes and strengthen protections in the current law. Furthermore, this bill would bring a newfound clarity and understanding of the law for courts and employers. The Servicemembers Access to Justice Act makes it easier for our servicemembers to fight for their USERRA rights in court if their employer requires them to relinquish them in order to be hired for or keep their job. This legislation would mandate studies of current employer education programs and solicit recommendations for ways in which government agencies could cooperate to enhance employer education. Additionally, the Servicemembers Access to Justice Act would enhance the remedies available to servicemembers who prove their rights under USERRA were violated, by adding increased penalties for willful violations. We owe it to our servicemembers to ensure the fair enforcement of their employment rights. These men and women deserve our gratitude, and I am committed to supporting them during and after their service. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the brave men and women serving our country in the military, the National Guard and the Reserves have sacrificed time away from their families, jobs and lives throughout Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even upon their safe return, many of these men and women suffer physical, personal, and financial effects from their deployment and time in combat. This is compounded when our servicemembers return home from their deployment or service to find that their employers will not promptly reinstate them in their civilian jobs, as required by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, USERRA. Although USERRA should protect servicemembers against this type of discrimination, the process for filing a complaint can be unwieldy and expensive. No single Federal agency has oversight over this process, and investigations can drag on for months, including while servicemembers are deployed overseas. Our military personnel and their families should not be burdened by this additional stress and financial strain. Pennsylvania has the nation's largest Army National Guard and fourth- largest Air National Guard. We owe it to these brave men and women to renew America's social commitment to the National Guard and Reserve, and to update National Guard and Reserve programs and benefits to reflect the operation tempo of their service. This is why I am today reintroducing the Servicemembers Access to Justice Act, which would eliminate loopholes and strengthen protections in the current law. Furthermore, this bill would bring a newfound clarity and understanding of the law for courts and employers. The Servicemembers Access to Justice Act makes it easier for our servicemembers to fight for their USERRA rights in court if their employer requires them to relinquish them in order to be hired for or keep their job. This legislation would mandate studies of current employer education programs and solicit recommendations for ways in which government agencies could cooperate to enhance employer education. Additionally, the Servicemembers Access to Justice Act would enhance the remedies available to servicemembers who prove their rights under USERRA were violated, by adding increased penalties for willful violations. We owe it to our servicemembers to ensure the fair enforcement of their employment rights. These men and women deserve our gratitude, and I am committed to supporting them during and after their service. Please join me in supporting this legislation.