Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 7 p.m, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Hutchison be recognized for floor remarks.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2009, introduced earlier today.

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet on December 16, 2011.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I have a number of consents I will offer.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Guion S. Bluford, Jr. for being the 2011 recipient of the Pennsylvania Society Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement. Mr. Bluford was born on November 22, 1942, to Guion Senior and Lolita Bluford in Philadelphia, PA. Mr. Bluford grew up in inner-city Philadelphia during a time of great prejudice and social change. As a youth he spent his free time reading about aviation technology, building model aircrafts, and dreaming of flying aircrafts. Mr. Bluford attended Pennsylvania State University and joined the Air Force ROTC Program, receiving his FAA pilot license while still a senior in college. After graduating college in 1964 Mr. Bluford was assigned to the 556th Tactical Fighter Squadron in Vietnam and flew over 140 combat missions in Southeast Asia. In 1978, Mr. Bluford was selected as one of NASA's class of 35 astronauts. On August 30, 1980, Mr. Bluford became America's first African American in space when he flew to orbit aboard the shuttle Challenger. During his career at NASA he flew on several other space missions, and when he retired in July 1993, he had logged more than 688 hours in space. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Guion S. Bluford, Jr., for his years of service to our country. I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Bluford for his recent award and wish him well in the future.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the payroll tax cut we have been debating and considering these many weeks and which we seem to be making some progress on today. I know we will hear more about that later today. I wish to make a couple points--first about the issue itself and then a few points about what is happening in Pennsylvania. I wish to highlight some of the constituent mail we have received about this issue and about the state of the economy and people's lives. But first and foremost, by way of review, we have had a number of weeks now of debate about the payroll tax and putting in place an agreement where both parties can come together to make sure we put in place the payroll tax cut we agreed to last year. Many who have been watching this debate know what that means. Instead of having an individual worker or employee pay 6.2 percent as a payroll tax, we reduced that last year to 4.2 percent. I think it is vital, at a minimum, we do that, we extend it. I had two pieces of legislation--two different versions--to reduce that even more, to cut it in half and also to do the same for businesses. I think that is a good idea, but for whatever reason we have not reached agreement on that. But we seem to have made progress in the last couple days--even in the last couple hours--coming together on an agreement on the payroll tax. We do not have an agreement yet. But we are all working very hard because we all know both the benefits of it and the consequences of not extending the payroll tax cut. The benefits are plainly evident. If we put in place this payroll tax cut, we can jump-start, kick-start job creation and move the economy forward. I say that in light of some recent numbers we have in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate has hovered around 8 percent for a long time. The number of people unemployed in our State, the 8 percent, does not sound as high as in some places, but that meant over half a million people were out of work. It was not too long ago-- just a few months ago--when we had roughly 525,000 people out of work. That number reduced to about 513,000. Fortunately, just yesterday, we got news that the number has fallen below 500,000 for the first time in a long time. We are at 499,000--not much below half a million, but that is good news for Pennsylvania. What that meant is, our unemployment rate went from 8.1 percent down to 7.9 percent. So we are below 8 percent. As many people know, the national rate went below 9 percent to 8.6 percent. So we are seeing the unemployment rate nationally and in a number of States, including Pennsylvania, going in the right direction, meaning it is going down. The unemployment rate is going down. The number of people out of work, fortunately, is shrinking a little bit. We have a long way to go to completely dig out of this economic ditch our economy has been in for a long time. One of the best ways to continue that progress is to pass a cut in the payroll tax again, as we did last year. It was the right thing to do last year. It is the right thing to do this year, to continue the progress. We want to make sure we are doing everything possible so our month-to-month job creation number is much higher than it has been. We have been averaging in the roughly 150,000 range of private sector job growth. That is not enough. We need that above 200,000, and we need it even above 250,000. If we take this step--it is not the only step-- there is no magic wand to any policy we pass. Cutting the payroll tax will not solve all our economic challenges. But it is one of the most constructive, one of the most effective steps we can take. If we do not do it, here is the consequence, at least as it relates to Pennsylvania--a big State that has a lot of the economic challenges many States have. Mark Zandi, a respected economist, did some analysis just on Pennsylvania. If we do not extend the payroll tax cut, which, as we know, has the potential to benefit 160 million American workers-- in my home State of Pennsylvania last year that meant more than 6.5 million workers had a cut in their payroll tax, a tremendous benefit for a State such as Pennsylvania. We grew in the last year about 50,000 jobs. That is the good news. The bad news could be, if we do not pass a payroll tax cut, for Pennsylvania--for the country, which, obviously, would have an impact in Pennsylvania--the job loss number, according to Mark Zandi, would be just shy of 20,000 jobs lost in the State of Pennsylvania in 2012. So it is vitally important for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I think that applies for the Nation as a whole. It is one of the steps, and, frankly, one of the few steps Congress can take that will have a direct impact not just on the economy overall but to directly put dollars in people's pockets--take-home pay. That is what this whole issue is about for employees--what is going to be their take-home pay in 2012. If we pass the tax cut, it will be about $1,000. If we do not pass a tax cut, it will be zero in terms of an extra benefit. Working Americans who have been struggling through this economy and suffering should have the right to expect we take the action they are telling us to take to cut the payroll tax. Let me cite two examples of what people are asking us to do, from two constituents, and then I will conclude my remarks. Here is a letter from a woman in Pennsylvania, central Pennsylvania. I will not give her name. We do not have the authority to do that. But I wish to read some of her words. Here is what she says about how she perceives Washington and what is happening here. I will just read about two sentences from her letter: Please make sure something is done in Washington before the end of the year. I feel that no one should be able to have a break-- Talking about us in Congress-- before taking action on the tax breaks that will expire at the end of this year. If you all cannot do this then you should all leave office and let someone in there who can work together and get things done. Stay and do your job. Period!! She has two exclamation points after the word ``period.'' What she is telling us is what so many Americans are telling us: that we have work to do here, to come together, to agree not just on a budget for the next year but especially on something as fundamental as this payroll tax cut. So she said it very well, and she encapsulated a lot of what people are feeling. I am going to read an excerpt from a second letter, one from a woman from the eastern side of our State, in the so-called Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. I will not read the whole letter. It is about her family and some of the economic challenges they have had. I wish to read just two excerpts. She says: Now I find myself questioning whether or not anyone has an answer and if they do, will it be too late. You see, over the last 2 years, all four members of my family, myself included, have lost our jobs. This is a woman from one family in one part of Pennsylvania talking about how many members of her family have lost their jobs. She expects us to get our job done--to come together and to work together to pass a cut in the payroll tax. Later in the letter she says this--and I will conclude with this quotation: We need to put people back to work. Only then can the economy get turned around. I don't care who comes up with the plan, but the parties need to work together if this country is going to survive. My family is only one example. I know of SO many others who are struggling and in an even worse position than we are. She is talking about other people being in a worse circumstance, and she has all four members, including herself, of her family who have lost their jobs in the course of the last year or so. So if she can demonstrate--this woman from the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania--if she can demonstrate that kind of empathy and compassion and understanding of what others are going through, when she herself and her family have suffered so substantially in this economy, the least we can do in the Senate, in Washington--the very least we can do--is come together and work together to get this job done. The leading indicator of that, I would argue, is making sure we put in place a cut in the payroll tax so at a minimum--as people are still doing holiday shopping and still wanting to have a bright and happy holiday and want to have some measure of peace of mind, some measure of security about next year--at least know we came together and made sure this payroll tax cut was in place. It is vital for the people of Pennsylvania, and I think it is essential for economic growth across the country. We need to come together and get this done. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about an issue that the American people expect us to take action on, and that is to provide another extension of the payroll tax cut we put into place in 2010. I want to provide a little bit of background by way of recent history. We started this debate a number of weeks ago when I proposed legislation which would do the following--this is a brief summary. But here is what I proposed: that we would not only continue the payroll tax cut for workers, but that we would enlarge it, make it a bigger cut. So instead of having the payroll tax cut for employees across the country that would amount to $1,000, as we did last year--that was the right thing to do last year as part of the larger bill--I thought we should go further and cut the payroll tax in half for workers across America. What we are talking about here is 160 million American workers. This is not some small matter. This is a major issue for the American people and for those 160 million families in America. That is what I proposed on the employee side; instead of cutting it to the level we did last year, we cut it even more--cut it in half. Then I added to that a provision for business so that you would have businesses across the United States, 98 percent of them, also get their payroll taxes cut in half as well. So you have employees and employers getting a cut of their payroll tax obligations in half. I added a third element, which would be a credit, so that if you are a business and you add to your payroll, meaning you hire someone, you increase wages, you somehow increase your payroll, you could get not just a cut in your payroll tax as applies to those new employees or wages, you would have a full cut. In other words, you would pay zero, zero payroll tax if you added to your bottom line. What you have here is three elements in legislation that would not only help 160 million workers but would help most of the businesses in America. I put into the legislation a provision that says if we are going to do all of this, we need to pay for it. We had a full series of ways to pay for it. One of those was, of course, the provision of the surtax on individuals with incomes above--the key word is ``above''--$1 million. So if you are making $1 million, that entire million dollars was tax free; not a dime of surtax until you went above it. We had it at 2.2 percent. We had a vote on it. It was rejected by the other side. I said: Well, okay, let's come together. We will work with the other side, our leadership, and take into consideration some of the concerns the other side raised, trying to be reasonable, trying to compromise and come together. What we did is we reduced the surtax substantially to 1.9 percent, a big cut, a big reduction in the level of the surtax. As I said, I wanted to have a payroll tax cut for businesses across America. The other side did not want that, for whatever reason. The other side did not want to cut payroll taxes for business. I do not understand that, but that is what they wanted. They wanted that out of the bill. So that was out of the bill. The surtax was reduced. We are at the point where we are talking mostly about expanding and extending--I should say extending first, extending and hopefully expanding the payroll tax cut that we put in place last year for workers, 160 million workers, and as we cut it in half, $1,500 in the take-home pay of workers, $1,500 in your pocket, so you would not have, absent this action, as last year, $1,000 dollars in your pocket in take-home pay, because of the action we took last year. Here we are now, all of these days later, several weeks now of debating this issue. For whatever reason, the other side does not want to have a vote on a measure the House passed. I do not understand that. I realize the votes are not there, but I think it is very important that we move forward and come to an agreement on a very fundamental issue for the American people. They know, as well as everyone here knows, this is not in dispute, it is a fact, that if we pass a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, the impact on the economy will be seismic, substantial--you can pick your word--it will have a huge positive impact on our economy. The corollary to that is if we do not do this, it will have a very adverse, negative impact on gross domestic product and on jobs. So if you want to reduce the number of jobs created in America in 2012--I do not know anyone who wants to do that, but if that is what you want to do, not taking action is a way to do that. We hear phrases in Washington all of the time: Job killer. Not passing a payroll tax cut extension for 160 million Americans is a job killer, without a doubt. Anyone who is credible in this town knows that. This is something the American people want us to do. They are tired of the finger-pointing and whining and the politics of Washington. They want us to get this done. We should get it done--if we are doing the right thing--today or tomorrow, but we have some people who are playing games. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle, who talk a lot about tax cuts and a lot about helping folks through this recession, will vote with us to cut the payroll tax and end this long debate that doesn't make much sense. We have a lot of other issues to debate, but this should not be one of them because we have been working on this for weeks. The American people understand what this is about. This is about take-home pay. This isn't a complicated issue. We are either going to put more money in their pockets or we are not. It is very simple. We believe, on this side of the aisle--and I think the overwhelming majority of Americans believe this--that if workers have more take-home pay in their pockets, the impact on the economy will be very positive. We had Mark Zandi do some analysis. He is a great economist who has provided data and information for people on both sides of the aisle for a long time. He is a very credible, capable economist. Our staff asked him to look at the impact just on Pennsylvania--just one State but a big State, and I think it is reflective of the country in a lot of ways. The basic analysis was, if we don't pass the payroll tax cut for workers, what happens in Pennsylvania? The impact in 2012 would be a loss of just shy of 20,000 jobs, roughly 19,500 jobs. This is in a State where we need to create a lot more jobs. But we know that in 2011--the year is not over--the most recent number of jobs added in Pennsylvania in the last year was over 50,000. I believe we can come to a number like that in 2012. If we don't pass the payroll tax cut for those 160 million workers, in a State such as Pennsylvania the effect is that we lose 20,000 jobs. You can do the math and extrapolate from that to indicate what would happen to the country. So in a State where we had a net gain of more than 50,000 jobs last year, we are talking about not putting in place a tax cut policy, and that would cut that job gain a little less than half. So instead of creating 50,000 jobs, you would create 40 percent less. That doesn't make any sense under anyone's analysis about what we should be doing. It is critically important that we take steps in the next few days--I hope in the next few hours--to finally pass a payroll tax cut and to also make sure we don't harm the economy as well by failing to take action on unemployment insurance. Again, unemployment insurance is not just for that worker and his or her family to get back on their feet after they lost their job through no fault of their own, it also has a positive impact on the economy. You spend a buck on unemployment insurance, and you get back almost two bucks--$1.90. Whether it is $1.50 or $1.90, we know that if you spend a dollar, all of us get in return something much more substantial than that dollar we put in. We need to do both of these things, take both of these actions for the larger economy. This isn't about one group benefiting and another group not. Both of these actions--reducing the payroll tax for workers and unemployment insurance--will have a substantial impact on everybody. It will help the economy for the American people. In the payroll tax cut, there is a particular significant group of Americans who would be most positively impacted; that is, those 160 million American workers. I believe most folks out there who are in the holiday shopping season--maybe they are finished shopping or maybe they are still making purchases--would like the peace of mind to know they can spend a little extra for that gift for a loved one, and maybe they can have a little more peace of mind knowing that the economy is still in difficult shape but that their own lives--and so many people are leading lives of struggle and sacrifice and anxiety about the future. But this is one step we can take--passing the payroll tax cut--that would give them some peace of mind that moving into 2012 they will have more dollars in their pockets. I hope it will be $1,500, but at least we should do what we did last year and make sure those 160 million workers in America have as much as $1,000, on average, in their pockets. That would be good for that worker and his or her family, the community, and all of us because it would help kick-start, jump-start economic growth and job creation when we badly need that in the midst of a still very difficult recession. Mr. President, we are going to keep on this, keep pushing, and keep making sure the American people know what is at stake. For those 160 million Americans who are waiting for us to take action, as well as what is at stake for the larger economy, if we do this--pass the payroll tax cut--and if we do the right thing on extending unemployment insurance, we can move into 2012 with some confidence, while being aware it is still difficult, that the economy will grow a little more, jobs will be created at a higher rate, and we can have some confidence that we can end 2012 with a stronger economy than we had at the end of this year. I hope our friends will come across the aisle, so to speak, and work with us to get this done because the American people are tired of the politics and the fighting. They want us to come together on a new payroll tax cut for 2012. We can do it, they support it, and we should get this done. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the urgent need to prevent a tax increase in the year 2012 if the Congress does not act to extend the payroll tax cut from last year. This is fundamental when it comes to working families across the country. Some 160 million working Americans are depending upon the Congress to do its work, to do its duty, and conclude this year on a couple of matters. The principal focus of most people's attention right now, in addition to making sure we have a budget in place for the next couple of weeks and months but also, most urgently, is to make sure we are doing everything possible to bring about a cut in the payroll tax again as we did last year. So we should be voting today. We should not be waiting. We know the House has acted. I would guess that what they passed in the House will not pass in the Senate, but we should vote. Vote today. Get that done. Then both sides can sit down and work out a compromise on the payroll tax cut so we can give those 160 million American workers some measure of certainty as they begin to celebrate the holidays and prepare for our new year. When I talk to people in Pennsylvania, they say to me basically two things: Do something to create jobs or to create the environment or the condition that job creation will flow from and, they say, do it in a bipartisan way. Work together as we, meaning Americans back home, have to work together. They have to work together at home to meet a budget. They have to work together at their worksite to be able to move a company or their agenda forward for an employer. What we need is a very simple agreement on a very basic bill, and it should be a bill that would extend and, I would argue, expand. I wish to go beyond the payroll tax cut of last year. What we should be doing is cutting it in half. I know there might be others who do not want to go that far. But what we have now from the House is a 350-page bill loaded with all kinds of provisions that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut and nothing to do with moving the economy forward. It is kind of a political game they are playing. For example, the Keystone pipeline will be the subject of a lot of debate and discussion. But that has nothing to do with providing 160 million working Americans with a payroll tax cut, so we should set that aside and focus on cutting the payroll tax. Some of the provisions in the Republican bill will do substantial harm to families individually but also to the larger economy. Cutting 40 weeks--let me say that again--cutting 40 weeks from unemployment insurance is one provision. That is the wrong thing to do when have you between 13 and 14 million Americans out of work, in Pennsylvania over half a million people out of work, at last count 513,000 people out of work. They are telling us that we should cut unemployment insurance by 40 weeks. Does that make any sense at all? Oh, by the way, what they leave out in that debate is what unemployment insurance does to the wider economy. You spend a buck on that, you get a lot more than a buck in return in terms of the economic impact. So unemployment insurance, when it is provided to people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, helps the larger economy in addition to helping an individual worker or his or her family. When it comes to the issue of the payroll tax cut itself, what we are talking about here is not something complicated and theoretical. We are talking about take-home pay, what goes in your pocket from your paycheck. We have got a choice here. If we go the right way and we extend the payroll tax cuts from last year, there is as much as $1,000 in take-home pay as a result of that. I had a bill which we worked to try to compromise and change--we changed our bill in order to compromise, I should say. I thought it would be better if we cut the payroll tax for workers in half. That would be as much as $1,500 in your pocket for 2012. The other side objected to that. They wanted no payroll tax cut, apparently, for businesses, which I thought was a good idea. Then they also wanted to scale back what we could do for employees. But we are where we are. We will see what they are willing to do now. But let's not lose sight of what this is all about. If we do the right thing, we will have $1,000 extra in take-home pay for 160 million American workers, but if we go the way of some people here in Washington and play political games, it will be zero extra dollars of take-home pay. Very simple. It is a very simple choice. I would hope our friends on the Republican side would allow us to vote today on the Republican House bill. It is not going to pass, but it does provide clarity so that both sides can then sit down. They have rejected my compromise. Now the House version will come over here. But we will have some clarity about where both sides stand. We can sit down and negotiate and get a payroll tax cut done, but we cannot do that until they let us vote on what the House did. We need to have that vote today. I don't know why the Republican side would want to hold it up in the Senate. We should vote on that. It is about take- home pay and also about peace of mind. I think a lot of Americans would like to know now that they can celebrate the holidays and move into 2012 with some peace of mind, knowing they are going to have some money in their pockets they might not have otherwise. It will have a tremendous impact on the economy. We know that from the data and from what happened in the first few months of 2011. If the Congress fails to act, here is what it means for a State such as Pennsylvania. You can replicate this, I am sure, in other States as well. Mark Zandi, a respected economist on both sides of the aisle in Washington, looked at Pennsylvania and the impact of not extending the payroll tax cut for 2012. He said it would cost our State a little shy of 20,000 jobs in calendar year 2012--in a State, by the way, where in 2011 we created--or I should say the increase in jobs in Pennsylvania was more than 50,000 in 2011. That is not enough, and we need to do more, but certainly when you are creating jobs at that rate--and possibly in 2012 it could go above 50,000 jobs created in Pennsylvania. But not to act on the payroll tax and reduce that 50,000 or more by 20,000 jobs--and that is just one State--if you don't pass the payroll tax cut, that is the adverse impact on 1 State--20,000 jobs, according to Mark Zandi. That is a big mistake. We cannot afford to make those kinds of mistakes at this moment, which is very precarious in our economy, just when we are getting some--although not enough--good news about the economy. We need to kick-start, jump-start job creation across the country. We can do that in large measure--although not completely--by a payroll tax cut. It is time to move forward and time to move on. We should get this vote done on the House version, and then we can go to the negotiating table. While we are doing that, we can get some other things done. To hold up a vote on the House bill doesn't make any sense at all. We only have 17 days until the end of the year. We have other work to do as well. But the main thing we have to do right now is come together to protect 160 million American workers so that they can conclude the year and go into the holiday season and begin a new year with peace of mind to know they are going to have that payroll tax cut in their take-home pay and also to give those who are out of work and their families, their communities, and the country some assurance on unemployment insurance. It is not time to play politics in Washington. This is the holiday season. If there is anytime in the year when people expect us to work together, it is at this time when we celebrate the holidays. We need to come together and compromise. I have compromised a couple of times in my legislation. I will not review that now, but I did that on my version of the payroll tax cut. We can all compromise more. We need to come together and stop putting up roadblocks to voting on measures that will lead us to a compromise. The simple message for today is this: Let's vote on the House bill. If that doesn't pass, then we can go to the negotiating table and come up with a compromise to cut the payroll tax and put more take-home pay in the pockets of 160 million American workers. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about an issue we will be voting on today and we have been discussing and debating now for a number of days. We are into our second week of debate about a cut in the payroll tax. Just by way of review--and so many Americans have been following this debate--here is where it basically stands between what we did last year and what we are trying to do this year. Last year, as part of a larger tax bill, we reduced the payroll tax for employees across the country from 6.2 percent to 4.2. So that 2- percent reduction meant millions of American families were able to have about $1,000 in their pocket of take-home pay they wouldn't have had otherwise absent that action in the tax bill. What we are trying to do this year--and I should start with what I tried to do last week, and we got 51 votes for this--is to say we should not only continue or extend that cut in the payroll tax but we should expand it. So instead of saying it should go from 6.2 to 4.2, we take it down to 3.1. In essence, what we tried to do last week was cut in half the payroll taxes that relate to employees. We wanted to add to that cutting in half the payroll tax for small businesses, and they would benefit disproportionately. Thirdly, we wanted to add to that a tax credit so that if an employer hired or increased wages for employees, if an employer expands their payroll in one of several ways, they can get a tax credit equal to an elimination of the payroll tax. So instead of the usual 6.2, you would be down to zero. So the combination of those three would mean we would be helping employees by cutting their payroll tax in half, helping employers by cutting their payroll contribution in half, and then have this third element as well for employers who actually hired people or added to their wage base. Unfortunately, in the Senate, because we needed 60 votes and got 51, we knew at that point we couldn't get enough support from the other side of the aisle. So what I did, in working with our leadership and working with folks in the Senate, was to refashion the legislation so that we made it smaller. We reduced the cost of the overall proposal by some $80 billion. We also concentrate on just the element we worked on together last year, which was the employee side. Here is where we are in this debate about cutting the employee payroll taxes. It is down to this question: Should we cut it to 4.2, as we did last year, or should we cut it further and reduce it in half? I believe we should, and I think most Americans believe that. Here is what it means to folks out there. Instead of saying we will continue what we did last year--which would be about $1,000 per worker, in essence, per family, on average--if we cut it in half, we can get that number up to $1,500. So it is not just putting money in people's pockets and continuing to do that for another year, but it is more money. It would go from roughly $1,000 to approximately $1,500. That is where we are. Unfortunately, we are not yet sure we can get the support we need to do that. Here is what it means to Americans. It means more money in their pockets, more take-home pay, but it also means that if we don't, at a minimum, extend the payroll tax cut from last year--here is what it means on two issues: GDP--gross domestic product--and jobs. According to Mark Zandi of Moody's--someone we have quoted often on both sides of the aisle and relied on his expertise--not extending the payroll tax at least to the 4.2 level would reduce 2012 growth of real GDP in a State such as Pennsylvania, by way of example, by 0.52 percentage points. That means we are talking about gross domestic product or gross State product, in a sense, in a State such as Pennsylvania, cutting it in half instead of allowing it to grow. So this has a real adverse consequence for Pennsylvania and for the country if we don't do what we did last year. Of course, if we did more than we did last year, as I think we should and I think most people do, we could not only not fall behind, but we could move forward dramatically. Here is another way to look at it: Jobs. According to Mark Zandi, not extending the payroll tax cut will cost Pennsylvania 19,700 payroll jobs in the calendar year 2012. For context, in the State of Pennsylvania last year, the payroll tax job creation number--or payroll jobs added last year--was 54,500. So we created last year in a State such as Pennsylvania almost 55,000 jobs. But if we don't extend the payroll tax cut this year, we are talking about losing as many as almost 20,000 jobs. This is a substantial factor in the discussion about our economy. It would have a substantially adverse impact if we don't keep the payroll tax cut in place. As I said before, we should do more than we did last year. We should cut it in half. It would give people across the country peace of mind in two time periods: The next couple weeks when they are going out and shopping and enjoying the holidays. We want people to spend as much as they feel they can, and if they know they are going to get $1,000 to $1,500, they can spend more in this upcoming holiday season. But it is especially important for 2012. Why should taxpayers have to live with a tax increase because Washington just didn't get along and the same old political games were played in Washington instead of saying let's come together in a bipartisan way and extend and expand the payroll tax cut from last year. We have lots to do in the next couple days and weeks. But maybe the most important thing we can do in the next few days is to make sure we cut the payroll tax again. Because this is about whether we are going to give people peace of mind as we head into a new year and whether we are going to put more money in their pockets in order to jump-start the economy, to give the economy the jolt we got at the end of last year. Last year, we came together and passed a tax bill and we had average job growth from February, March, and April 2011--those 3 months-- average private sector job growth of just about 240,000 jobs. We need another 3-month period similar to that. In fact, we need another 6 or 7 or 8 months similar to that. But the only way to get there is to put in place this payroll tax cut. I hope when we vote later today, we will get at least 60 votes for this effort to make sure we are giving Americans peace of mind and more money in their pockets. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, what is about to happen is we are going to be taking a vote on a measure that got 20 votes last week--this same vote. I don't know what the vote will be today, obviously, but this is an exercise in futility to vote on this again. What we should do is cut the payroll tax in half for American workers. That is what we have been trying to do. I hope we can continue to work together, but we should move beyond this measure that got 20 votes last week and cut the payroll tax in half for 160 million American workers. We should do that and give people the peace of mind and dollars in their pockets they would not have otherwise. I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion, and I hope we can continue to work together to support the American worker.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Computer Science Education Week, which began on December 4, 2011, and continues until December 10, 2011. This celebration includes events in my home State of Pennsylvania that advance the teaching and learning of computer science. These activities help to engage students and build their interest in a field that promises good jobs in a rapidly expanding sector. The week also draws attention to the critical need for strong computer science education in our schools. E-mails, text messages, financial transactions, cell phone calls and doctor's visits are just a few of the activities that rely on computer science. In the last 20 years, we have undergone a technological revolution that has transformed industry, created entirely new segments of the economy, and transformed our daily lives. Pennsylvania's high- tech industry has played a crucial role in this growth, and we must prepare the next generation to continue innovating. The events of Computer Science Education Week help to build momentum for students to learn computer science. In Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, which boasts one of the best computer science and informatics programs in the country, will host high school students and expose them to the multitude of academic and professional opportunities in computer science. At Emmaus High School in Emmaus, young people will demonstrate programmable robots and hear from alumni who have successfully pursued careers in computer science, all while honoring computing pioneer Grace Hopper with a birthday cake. Even the White House is celebrating Computer Science Education Week by honoring the week's organizers and representatives of the Computer Science Teachers Association as ``Champions of Change.'' I have introduced S. 1614, the Computer Science Education Act, to help students develop the skills to compete for the growing number of jobs in computer science. Our Nation's economy and security depend upon computing professionals, but the current pipeline of graduates will satisfy only 52 percent of the more than 1.4 million computing job openings expected by 2018. The other 48 percent of these jobs will either go unfilled or move to other countries. America should continue to lead in the high-tech sector by preparing students to take these well-paying jobs. This legislation would strengthen computer science education in elementary and high schools by ensuring that students not only use technology but also learn the technical skills needed to work in computer science and grow our economy. Computer Science Education Week will help to increase the interest of students who will invent the next mobile technology or start the next technology company. This week was established in 2009 by the Computing in the Core Coalition, a group of organizations, companies, and scientific societies that strive to advocate for computer science as a core academic subject. Computer Science Education Week coincides with the birthday of Grace Murray Hopper, a pioneer in computer science, who was born on December 9, 1906. She rose to the rank of rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, engineered new programming languages and developed standards for computer systems that laid the foundation for many computer science advances. The economy of the future and the jobs that will accompany it demand that we prepare our students to remain competitive as leaders in the high-tech global marketplace. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Computer Science Education Week and to cosponsor the Computer Science Education Act.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr President, I would like to express my support for the Menendez amendment, which passed 100 to 0 and would sanction the Central Bank of Iran. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. The Islamic Republic of Iran has proven through its recent behavior its blatant disregard for its international commitments to the IAEA and for the universal declaration of human rights. Iran is a serious threat to the security of the United States, the Middle East, and the world. Last month's IAEA report on Iran said that the Agency had credible information that Iran may have worked on developing nuclear weapons. This is the most damning report yet on Iran's nuclear program and has served as a wake up call to the world. The United Kingdom has responded with tough sanctions. Italy and France have expressed support for tougher measures. This opinion has been held by many here in the Senate for a long time. That is why we in the Senate have been so persistent in our efforts to pursue tougher sanctions to isolate Iran. This is why we continue to strive to provide all the tools necessary to ensure that maximum pressure is brought to bear on the regime in Tehran. I appreciate the administration's efforts to engage with the Iranian regime since coming into office. The administration has made serious efforts to diplomatically engage Tehran officials. But the regime has rejected requests by the United States and international community for true dialog. Regretfully, I do not think dialog will work with this regime. The IAEA report was a culmination to months of events that showed Iran's brazen disregard for international norms. In October, the regime planned to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. The Iranian regime sought to kill a senior foreign official on U.S. soil. There must be consequences for the planned attack on the Saudi Ambassador. There must be consequences for Iran's nuclear conduct as evidenced in the new IAEA report. This amendment makes these consequences clear. I am concerned that the administration's November 21 sanctions response is not adequate in responding to this new information on Iran's intentions. European countries, led by the United Kingdom and France, have called for sanctioning of the Central Bank of Iran. My question to the administration is this: does the IAEA report indeed reflect a turning point for U.S. policy? And if so, what should the United States do to address this looming threat? The administration's announcement of new sanctions on November 21 is a good step, but the United States must take this one step further and sanction Iran's Central Bank. If the IAEA report does not indicate that we have turned a corner with respect to this critical national security threat, I don't know what does. This administration has taken unprecedented measures to isolate the Iranian regime. It understands the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. And while I appreciate the administration's focus on this issue at this critical juncture in history, I believe that we must do more. This amendment would restrict U.S. financial institutions from doing business with any foreign financial institution that knowingly conducts financial transactions with Iran's Central Bank. With this amendment, we are hitting Iran where it hurts. Eighty percent of Iran's hard currency comes from crude oil sales, which depend on transactions through the Central Bank. The Central Bank of Iran is complicit in Iran's nuclear program. This amendment also has measures that would ensure that the oil markets are not affected by isolation of the Iranian oil industry. The amendment also requires the President to start a ``multilateral diplomacy initiative'' to convince other countries to cease oil imports from Iran. It has become increasingly clear in the past month that the international community cannot negotiate with the current leadership in Iran, which has proven incapable and unwilling to abide by its international commitments. This was made crystal clear by the planned attack on the Saudi Ambassador, credible evidence of illegal nuclear activity in the IAEA report, and the attack on the British Embassy. I believe that we have turned a corner in how we should regard this regime in Iran. This means that in addition to severe sanctions, the United States should renew its support for democratic activists in Iran. Amid the remarkable change taking place across the region, the United States should clearly place itself on the side of democratic forces in Iran. Compromise with the current regime is not possible, and we, working with the international community, should work to engage fully with the democratic actors in the country. Those who ransacked the British Embassy do not represent the Iranian people. The majority of Iranians, based on the outpouring of support for the Green Movement in 2009, aspire for a different future. We have reached a pivotal moment, and we must stand on the right side of history. We must do all that we can to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. I am proud to have cosponsored the Menendez amendment sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran. We must make it clear that there are substantial consequences to Iran's nuclear intentions.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. The point of this letter is very simple. I won't read the whole letter, but here is the pertinent part of this letter from the Social Security Administration. We estimate that the projected level of the OASDI and DI Trust Funds would be unaffected by enactment of this provision. What he is talking about there is Social Security would be unaffected. The trustee said last year the same thing. I won't add all this to the Record, but read the one sentence. This is page 33 of a report from last year: Therefore, this payroll tax cut is estimated to have no financial impact on these same trust accounts. So it is abundantly clear that there is no impact on Social Security and, secondly, it is abundantly clear that passing a payroll tax cut again will boost job growth, strengthen the economy, grow the economy, and give American families some measure of peace of mind as we head into the holidays and head into the year 2012. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the issue of the payroll tax and the tax cuts we are trying to enact, very similar to what we did last year when Democrats and Republicans came together at the end of the year, right before the holiday season, and said, we have to take action now to make sure we are doing everything possible to jump-start the economy. One of the elements of that agreement last year--and, again, it was bipartisan--was a cut in the payroll tax. Just so people understand my point about this tax--and I will deal only with the employee side--we know that employees in the United States, when they make their payroll tax payment, it is 6.2 percent of their earnings. Last year we cut that from 6.2 to 4.2. It was the right thing to do and it had a positive impact. What I am trying to do now--and, again, I think this is bipartisan--is to not just do that again, but we want to cut it even more so that we can reduce it in half, so instead of paying 6.2, an individual would pay 3.1. This is a very basic idea, and what we are trying to do are two basic things. No. 1 is to give folks out there more take-home pay--kind of dollars in the pocket. Last year, it was roughly $1,000 per worker. The impact on a family--the positive impact of that--is very significant. This year, we hope it will be greater. We hope we can enact something where the take-home pay savings are increased, depending on how one argues it, almost $1,500. Instead of being $900 or $1,000, for some folks it can be $1,500 or $1,400 or somewhere in that range. The second point on this is peace of mind. We ought to take action here in a bipartisan way--and every once in a while we get this right-- that will say to people, we are trying to do our best to understand what you are up against. We are trying to take actions here that will lead to economic growth and job creation. One of the actions we can take is making sure we reduce the payroll tax so folks out there have more money in their pocket--more take-home pay--as they head not just into the holiday season but as they head into the new year in 2012. So it is about take-home pay and peace of mind. We have made some progress in the last couple of months, when we consider where we have been and in trying to dig our way out of this great recession. Unfortunately, the progress we have made is far too modest, and the economic recovery right now is still very vulnerable, very fragile--pick your word, there are lots of ways to describe it. We need this tax cut to boost consumer spending. A lot of the business folks I talk to in Pennsylvania, when I ask them if they want to hire, or if they want to increase their payroll, say, I want to, but I can't. I say, why can't you? They say, there is not enough demand out there. So one of the best ways--maybe the best way--to create demand in our economy is to have folks have more take- home pay. As you can see from this chart on my left, when we look at the quarters, starting right here, we see minus 6.7 percent. That is the first quarter of 2009. Eventually, we have gotten to the point where we have started to have some growth. We have had nine straight quarters of GDP growth. But that is not enough--not nearly enough. It is movement in the right direction, but it has been barely positive, as you can see, even if you look at just the last year. This .04 is the first quarter of 2011. So even though we had almost 4 percent of good growth back in a couple of quarters in 2009 and into 2010, in the last three- quarters of 2011, we had .4 percent growth, 1.3 percent growth, and 2.0 percent growth. What we have to do now is make sure the fourth quarter is stronger, as best we can, and we need to make sure, by the actions we take here, that 2012 is much better. We need to ensure we have stronger growth, and putting $1,500 of additional earnings into the pockets of 160 million workers, as I said before, will help substantially. I think that number should be repeated. When we talk about cutting the payroll tax in half and putting more take-home pay in people's pockets, we are talking about affecting 160 million workers in the United States. Economists across the board have told us why this is so important. They have reported the payroll tax cut will create jobs and increase GDP--increase those numbers I referred to on the chart--and that failing to extend the tax cut will slow growth and lead to fewer jobs. Mark Zandi, of Moody's Analytics--one of the economists both parties have quoted over many years--estimates that not extending the current payroll tax cut--meaning allowing the payroll tax to go back up to the 6.2 percent, not cutting it in half--would reduce gross domestic product growth by .5 percent in 2012. So instead of having positive growth, he is saying that if we don't enact and extend the payroll tax cut from last year, at a minimum we would be losing a half point of growth. That would be devastating to this economy. Goldman Sachs has said similar things. They put the negative impact on GDP growth at as much as two-thirds of 1 percent in 2012. Most economists are in that range in terms of the adverse impact. RBC Capital Markets concludes that the hit to GDP next year of failing to act would be a full 1 percent. So you have economists saying half a percent adverse consequence, two-thirds maybe, but at least among others saying a full percentage point. That would be devastating when we need to see growth at above 2 and hopefully even above 3. But that has been very hard to reach in the last couple of months. I put this chart up on my left to highlight what Mark Zandi said. Here is his warning when discussing what could happen on the current payroll tax cut in effect right now, the 4.2 level that we are at right now from the cut from last year: We'd be in recession right now without it. That is what he said about what we did last year in a bipartisan way. I would hope we could end this year on a high note, on a bipartisan note, and make sure we cut the payroll tax again and put more take-home pay in people's pockets. Then here is Mark Zandi talking about if we don't extend, what could happen into the near future: We'll likely go into recession. So says Mark Zandi. We can't afford to do that. The payroll tax cut has helped sustain the economic recovery this year, and it will strengthen the economy in 2012 if we reduce it again. My bill not only extends it but increases it so that the per worker take-home pay increase, instead of being around $1,000, would be approximately $1,500. We also know that cutting the tax leads to job growth. We know this from our experience, and we know this from recent history. At the end of 2010, Congress enacted the current payroll tax, cutting it from 6.2 to 4.2, and it took effect at the beginning of the year. As we look at private sector job growth in 2011, we can see some of the impact of the cut. As we can see on the chart, if you look at the first couple of bars--even if you can't read the smaller print here-- this depicts starting in January of 2011 what was the monthly change in private payrolls, meaning private sector job growth. January was only 94,000, not that great of a month in January 2011. But look at February: 261,000 private sector jobs added. Look at March: 219,000 private sector jobs added. And then April: 241,000. So you had an average of about 240,000 private sector jobs growing in those 3 months. When we got to May and June, of course, a lot of things happened which took that number way down. It slowed for a lot of reasons. One of them was the spike in oil prices, another was the effect on gas prices, and, finally, the earthquake in Japan had a terrible effect on our economy. I am wrapping up here, but I want to make one more point about this. The American people are looking at us right now, watching what we do, and they are saying basically two things to us--at least the people in Pennsylvania, to me. They ask me one basic question: What are you doing to grow the economy and create jobs? What are you doing as an individual Member of the Senate? One of the ways I can respond affirmatively and positively is to say we have come together to reduce the payroll tax even more than we did last year to help you in your bottom line, so you have more take-home pay for you and your family. The second thing they ask is, what are you doing to try to bring people together, to try to reach a bipartisan consensus? We have all got to try do that in our own way. This is about take-home pay and peace of mind. We need this tax cut in place to boost consumer spending, to create jobs, and accelerate economic growth. I want to conclude with one thought about Social Security, because I know it has been raised by a number of folks the last couple of days. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter addressed to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and Director, Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, dated December 6, 2011. It is signed by Steven C. Gross, Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about legislation I am introducing today that will prevent a huge tax hike from hitting working families across America and in Pennsylvania. As the clock continues to tick down, it is imperative we come together--Democrats and Republicans, Members of both parties, in both Chambers--and pass legislation to provide more take-home pay by cutting the payroll tax, as we did in 2010. The legislation I am introducing is a compromise offer designed to bridge the gap and to get at least 60 votes in the Senate. The legislation is fully paid for and includes measures that have received bipartisan support in the past. We can no longer afford to jeopardize middle-income Americans in order to protect the wealthiest few across our country. This legislation will help working families by extending the current payroll tax cut and expanding that cut to a 3.1-percent level--a 3.1- percent reduction in the payroll tax. In essence, what we are talking about is cutting the payroll tax in half as it relates to employees. Small businesses will benefit from this legislation by benefiting directly from the additional money in the pockets of Americans across the country. Those with incomes above $1 million should help in carrying a portion of this burden, and that is why the surtax is still in this legislation, but the surtax will now be only 1.9 percent, compared to the 3.25-percent in an earlier version of my legislation. In addition, I have offered a few more offsets that have received bipartisan support. The bottom line is--just as the first bill was that I offered--this legislation is indeed paid for. The tax cut is key and an essential ingredient to job creation and economic growth in 2012. Economists and forecasters--from Moody's Analytics to RBC Capital Markets, to Barclay's Capital, to Macroeconomic Advisers--have all emphasized that the tax cut will accelerate growth in 2012. Without it, economic growth will slow and job creation will take a hit. Mark Zandi, of Moody's Analytics, has said that without the payroll tax cut for 2012, ``we'll likely go into recession.'' Congress should act quickly to expand tax relief and remove the uncertainty for working families in this holiday season about whether their taxes will go up in the new year. More take-home pay to keep the economy growing is what we need right now--and especially in the year ahead. I encourage all our colleagues in the Senate, as well as those in the House, to pass this legislation to continue and to expand a cut in the payroll tax.