Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution honoring the lifetime achievements of C. DeLores Tucker. Along with her family and many friends with us today in Washington, we pay tribute to her life of service and courageous commitment to justice for women and for the African-American community. Cynthia DeLores Nottage Tucker was born in Philadelphia, PA, on October 4, 1927 and was the tenth of eleven children in her family. Her Bahamian-born Baptist minister father and her hard-working mother approached life from a Christian perspective and encouraged their children to do so as well. She grew up in a nurturing and achievement- oriented household. ``My mother and father gave us wonderful values,'' Tucker once told Good Housekeeping magazine. ``They taught us to be good and loving, and to use our lives to help others.'' Young DeLores originally intended to become a doctor and, as a girl, spent summers working in local hospitals. When she graduated from Girls' High of Philadelphia, her father took her to the Bahamas as a reward. During the trip, she became seriously ill and was restricted to a sickbed that kept her out of college for a year. This setback changed the course of her life. She subsequently finished her education at Temple University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. She also received two honorary degrees, from Morris College in Alabama and Villa Maria College in Pennsylvania. C. DeLores Tucker first became active in the postwar civil rights movement when she worked to register Black voters during a 1950 mayoral campaign. In July 1951, she married a friend of her brother, Bill Tucker, a construction company owner who also owned real estate in and around Philadelphia. For several years, DeLores sold real estate and insurance and was active in local politics. She also became an accomplished fundraiser and public speaker. The experience she gained in civic causes and work with her husband, helped to make her a well known figure in the city. She became the first African-American and first woman to serve on the Philadelphia Zoning Board. As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the late 1950s and early 1960s, DeLores found the perfect channel for her activism. She joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, and helped the NAACP raise funds. She never shied away from sensitive political issues. As part of her civil rights activism, she walked with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Selma to Montgomery march. In 1965, she participated in the White House Conference on Civil Rights and was a strong advocate of the 1965 Voting Rights Bill signed by President Lyndon Johnson. DeLores Tucker's life was guided by her deep convictions. Throughout the 1960s, she campaigned for African-American candidates and served on her party's state committee. Her strong will and organizing skills brought her to the attention of those in power. In January 1971, she was named Secretary of the Commonwealth by Governor Milton J. Shapp. This appointment made DeLores the first African-American woman in the United States to serve in such a role. The responsibilities of her job were serious. As Secretary of the Commonwealth, she was the keeper of the Great Seal of the Commonwealth and had the duty of authenticating government documents through the seal's use. By statute, she was a member of a number of important state boards and commissions. She also helped implement an affirmative action program to bring more equality to Pennsylvania's hiring practices. During her tenure, she advocated for the appointment of women and African-Americans as judges and as members of state boards and commissions. She led the effort to make Pennsylvania one of the first states to develop voter registration by mail and reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. Further, she helped pass statutes that would permit students to register and vote from their college districts. Ebony magazine named her among the ``100 most influential'' African-Americans every year of her tenure. After leaving state government, Dr. Tucker was a candidate for several political offices, including lieutenant governor and United States Senator. Although her efforts were unsuccessful, she never wavered in her commitment to public service. She continued her commitment to community service, working with underprivileged young people both in Philadelphia and across the country. DeLores Tucker always continued to participate in politics. As a fundraiser and organizer, she was involved in Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign in 1984. She chaired the Black Caucus of her party's national committee for several years, where she worked to increase the involvement of African-American women in politics. One of Dr. Tucker's greatest legacies was her work as a founder of the National Political Congress of Black Women in 1984 which was created to advance the interests of the African-American community, especially women. The group devised a comprehensive ten-point plan to reclaim and improve the African-American community by focusing on voter registration, educational quality and equity, welfare reform that would not victimize poor people, and fair and adequate legal services for everyone. The National Political Congress of Black Women addressed both broad national issues as well as local issues by, for example, supporting African- American congresswomen, as well as honoring civil rights pioneers, including Myrlie Evers-Williams, Dr. Betty Shabazz, and Coretta Scott King. The organization encouraged Black women to participate in the political process as voters, candidates, policymakers, fundraisers and role models. Today, the organization is known as the National Congress for Black Women. In 1992, Dr. Tucker succeeded Shirley Chisholm as the national chair of the National Congress of Black Women and served in that role until her death in 2005. In 1991, Dr. Tucker founded the Bethune-DuBois Institute to promote the cultural and educational development of African-American youth. During this time, Dr. Tucker began her public criticism of some kinds of rap music. She argued that record companies should halt the distribution of popular music that she believed contained derogatory lyrics about women and minorities and had a negative impact on young people. Objecting to the sale of such lyrics to minors, she asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to launch an inquiry. Both the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus supported Dr. Tucker's initiative. Dr. Tucker rose to national prominence in African-American civil rights circles through her tireless activism and political fundraising. She worked to end racism and make the United States a more equal, multicultural society. Her career in civil rights spanned more than 50 years. Her husband, Bill Tucker, told the Washington Post that DeLores ``was one of the most fearless individuals I have ever known . . . She will take on anyone, anything, if that's what she thinks is right.'' Dr. Tucker chaired the Black Caucus of her party's national committee for 11 years and spoke at five national conventions. As a member of the national committee, she was one of the original organizers of the Black Caucus and the Women's Caucus. She worked tirelessly to ensure that women, African-Americans and other minorities had fair representation within her party. She was the first African-American to serve as President of the National Federation of Democratic Women. Dr. Tucker also served as a member of the NAACP Board of Trustees and on the board of the Points of Light Foundation. She was also a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. During her career, Dr. Tucker received more than 400 awards and honors, including the NAACP Thurgood Marshall Award, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Distinguished Service Award and the Philadelphia Urban League Whitney Young Award. C. DeLores Tucker passed away on October 12, 2005. Her legacy lives on through the work of her husband, Bill Tucker, her many nieces and nephews, and the hundreds of people she helped and mentored during her life. DeLores Tucker was a daughter of Philadelphia, a city that has produced many notable leaders, in fields as diverse as the fine arts, politics, science, athletics, business, literature and entertainment. In December of 1939, Marcia Davenport wrote an article in Collier's magazine about the great internationally known contralto, Philadelphian Marian Anderson. Davenport's article described Anderson as a young girl in south Philadelphia--whose father, John Anderson, died when she was ten--playing on an imaginary piano and singing despite the poverty her family lived in. But in the heart of Anna Anderson, as she watched her child throbbing with music, there was a steadfast belief that for any worthy end, a way will come. For DeLores Tucker, through hard work, a passion for advocacy, a strong faith and a loving family, a way did come. A way to stand up for the powerless; a way to overcome racism, prejudice, and hatred; a way to shine the bright warm light of justice and compassion in the dark corners of America. Yes, a way did come for DeLores Tucker to use her voice to sing her own hymn of equal rights and opportunity for all, especially women and African-Americans.

Mr. CASEY

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

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, February 4, after the opening of the Senate and the Senate proceeds to executive session and resumes consideration of Calendar No. 474, the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor of the Department of Labor, all postcloture time be considered expired except for 20 minutes, with that time equally divided and controlled between Senators Harkin and Enzi or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate then proceed to a vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that there be 2 hours of debate prior to a cloture vote with respect to Calendar No. 188, the nomination of Martha Johnson to be Administrator of the GSA, with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the use of time, the Senate then proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate then immediately vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

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

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I will highlight one or two regions to give a sense of the gravity of the problem. In southeastern Pennsylvania, we have two major regions that have had very strong economies over time. The Philadelphia metropolitan region-- the city of Philadelphia--and the suburban counties have done well economically, but that number is going up. The total number of unemployed is over 164,000 Pennsylvanians in that corner of the State. That is about 5 counties--164,000 people. Just above that and north of that in the Lehigh Valley--the Allentown, Bethlehem region--they are at 9.8 percent, with some 40,700 people out of work. In my home area of northeastern Pennsylvania--north of the Lehigh Valley--we received reports today of the job market going up to 9.7 percent unemployment, the highest in 17 years. You could go across the State and hear the same story. So the numbers are going higher. Of course, that means the challenges, the misery, and the heartache for those who have lost their jobs are only rising. We have to meet that challenge. Part of meeting that challenge is not just addressing it in terms of policy--I will talk about that tonight for a couple of minutes--but also to try to understand as best we can from the distance of Washington, but even when you are, as I was, sitting in the same room more than a week ago with eight of our unemployed Pennsylvanians. I will just give two examples. One individual sitting right across from me, his name was Ron. He was laid off last April. He is 61 years old. His was one of the most compelling stories in terms of where he was with a job and where he is today. Before he was laid off, he managed a staff of 12 people. Over the course of his long and successful career, he worked in various management positions, at international trade groups, manufacturing facilities, and rental companies. During my conversation with Ron, he talked about his fear that his wide experience seemed to be working against him in this labor market. Ron was earning more than $100,000 before he was laid off. Today he and his wife are currently getting by with her earnings in a clerical job and his unemployment compensation, which amounts to just $40,000. In his life it is a $100,000 income versus now a $40,000 income. I also met Annetta. She was just on my right as we were talking to these eight individuals. She had a lot of energy and vigor. You could tell she was a very good employee. She worked for a retirement home until she was laid off. Annetta has been using her time to study to be a CNA, certified nurses aide, through the Yorktown School of Technology. In order to obtain her certification, Annetta had to pay for a final exam and a physical. She didn't have the money to up-front the costs of those tests and thus could not obtain her certified nurses assistant certification. According to Annetta, the most frustrating part of her situation is that she has the experience of a certified nurse from a previous employer who did not require formal certification. But I was particularly touched by her comments that, as a single person, Annetta fears having no one to fall back on in these tough times. Also, her embarrassment. We would always say to her or anyone in this situation: You shouldn't be embarrassed. You are in a very difficult situation. You have lost a job through no fault of your own. But, of course, that is not the way she sees it in terms of what she feels in her heart. She does feel a sense of embarrassment over having to turn to churches for food. That is why we have an increase in food stamps. We legislate to do that because it is not only good for that individual, taxpayers have an added economic benefit from an increase in food stamps and an increase in unemployment insurance, just to name two examples. What strikes me most about the stories that each of these individuals told, but in particular as I cite them tonight, Ron and Annetta, they are looking for work in the worst job market in modern times, but they speak very candidly about their fears. But mostly they talk about the incredible efforts they have made to get back to work. I know the Presiding Officer would remember the presentation that President Obama made to us in December, on a Sunday. We were meeting in a caucus about health care and he came over to talk to us. He talked about meeting individuals who were out of work in another part of Pennsylvania, in Allentown, at a job site. What he said in early December was very similar to what I heard in late January, and that is these are individuals who are out of work through no fault of their own. They are working and struggling, leading lives of tremendous struggle and sacrifice and heartache, but they are not complaining. They are determined to get a job. They are filling out scores and scores of applications--sometimes being rejected formally and sometimes hearing nothing at all. That is the life they are leading. I think the President's visit and other visits by some of us in the Senate are confirming that sense of determination, that sense of gratitude they have that there are programs to help them while they are unemployed, but also a tremendous resilience and ability to live and work through this struggle. What do we do? We could cite their cases and say how much we hope their prospects will improve. We could continue to enlarge and expand, as we must and we should, a safety net. We could pass other legislation. But I think one of the best ways to jump-start job creation is to provide significant tax incentives to employers, lots of employers out there who want to hire, who want to invest in their business, who want to maybe move people up who have done a good job and increase their payroll in that way--but especially to hire more people, to hire folks who are out of work. I believe the best way to do that, not the only way but the best way, is to pass legislation like the bill I introduced yesterday, the Small Business Job Creation Tax Credit Act. It is rather simple, but I think the impact of it could be substantial--a very substantial number of jobs created. What this act does is provide a nonrefundable quarterly payroll tax credit based upon an increase in the employer's wages that are paid. It would be a 1-year bill. It would be in effect for 1 year so it is very targeted in terms of the time. The credit would apply to an employee's wages up to the Social Security base of $106,800--that would be the limit of what you could count for the tax credit. If you had fewer than 100 employees, you would get a 20-percent credit; more than 100 employees, 15 percent. We know as we have heard today and on so many other occasions that the driver of our economy tends to be almost overwhelmingly small business. In Pennsylvania, if you look at a 3-year period from 2003 to 2006, small businesses accounted for more than 91 percent of the job creation. So we know that by giving small businesses a 20-percent tax credit for those with under 100 employees, that can have a substantial benefit for those employers, obviously, for those who can obtain work, and I think in a larger way our economy. We put a limit on the credit. One company could not have more than $\1/2\ million by way of a credit. You would basically compare one quarter in 2010, for example, versus that corresponding quarter in 2009. We know one of the referees around here is the Congressional Budget Office, maybe the main referee, in terms of how legislation is given a price or a score or a number, so to speak. The Congressional Budget Office has said that a tax credit based upon an increase in payroll would have the greatest positive impact on America's gross domestic product and employment, when compared to other job creation strategies. I believe Congress should pass a job creation tax credit to reduce up-front labor costs. This credit could provide for one small business, just one business alone, a 20-percent job creation tax credit. Other economists across the board, the Economic Policy Institute as well as others, have estimated that a job creation tax credit would create approximately 40 percent more jobs than other proposals. Finally, I would make a point about how it works. Sometimes we pass legislation around here and we do not often think about how it works in the real world--the real world of being an employer, the real world of hiring people and making ends meet, meeting your bottom line, getting your product out the door, all of the real-world challenges our employers face. The way this would work is, every employer is familiar with what the IRS calls form 941. It is just one of many forms we hear about. But all we would need to do, if we pass this tax credit, is to have a line or two added to that form. The employer would fill it out quarterly and see it right in front of him. He wouldn't have to hire a team of lawyers or tax accountants or other experts, he would just fill that in and be eligible and receive the credit. It is vitally important that we take these steps for people such as Ron, whom I spoke of before, and others as well, such as Annetta and those individuals I have met. I know the Presiding Officer has met individuals in the State of Colorado and across our country who are facing similar challenges. Especially when we see more and more the rise in these job loss indicators, to have headline after headline say: Highest job loss in 17 Years, highest job loss in 20, in 23, in 25 years--these are just headlines I have seen over the last couple of weeks in Pennsylvania. To see that, it is not enough to say we will weather the storm and we will try to provide a safety net. We have to have a safety net, but I believe we have to have very targeted and focused strategies that are not theoretical. We know this will work. We have prior evidence and experience with it. We need to pass the Job Creation Tax Credit to jump-start the creation of jobs this year, in 2010, in the next couple of months and throughout the year. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about job loss in the United States but in particular some of the individuals--the real people and real families--across our State whom I have met in the last couple weeks and who have told some of their stories about how they are struggling in this recession. Unfortunately, just in terms of numbers, they have not gotten better in our State. We went a long period of time, when at least as a percentage of those who were out of work, we were fortunately in the bottom tier or in the middle. At least we didn't have double-digit unemployment. That is changing, to a large extent. We are not in the 10 percent number that most of the country is, but we are at about 8.9 percent right now. We got some regional numbers today. Our State is divided into 14 labor markets and, unfortunately, in almost every one of them, that number keeps going up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a two-page summary of the unemployment data from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 406, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the Senate will not be in session tomorrow in order to accommodate the Democratic issues conference. We were, however, able to reach an agreement to vote at approximately 12:30 p.m. Thursday on confirmation of the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor. Following disposition of the Smith nomination, there will be 2 hours for debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Martha Johnson to be Administrator for General Services. Also under the agreement, if cloture is invoked on the Johnson nomination, the Senate would immediately proceed to vote on confirmation. Therefore, there would be up to two additional votes in the 3 p.m. range. So that would mean one vote around 12:30 p.m. and up to two votes around 3 p.m. Thursday.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon on Thursday, February 4; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Smith nomination, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 405 submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to Executive Calendar Nos. 654, 661, 667, to and including 685, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

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

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the Smith nomination. I hope we will be able to yield back some of the postcloture debate time so we may proceed to a vote on confirmation at a reasonable time. Upon disposition of the Smith nomination, the Senate will immediately proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Martha Johnson to be Administrator of General Services.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, February 2; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period of morning business for 1 hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half, and with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Patricia Smith postcloture; that the time during any adjournment, recess, or period of morning business count postcloture; finally, I ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus luncheons.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 394 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak of what I believe is the central concern of the American people right now, and that is the issue of jobs or in many cases the lack of a job. We have seen it in so many ways. We have seen it in our own communities. Many people have seen it in their own families. These are not statistics on a business page. When they see an unemployment rate or the number of people who are out of work, it is real life for far too many American families. As long as the unemployment rate in America is 10 percent, the American people want us to focus, as we never have before, on the issue of job creation. In Pennsylvania we have now 560,000 people out of work as of the last month it was calculated, the month of December. That is a huge number. If you look at it by percentage it looks like it is lower than a lot of States, 8.9 percent, but it is 560,000 people in Pennsylvania, and it spiked upwards toward the end of the year. I had a chance, now just about a week ago, to sit down with 8 of those 560,000 people, 8 people out of work. I will not give you their names because that was the agreement. I wanted to spend some time listening, mostly, to folks who had been laid off, who lost their job in one way or another, through no fault of their own, victims of this horrific recession that so many families have lived through. To encapsulate what they said, it comes down to much of what we heard President Obama speak about the other night in the State of Union, as well as what he said a number of weeks ago when he met unemployed individuals in Allentown, PA. What he saw in that job center in Pennsylvania is what I saw in another job center in another part of the State: people who do not fully understand why they are in this predicament--people who had worked their whole lives, had great work records, never missed a day of work for the most part, many of them over the age of 50, many of them over the age of 60 and feeling a kind of economic insecurity and vulnerability they never had felt before, but, despite all that, they were not complaining. They were not pointing fingers. They were not complaining about the number of applications they filled out--scores of them, 25, 30, 50, 100--and in many cases getting either rejected or hearing nothing at all. That is what I heard. I also heard, as the President said, a real determination to keep fighting, to keep applying, and to keep trying to get a job. Maybe the thread that runs through all of them is they are grateful for the country they live in and they want to work. They don't want to be in the position they are in. Many of them feel ashamed to have to rely upon someone else or an institution or, in particular, a government program. One woman said to me, in the meeting I had a week ago--she was just sitting on my right. She had a lot of brains and talent and commitment, had never had to worry about being out of work before. But she told me she felt--and I am not quoting her directly--bad or even embarrassed about having to rely upon food stamps, a program that we know helps people get across that bridge when they are out of work, when they can return to work. These eight individuals gave me just an insight, just a glimmer of how difficult it is for so many families. I received a couple of letters recently. I will not use names because we do not have permission, but two individuals, one from southeastern Pennsylvania, and one--actually two from southeastern Pennsylvania, which in Pennsylvania, generally, is probably one of the most prosperous corners of our State. But even in suburban communities that seem well off and strong economically, we are seeing many challenges for families who have lost their jobs, in some cases more than one person. One woman wrote to me and said: My husband got a job at a particular company [I will not identify the company] right out of high school. Left to serve in the Army. Then went back and retired from there when they closed. So like a lot of places, someone works for decades and the plant closes, that is where they lose their job. She continues: I got a job in a factory and worked there while starting to raise two sons until they closed that company as well. We both got our jobs to support our families. Then she talked about her sons getting the benefit of a college education which she and her husband did not have. But now they are at risk because one son is out of work and the other one is having challenges as well, despite having a college education. She concludes the letter with one question, a question which I think is on the minds of a lot of Americans, not a question where they are pointing a finger at what is happening or not happening in Washington, but it is a question we need to listen to and do our best to provide answers for. She says: When is the change coming? When is the change coming? I think it encapsulates a lot of the questions I have heard across Pennsylvania. People are worried about what a lot of us have been talking about here; it is not moving fast enough to help them. I point to another letter from an individual, again in southeastern Pennsylvania. This gentleman said to me that he grew up in Pennsylvania, had roots in Pennsylvania. He said: I worked hard all of my life, yet to no avail. I have been unemployed since the last layoff for a year now. It is hard to comprehend that, being out of work for a year, in some cases longer than a year. I seriously think we should start focusing heavily on jobs in the United States. We are hearing that everywhere, the same sentiment. But like the letter I cited a minute ago from a woman in southeastern Pennsylvania, this man said to me toward the end of the letter: When will the recovery begin for those individuals, the people he described in his letter, in addition to talking about his own situation? So we can't pretend that just because we passed a recovery bill last year, which I voted for--I was very proud to support that. I know it was not the most popular vote in the world for a lot of folks around here, but we know the recovery bill is starting to work, in some cases working faster than others. There are good numbers on job creation across the country. Instead of losing 741,000 jobs as we did in January 2009, we are losing in the tens of thousands now--still not good, not enough when the unemployment rate is 10 percent across the country, when 560,000 people in Pennsylvania are out of work. So we should point this out, that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act is beginning to work but it is not working fast enough. So we have to do more. We can't just say: Let it fully play out and let it be fully implemented and all. That is not good enough for the economic trauma so many families are facing. So for those who are leading lives of struggle and challenge, lives of anxiety and worry, and a kind of collective economic insecurity, we have to act. We can't just talk, we have to act. And I believe one of the ways we can act is by passing not just a jobs bill, which we should and must pass very quickly, but a jobs bill that is targeted on creating jobs in the fastest way possible. We do not need theories; we do not need some idea or some theory, untested; we do not need a bill that we hope will create jobs over many years. We need a bill that creates jobs this year, in the next 6 months to the next year, not the year after and 5 years later. We need a job creation bill that does that now. I hope many of my colleagues will support legislation I have introduced, the Small Business Job Creation Tax Credit Act of 2010. I have introduced it today. I thank Senators Gillibrand, Levin, and Begich for cosponsoring this important legislation. I mentioned the job loss in Pennsylvania, 560,000 people out of work through no fault of their own. That number across the country, since the beginning of the recession--if you add up the jobs lost, it is over 7 million jobs since the beginning of the recession. I just saw a story yesterday in my hometown paper in Scranton, the Times Tribune, a front-page story talking about the manufacturing job loss in just one region, not even a corner, just a region of Pennsylvania, 3 counties out of 67 counties. It was reported that in 2005--not that long ago--there were 35,150 manufacturing jobs in that region, over 35,000 jobs in 2005, and it is down below 30,000 now, 29,400 as of the latest number, meaning that a little more than 5,000 jobs have been lost in that period, in just a couple of years in northeastern Pennsylvania, and if you stretch it over 5 years, it is more than 7,500 manufacturing jobs. We know that number nationally is 2 million--2 million manufacturing jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007. I mentioned the 10-percent unemployment rate, and I also mentioned that the Recovery Act is having an impact. We are happy about that, and we should mention and affirm that, but it is not moving fast enough. We have to do more. This job creation tax credit--and many others have different versions of it, but the version I have been working on is actually very simple. We set the line of division between a large and small business at 100. So if you are under 100, you are considered a small business in this bill; over 100, a large business. If you are under 100 and you increase your payroll--when you compare one quarter of a particular year to the corresponding quarter from the year before, if you increase your payroll in that quarter, you get a tax credit of 20 percent. If you are above 100 employees and you add to your payroll in a particular quarter, you can get a 15-percent tax credit. It makes sense because it is targeted, it is focused on the problem, and it is going to be effective. We know from prior history--it is not theory; we have already tested this in recent American history--that it is a job creator. It creates jobs in big numbers fast. That is what we need. We know the focus of this, of course, just by definition, becomes small business. We know that in America, most of the job creation in any period but especially in recent history has been the creation of jobs in small businesses. In Pennsylvania, small businesses with less than 100 employees--that fit into the definition of our bill--accounted for 91.6 percent of job growth between 2003 and 2006. Almost 92 percent of the job growth in Pennsylvania for that time period was small business. This tax credit legislation would provide employers with a nonrefundable quarterly payroll tax credit based upon the increase in the employers' wages paid. It would be 1 year. We want to emphasize that we are focused on the short term, immediate direct benefit for the economy and to individual employers. The credit would only apply to an employee's wages up to the Social Security wage base of $106,800. I mentioned a business of 100 or more getting a 15-percent credit and less than 100 getting a 20-percent tax credit. So, for example, if you had a firm that would be considered a small business and say they have a total payroll of $\1/2\ million--and we are talking about the second quarter of 2009--we pass the bill and we get the legislation enacted, a year later, you compare that $500,000 payroll to a quarter in 2010. Say they hired five employees. If you hired those five employees, all of whom are given an annual salary of $40,000, that means you have five employees making $10,000 in a particular quarter. The tax credit would apply to that increase in their payroll. So that particular company could get a tax credit to offset their quarterly taxes by some $10,000. So we wanted to make this part of the jobs bill we are going to be considering very quickly. I believe the bill we are going to be completing work on and voting on will be a bill that will focus on strategy to create jobs very quickly and not be a big bill that a lot of things get attached to that make people feel good but may not create jobs. I wanted to move to three charts very quickly. The first chart with regard to the small business job creation tax credit is a chart that depicts one of the themes here, that this particular strategy will be effective. This is from the Congressional Budget Office. As of January of this year--for those who follow us, I use the acronym ``CBO,'' but for those who do not, the Congressional Budget Office. By definition, I think by acceptance of both parties in Washington, the CBO is a referee. When the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says this is what this particular legislation will cost, it tends to be accepted as a good number. So when the CBO speaks about a particular policy provision, it speaks with authority and I think with a significant degree of credibility. Here is what CBO said: Providing tax credits for increases in payrolls would increase both output and employment. That is what we want. We want legislation that will be, first, effective. The next part is very simple, just the word ``efficient.'' We want to make sure we can put dollars in the hands of employers very quickly to create jobs in the near term. The same Congressional Budget Office report that I cited before for January of this year says that: This particular policy would provide tax benefits linked to payroll growth; fewer budget dollars would be used to cut taxes for workers who would have been employed anyway. So that is an indication that it can be efficient. Finally, related to the question of efficiency is, how will this work in the real world? Often, we talk about and debate and enact things that sometimes do not work as well as we hope they would. We want this to work. We do not want to have an employer say: Well, I have a tax credit, but I need to hire an army of lawyers to interpret and implement it. We want this to be a provision that is easy for businesses to use. So here is a basic form 941. Every employer has to fill this out quarterly. And there is a lot to go on this. I will not read every line, but as you can see, the form captures the number of employees who receive wages, the taxes and wages. The IRS would simply have to add in the ability to calculate the change in the payroll from one quarter of one tax year to one quarter of the next. So if the IRS can add a line or two, when this employer is filing out this form they are well familiar with--they have to fill it out every quarter--they can just add in how they have increased their payroll. They do that, and they will have the opportunity to benefit from the tax credit. Finally, let me turn to one final theme, which is cost. I expect the cost of this tax credit to be $30 billion. The improvement to the economy from this tax credit will more than offset the overall cost. An increase in the gross domestic product will obviously increase company profits, which will increase the revenue of the U.S. Government. An increase in revenue will also reduce the deficit. We have to invest in a strategy that will create jobs right now. We do not have time for a long ramp-up along the implementation of new legislation. Finally, an increase in jobs will assist in taking people off unemployment, putting people to work. We want to have the safety net in place of unemployment insurance and/or food stamps and COBRA for insurance, but we also want to create opportunities so that more and more people do not have to worry about having to enroll in those programs and can actually be going to work every day because we answered the questions that were in those letters about when will the change come, when will we have the kind of economic security that workers and their families have a right to expect. As we go through these next couple of days--I think we are down to days now--finishing up a provision or a set of provisions that will be a jobs bill, we have to be not just focused on getting the policy right, we have to be focused on getting this right for real people, people who are leading lives of struggle and anxiety and worry every day. Every morning they get up, they are worried about not having a job. Many of them are worried because they do not have access to health care or sometimes the protections we should have on health care-- another bit of unfinished major business we have. But, in particular, most Americans are faced with the prospect of darkness, of misery, and the pain of no job at all. For those eight individuals I met and for those who have been writing to me--and I am sure many people in both parties--we have to act, and we have to act now. Talk is long past. We have exhausted the time for just talk and discussion. We have to act and pass a jobs bill. A central part of a jobs bill has to be a job creation tax credit to efficiently and effectively and in a very focused way create jobs in the near term. I ask my colleagues to review and cosponsor the job creation tax credit legislation I have for small businesses.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak of what I believe is the central concern of the American people right now, and that is the issue of jobs or in many cases the lack of a job. We have seen it in so many ways. We have seen it in our own communities. Many people have seen it in their own families. These are not statistics on a business page. When they see an unemployment rate or the number of people who are out of work, it is real life for far too many American families. As long as the unemployment rate in America is 10 percent, the American people want us to focus, as we never have before, on the issue of job creation. In Pennsylvania we have now 560,000 people out of work as of the last month it was calculated, the month of December. That is a huge number. If you look at it by percentage it looks like it is lower than a lot of States, 8.9 percent, but it is 560,000 people in Pennsylvania, and it spiked upwards toward the end of the year. I had a chance, now just about a week ago, to sit down with 8 of those 560,000 people, 8 people out of work. I will not give you their names because that was the agreement. I wanted to spend some time listening, mostly, to folks who had been laid off, who lost their job in one way or another, through no fault of their own, victims of this horrific recession that so many families have lived through. To encapsulate what they said, it comes down to much of what we heard President Obama speak about the other night in the State of Union, as well as what he said a number of weeks ago when he met unemployed individuals in Allentown, PA. What he saw in that job center in Pennsylvania is what I saw in another job center in another part of the State: people who do not fully understand why they are in this predicament--people who had worked their whole lives, had great work records, never missed a day of work for the most part, many of them over the age of 50, many of them over the age of 60 and feeling a kind of economic insecurity and vulnerability they never had felt before, but, despite all that, they were not complaining. They were not pointing fingers. They were not complaining about the number of applications they filled out--scores of them, 25, 30, 50, 100--and in many cases getting either rejected or hearing nothing at all. That is what I heard. I also heard, as the President said, a real determination to keep fighting, to keep applying, and to keep trying to get a job. Maybe the thread that runs through all of them is they are grateful for the country they live in and they want to work. They don't want to be in the position they are in. Many of them feel ashamed to have to rely upon someone else or an institution or, in particular, a government program. One woman said to me, in the meeting I had a week ago--she was just sitting on my right. She had a lot of brains and talent and commitment, had never had to worry about being out of work before. But she told me she felt--and I am not quoting her directly--bad or even embarrassed about having to rely upon food stamps, a program that we know helps people get across that bridge when they are out of work, when they can return to work. These eight individuals gave me just an insight, just a glimmer of how difficult it is for so many families. I received a couple of letters recently. I will not use names because we do not have permission, but two individuals, one from southeastern Pennsylvania, and one--actually two from southeastern Pennsylvania, which in Pennsylvania, generally, is probably one of the most prosperous corners of our State. But even in suburban communities that seem well off and strong economically, we are seeing many challenges for families who have lost their jobs, in some cases more than one person. One woman wrote to me and said: My husband got a job at a particular company [I will not identify the company] right out of high school. Left to serve in the Army. Then went back and retired from there when they closed. So like a lot of places, someone works for decades and the plant closes, that is where they lose their job. She continues: I got a job in a factory and worked there while starting to raise two sons until they closed that company as well. We both got our jobs to support our families. Then she talked about her sons getting the benefit of a college education which she and her husband did not have. But now they are at risk because one son is out of work and the other one is having challenges as well, despite having a college education. She concludes the letter with one question, a question which I think is on the minds of a lot of Americans, not a question where they are pointing a finger at what is happening or not happening in Washington, but it is a question we need to listen to and do our best to provide answers for. She says: When is the change coming? When is the change coming? I think it encapsulates a lot of the questions I have heard across Pennsylvania. People are worried about what a lot of us have been talking about here; it is not moving fast enough to help them. I point to another letter from an individual, again in southeastern Pennsylvania. This gentleman said to me that he grew up in Pennsylvania, had roots in Pennsylvania. He said: I worked hard all of my life, yet to no avail. I have been unemployed since the last layoff for a year now. It is hard to comprehend that, being out of work for a year, in some cases longer than a year. I seriously think we should start focusing heavily on jobs in the United States. We are hearing that everywhere, the same sentiment. But like the letter I cited a minute ago from a woman in southeastern Pennsylvania, this man said to me toward the end of the letter: When will the recovery begin for those individuals, the people he described in his letter, in addition to talking about his own situation? So we can't pretend that just because we passed a recovery bill last year, which I voted for--I was very proud to support that. I know it was not the most popular vote in the world for a lot of folks around here, but we know the recovery bill is starting to work, in some cases working faster than others. There are good numbers on job creation across the country. Instead of losing 741,000 jobs as we did in January 2009, we are losing in the tens of thousands now--still not good, not enough when the unemployment rate is 10 percent across the country, when 560,000 people in Pennsylvania are out of work. So we should point this out, that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act is beginning to work but it is not working fast enough. So we have to do more. We can't just say: Let it fully play out and let it be fully implemented and all. That is not good enough for the economic trauma so many families are facing. So for those who are leading lives of struggle and challenge, lives of anxiety and worry, and a kind of collective economic insecurity, we have to act. We can't just talk, we have to act. And I believe one of the ways we can act is by passing not just a jobs bill, which we should and must pass very quickly, but a jobs bill that is targeted on creating jobs in the fastest way possible. We do not need theories; we do not need some idea or some theory, untested; we do not need a bill that we hope will create jobs over many years. We need a bill that creates jobs this year, in the next 6 months to the next year, not the year after and 5 years later. We need a job creation bill that does that now. I hope many of my colleagues will support legislation I have introduced, the Small Business Job Creation Tax Credit Act of 2010. I have introduced it today. I thank Senators Gillibrand, Levin, and Begich for cosponsoring this important legislation. I mentioned the job loss in Pennsylvania, 560,000 people out of work through no fault of their own. That number across the country, since the beginning of the recession--if you add up the jobs lost, it is over 7 million jobs since the beginning of the recession. I just saw a story yesterday in my hometown paper in Scranton, the Times Tribune, a front-page story talking about the manufacturing job loss in just one region, not even a corner, just a region of Pennsylvania, 3 counties out of 67 counties. It was reported that in 2005--not that long ago--there were 35,150 manufacturing jobs in that region, over 35,000 jobs in 2005, and it is down below 30,000 now, 29,400 as of the latest number, meaning that a little more than 5,000 jobs have been lost in that period, in just a couple of years in northeastern Pennsylvania, and if you stretch it over 5 years, it is more than 7,500 manufacturing jobs. We know that number nationally is 2 million--2 million manufacturing jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007. I mentioned the 10-percent unemployment rate, and I also mentioned that the Recovery Act is having an impact. We are happy about that, and we should mention and affirm that, but it is not moving fast enough. We have to do more. This job creation tax credit--and many others have different versions of it, but the version I have been working on is actually very simple. We set the line of division between a large and small business at 100. So if you are under 100, you are considered a small business in this bill; over 100, a large business. If you are under 100 and you increase your payroll--when you compare one quarter of a particular year to the corresponding quarter from the year before, if you increase your payroll in that quarter, you get a tax credit of 20 percent. If you are above 100 employees and you add to your payroll in a particular quarter, you can get a 15-percent tax credit. It makes sense because it is targeted, it is focused on the problem, and it is going to be effective. We know from prior history--it is not theory; we have already tested this in recent American history--that it is a job creator. It creates jobs in big numbers fast. That is what we need. We know the focus of this, of course, just by definition, becomes small business. We know that in America, most of the job creation in any period but especially in recent history has been the creation of jobs in small businesses. In Pennsylvania, small businesses with less than 100 employees--that fit into the definition of our bill--accounted for 91.6 percent of job growth between 2003 and 2006. Almost 92 percent of the job growth in Pennsylvania for that time period was small business. This tax credit legislation would provide employers with a nonrefundable quarterly payroll tax credit based upon the increase in the employers' wages paid. It would be 1 year. We want to emphasize that we are focused on the short term, immediate direct benefit for the economy and to individual employers. The credit would only apply to an employee's wages up to the Social Security wage base of $106,800. I mentioned a business of 100 or more getting a 15-percent credit and less than 100 getting a 20-percent tax credit. So, for example, if you had a firm that would be considered a small business and say they have a total payroll of $\1/2\ million--and we are talking about the second quarter of 2009--we pass the bill and we get the legislation enacted, a year later, you compare that $500,000 payroll to a quarter in 2010. Say they hired five employees. If you hired those five employees, all of whom are given an annual salary of $40,000, that means you have five employees making $10,000 in a particular quarter. The tax credit would apply to that increase in their payroll. So that particular company could get a tax credit to offset their quarterly taxes by some $10,000. So we wanted to make this part of the jobs bill we are going to be considering very quickly. I believe the bill we are going to be completing work on and voting on will be a bill that will focus on strategy to create jobs very quickly and not be a big bill that a lot of things get attached to that make people feel good but may not create jobs. I wanted to move to three charts very quickly. The first chart with regard to the small business job creation tax credit is a chart that depicts one of the themes here, that this particular strategy will be effective. This is from the Congressional Budget Office. As of January of this year--for those who follow us, I use the acronym ``CBO,'' but for those who do not, the Congressional Budget Office. By definition, I think by acceptance of both parties in Washington, the CBO is a referee. When the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says this is what this particular legislation will cost, it tends to be accepted as a good number. So when the CBO speaks about a particular policy provision, it speaks with authority and I think with a significant degree of credibility. Here is what CBO said: Providing tax credits for increases in payrolls would increase both output and employment. That is what we want. We want legislation that will be, first, effective. The next part is very simple, just the word ``efficient.'' We want to make sure we can put dollars in the hands of employers very quickly to create jobs in the near term. The same Congressional Budget Office report that I cited before for January of this year says that: This particular policy would provide tax benefits linked to payroll growth; fewer budget dollars would be used to cut taxes for workers who would have been employed anyway. So that is an indication that it can be efficient. Finally, related to the question of efficiency is, how will this work in the real world? Often, we talk about and debate and enact things that sometimes do not work as well as we hope they would. We want this to work. We do not want to have an employer say: Well, I have a tax credit, but I need to hire an army of lawyers to interpret and implement it. We want this to be a provision that is easy for businesses to use. So here is a basic form 941. Every employer has to fill this out quarterly. And there is a lot to go on this. I will not read every line, but as you can see, the form captures the number of employees who receive wages, the taxes and wages. The IRS would simply have to add in the ability to calculate the change in the payroll from one quarter of one tax year to one quarter of the next. So if the IRS can add a line or two, when this employer is filing out this form they are well familiar with--they have to fill it out every quarter--they can just add in how they have increased their payroll. They do that, and they will have the opportunity to benefit from the tax credit. Finally, let me turn to one final theme, which is cost. I expect the cost of this tax credit to be $30 billion. The improvement to the economy from this tax credit will more than offset the overall cost. An increase in the gross domestic product will obviously increase company profits, which will increase the revenue of the U.S. Government. An increase in revenue will also reduce the deficit. We have to invest in a strategy that will create jobs right now. We do not have time for a long ramp-up along the implementation of new legislation. Finally, an increase in jobs will assist in taking people off unemployment, putting people to work. We want to have the safety net in place of unemployment insurance and/or food stamps and COBRA for insurance, but we also want to create opportunities so that more and more people do not have to worry about having to enroll in those programs and can actually be going to work every day because we answered the questions that were in those letters about when will the change come, when will we have the kind of economic security that workers and their families have a right to expect. As we go through these next couple of days--I think we are down to days now--finishing up a provision or a set of provisions that will be a jobs bill, we have to be not just focused on getting the policy right, we have to be focused on getting this right for real people, people who are leading lives of struggle and anxiety and worry every day. Every morning they get up, they are worried about not having a job. Many of them are worried because they do not have access to health care or sometimes the protections we should have on health care-- another bit of unfinished major business we have. But, in particular, most Americans are faced with the prospect of darkness, of misery, and the pain of no job at all. For those eight individuals I met and for those who have been writing to me--and I am sure many people in both parties--we have to act, and we have to act now. Talk is long past. We have exhausted the time for just talk and discussion. We have to act and pass a jobs bill. A central part of a jobs bill has to be a job creation tax credit to efficiently and effectively and in a very focused way create jobs in the near term. I ask my colleagues to review and cosponsor the job creation tax credit legislation I have for small businesses.