[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 15 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S409-S431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF M. PATRICIA SMITH TO BE SOLICITOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                            LABOR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized as in morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Northern Uganda

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor to talk 
about an issue that has kind of been drowned out by a lot of other 
things that are going on, other conflicts and disasters around the 
world. This is having to do with northern Uganda. It is something I 
have been on the floor talking about for several years now, and I have 
had occasion to be there several times.
  For over two decades, a guy named Joseph Kony has led what they call 
the LRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, in violence all throughout 
northern Uganda, in that whole Great Lakes Region of east and central 
Africa. They have killed tens of thousands--little kids--displacing 
over 1 million, and terrorizing and kidnapping over 30,000 little kids, 
forcing them to fight. It is this child soldier thing a lot of people 
are aware of, but not nearly enough people are aware of it.
  With all the problems there are in Africa--people are more concerned 
about Zimbabwe. They hear about that. They have heard about Somalia, 
Sudan. Everyone knows about that. But nobody says anything about the 
Lord's Resistance Army and what they have been doing in that area of 
Africa for 25 years.
  I have been there. I have been all the way up there to Gulu in 
northern Uganda. Let me share the problem that exists up there.
  This madman, kind of a spiritual leader, by the name of Joseph Kony 
has taken advantage of all the unrest and the disasters by going into 
villages and kidnapping, taking young people and training them to be 
soldiers. We are talking about little kids, little boys. They are from 
11 to 14 years old. Once they train them to be soldiers, they actually 
give them AK-47s. I do not have my chart now, but I have pictures of 
that. They train them to be soldiers, and then they have to go back to 
their villages and murder their parents and their siblings. If they do 
not do that, then they will dismember them. They will cut their noses 
off, cut their ears off, cut their lips off.
  This has been going on for a long period of time. Quite frankly, I 
have gotten to know President Museveni in Uganda quite well, President 
Kagame in Rwanda, and President Kabila in Congo, and all of them agree 
that we need do something about this monster Joseph Kony. It happens 
that two of the three Presidents I mentioned--President Museveni from 
Uganda and President Kagame from Rwanda--are Presidents who have really 
come to power in the bush. They are warriors. These are people who 
really are reluctant to admit they cannot go after one guy and get him. 
Well, they have finally all gotten together.
  What we are trying to do--well, we have already introduced it; the 
author of the bill is Senator Feingold of Wisconsin--is to go after 
these people, and this bill provides about $35 million to help these 
kids who have been brutalized, as well as to give whatever assistance 
we have to give to these different countries in order to bring this guy 
to justice.
  During one of the trips I made up to northern Uganda, to Gulu, I ran 
into three young men. They are college-age types--Bobby Bailey, Lauren 
Poole, and Jason Russell. They have started a documentary on Joseph 
Kony. They have gone around to universities, and we now have 
thousands--tens of thousands--of young people who are rallying around 
this thing, trying to get us to do something as a nation. These young 
people have become very effective.
  This week, this Senate has an opportunity to act in unison to shine 
the light on this forgotten place and to begin to bring relief to these 
children.
  The Great Lakes Region in Africa has suffered from years of 
devastating fighting between tribes, and as a result the area is home 
to massive numbers of displaced people who are vulnerable to this type 
of treatment. So those are

[[Page S410]]

the conditions that allow Joseph Kony and his LRA rebels to thrive. 
Kony preys on the weak. He gets little kids who cannot defend 
themselves. He gets young girls. He sells them to be sex slaves and 
these kids to become murderers.
  In December of 2008, the Government of Uganda, Southern Sudan, and 
the DRC--that is the Democratic Republic of the Congo--launched a 
coordinated offensive against the LRA. It was called Operation 
Lightning Thunder. During the operation, over 300 rebels were killed, 
over 40 were captured, and more than 500 kids who were abducted were 
rescued. So we are making some headway in doing this.
  According to estimates by the U.N., between September of 2008 and 
June of 2009, the LRA killed over 1,300 civilians, abducted 1,400 more 
boys and girls, and displaced nearly 300,000 others.
  I know something about this because I took the time to go to--you 
hear a lot about western Congo--Kinshasa and the problems there. This 
is eastern Congo that butts up against Rwanda and then, further north, 
Uganda.
  In going to Goma, we thought that was where Joseph Kony was at the 
time. We thought we had an effort that could get him, but we barely 
missed him. He went north on a tirade, after that, going up toward 
Sudan and murdered thousands of people during that short period of 
time. It averages out, he murders or mutilates about three kids a day. 
That is why this is important. We can get this guy. We cannot do it if 
we just try the way we have tried it before because it has not worked 
and it is not going to work.
  Well, anyway, we have watched this take place. It is spreading now to 
other areas. I would anticipate before too long, if left unchecked, it 
would go not just to the Central African Republic but also maybe back 
into Sudan and maybe even Ethiopia. So it is very serious.
  In 2009, a total of 186 people were killed by the LRA just in 
Southern Sudan. One survivor describes his experience and the murders 
of his family at the hands of the LRA. This is a quote. This is 
actually what this person said:

       We were eating dinner outside of our hut when several LRA--

  That is the Lord's Resistance Army--

     rebels appeared and told us in broken Lingala--

  This is their local language--

     to get inside of our hut. They looted our food, locked us 
     inside our hut and burned it. There were 10 of us; my whole 
     family was inside. When I realized they were burning us 
     alive, I started to push against the door, forcing it open. 
     One rebel standing outside of the door tried to hit me with a 
     heavy club but I dodged it and ran in the bush. They shot 
     after me but missed. Apparently they shot or hit everyone 
     else in my family who tried to come out. Except for one other 
     person, everyone else was burned alive.

  This is the type of thing we have documented that has been happening 
for a long period of time.
  What we are trying to do with this--as I mentioned before, the cost 
is not great. This, by the way, is not any appropriation. This is an 
authorization bill, to authorize probably what the CBO says is about 
$28 million to get this done. It is not offset. When the bill first 
came out, it was offset by a reduction in certain types of military 
expenditures. I disagreed with that, so it is not offset at this time. 
But of all the efforts out there right now, this is something that 
absolutely has to happen.
  Just by contrast, we had a bill, the other African bill, just a 
couple years ago, called the PEPFAR bill. That was one that actually 
had about $35 billion--much larger than this--and it sailed right 
through. So I would say, if we were willing to do that, we ought to be 
willing to do this.
  By the way, we have a lot of cosponsors now. I do believe we are 
going to be successful in getting this bill passed, and I will be 
bringing this up, I am guessing, probably either Wednesday or Thursday.
  So with that, I will yield the floor and hope that any of the other 
Members of this body who are not already a cosponsor to this bill--it 
is S. 1067--we would like to get a few more cosponsors on here if at 
all possible.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination 
of Patricia Smith for Solicitor of the Department of Labor. 
Commissioner Smith is a dynamic and effective leader with over 30 years 
of experience in labor law, and I am very proud to support her 
nomination.
  She has exhibited exceptional leadership during her 10 years as New 
York's Labor Commissioner. In this capacity, she managed 3,700 
employees in 80 offices and oversaw an annual budget of $11 billion.
  In response to the current economic climate, Ms. Smith executed 
critical programs to reduce the impact of layoffs. She also implemented 
career training to assist individuals in entering high demand fields. 
Additionally, she has enhanced labor law enforcement in order to 
safeguard workers and reward responsible employers.
  Commissioner Smith fully embodies the integrity and the diligence 
this position demands and has a wealth of experience, making her well 
qualified to enforce critical issues such as workplace safety and 
health, fair wages, equal employment opportunity, veterans protection, 
and retirement and health benefits.
  Prior to her term as labor commissioner, she served as Chief of the 
Labor Bureau in the New York Attorney General's Office for 8 years. In 
that capacity, she established a method of labor law enforcement that 
other attorneys general and enforcement agencies have used as a model. 
She was an innovative leader here, increasing efficiency and 
effectiveness of the bureau by developing ethics standards, targeting 
enforcement efforts on an industrywide basis, and strategically 
focusing on workers.
  Commissioner Smith's nomination, which has been pending since April, 
was reported with the unanimous support of all committee Democrats. 
Additionally, she has the enthusiastic support of labor groups, women's 
groups, and worker advocates. A number of prominent business 
organizations have also endorsed Commissioner Smith, including the 
Business Council of New York State, the Manufacturing Association of 
Central New York, the Partnership for New York, the Long Island Forum 
for Technology, and the Plattsburgh North Country Chamber of Commerce.
  Commissioner Smith has endured a rigorous vetting process and has 
made herself available to answer over 50 questions from our friends 
from the other side of the aisle and met with all interested Senators.
  I urge my colleagues to move quickly to confirm Patricia Smith for 
Solicitor for the Department of Labor.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Continental Connection Flight 3407

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we are approaching the 1-year 
anniversary of the fatal crash of Continental Connection flight 3407 in 
Buffalo, NY, and today the National Transportation Safety Board is 
actually holding a public meeting to consider the final report they are 
making on that crash.
  I think almost everyone has heard the tragic story of that crash last 
February 12. Two pilots, two flight attendants, 45 passengers on that 
airplane, and 1 person on the ground lost their lives. This flight was 
operated by Colgan Air. The plane was a Bombardier Dash 8-Q400 operated 
by a captain and a copilot, both of whom had commuted long distances to 
get to work to make that flight, both of whom had been found to have 
very little rest before that flight.
  The copilot revealed her inexperience in the cockpit recording that I 
listened

[[Page S411]]

to--inexperience in flying in icy conditions--in the transcript of the 
voice recordings. The captain failed a number of tests in his career as 
a pilot. The NTSB is now considering 45 findings and conclusions at a 
public meeting as I speak.
  This morning the NTSB members said the plane and the flight crew were 
properly certified, and the plane was in good condition before takeoff. 
They also said the ice buildup that night flying into Buffalo was 
typical and did not affect the ability of the flight crew to fly the 
airplane. So while we are waiting for the final conclusions of the 
National Transportation Safety Board, the members of that board spoke 
about crew training, pilot fatigue, and pilot error as reasons for the 
crash.
  These are the issues I have been holding some hearings on this past 
year. The NTSB is going to make recommendations to the FAA. We already 
know that when they make recommendations, the appropriate agencies 
don't always pay attention to those recommendations. For example, pilot 
fatigue has continually been on the National Transportation Safety 
Board's most wanted list for 19 years; that is, most wanted list of 
safety recommendations. Let me say that again. For 19 straight years, 
the National Transportation Safety Board has said ``pilot fatigue'' is 
on the most wanted safety recommendations list. Yet no one has been 
listening. Nobody seemed to ring the bell on those issues.
  I have held seven hearings on safety in the aviation subcommittee 
that I chair in this Congress. We have heard from the FAA, the NTSB, 
pilots, regional airlines, major carriers, and safety experts. We have 
heard especially from the families who lost their loved ones in that 
fatal crash, that tragic crash in Buffalo, NY.
  Let me be quick to say, we have had, fortunately, reasonably few 
airline crashes in this country in recent years. It is, generally, a 
very safe way to travel. But there isn't room for error with respect to 
these commercially airplane flights. I am going to be holding followup 
hearings with Senator Rockefeller and others in the Commerce Committee 
with respect to the NTSB recommendations. We are supposed to have what 
is called ``one level of safety.'' The NTSB said, in the middle of the 
1990s, there is one level of safety for commercial airplane flights in 
this country. The big, major trunk carriers that are national and 
international and the regional carriers shall have one level of safety. 
But it is the case that regional airlines often employ pilots with much 
less experience, much lower pay, which forces difficult conditions.
  In many cases, when you get on a small airplane for a regional 
flight, you see a crew with obviously much less experience. There are 
questions, from time to time, raised about the training--questions 
raised in this investigation, as a matter of fact. We know there are a 
lot of factors that play into this one level of safety. But I think 
most people believe that one level of safety standard, at this point, 
doesn't quite measure up. That is the reason we will examine the 
recommendations from the NTSB as a result of this crash.
  At the time of the crash outside Buffalo, NY, Colgan Air didn't have 
a remedial training program for pilots. The captain of the flight had 
failed numerous performance checks over the course of his career and 
would have made an excellent candidate for remedial training. I know 
the FAA has been working on the industry to try to get them to do this 
for a long while. If the traveling public ever begins to have very 
significant concerns about safety on a commercial airline flight, it 
will be devastating to that industry. So safety must not just be a 
perception. Safety on commercial airlines, whether they be the major 
trunk carriers or regional airlines, has to be something everybody 
takes seriously and that the American people believe is taken 
seriously.
  I wish to show you a chart that shows something that common sense 
would tell you doesn't work. This chart shows where Colgan Air pilots 
were commuting to. You will see they were commuting to Newark, their 
base of operations. On that fateful flight going into Buffalo, NY, the 
copilot flew all night long from her home in Seattle, WA, I believe 
deadheaded on a FedEx plane, stopped in Memphis, TN, changed planes, 
and got to Newark Airport. After flying all night long, she is now 
ready to take an airplane on its flight. There is no record of evidence 
of that copilot having a crash pad or someplace to find a bed and 
sleep. That is the copilot.
  The pilot, on the other hand, came from Florida to Newark Airport. 
There is no evidence, outside of being in the crew lounge at the 
airport, that the pilot had a bed in which to sleep or that he had 
rest. So you have a pilot and a copilot who get on that airplane to 
take, in this case, those 45 passengers on that airplane on its flight 
to Buffalo, NY. On that flight, ice built up on the wings, and there is 
what is called a stick shaker on that airplane. There was rapid shaking 
of the control stick, which would have said to the pilot you must put 
the nose down in order to gain additional speed. The pilot didn't put 
the nose down but pulled the nose up, as I understand it, which is 
apparently a training issue as well. So you have a pilot and copilot 
traveling across the country all night long just to get to their duty 
station, and things happened in the cockpit. In the transcript, the 
copilot said she had very little experience flying in icing. Both the 
pilot and copilot lost their lives.
  I take no joy in reciting what happened in that cockpit. Their loss 
of life was a tragedy for their families as well. My point is simply 
this: What happened here--by the way, I believe five out of the most 
recent seven airline crashes in our country have been on commuter 
carriers. This, it seems to me, raises a series of questions that must 
be addressed--and now I believe will be addressed in recommendations 
from the NTSB by the FAA, dealing with the issue of fatigue. Who is 
flying the planes? Are they getting proper rest? It deals with the 
issue of compensation. Is it the case that you get on a small jet and 
know that the copilot is making $18,000 a year or $20,000 a year, doing 
two jobs and flying across the country at night in order to get into an 
airplane cockpit? Does that give you confidence? The fact is, all these 
issues are now coming to the forefront--not just of this crash but 
other circumstances as well--and that requires the FAA to take a hard 
look at what happened.
  At one of my hearings, I showed a Wall Street Journal article, in 
which Mr. Wychor, an 18-year veteran pilot described the routine 
commuter flights with short layovers in the middle of the night. He 
said:

       Take a shower, brush your teeth, and pretend you slept.

  That is not what you want in the cockpit of an airplane.
  A 737 pilot flying to Denver said this, and this is an NBC News 
quote:

       I have been doing everything in my power to stay awake--
     coffee, gum, candy. But as we entered one of the most 
     critical phases of the flight, I had been up for 20 straight 
     hours.

  That is an issue with me. It is one we have to address. I think all 
thoughtful people in that industry--and I have great admiration for 
people in the airplane industry. They do a great job. They understand 
we have to address these issues of fatigue, training, and compensation. 
That is just the fact.
  All I wished to do today was to say the National Transportation 
Safety Board, I think, does a great job investigating accidents. The 
family members of the victims of that flight that crashed in Buffalo, 
NY, have been extraordinary. They have come to every single hearing 
held on Capitol Hill. They are witnessing, on behalf of their brothers 
and sisters and wives and children, saying: I don't want Congress or 
the FAA to let up. We want you to address these issues. That crash 
didn't have to happen. Our loved ones did not have to die. That is 
their message.
  I say to them: You are doing exactly the right thing. What you are 
doing--showing up here at all these hearings and keeping the pressure 
on the Congress and, yes, on the FAA--will save lives. You will not 
know their names, but you are saving lives. Good for you.


                            Cloture Motions

  Madam President, the issue of cloture motions sounds like a foreign 
language to a lot of people. If you are back home someplace and are 
getting up in the morning and struggling to get to work and putting in 
a full day and trying to make enough money to raise your family and 
get along in life, you

[[Page S412]]

don't know about cloture motions or the 2-day ripening or 30 hours 
postcloture. That sounds foreign to almost everybody.

  This is a graph of cloture motions in Congress. In the 1950s, there 
were two cloture motions filed in the entire decade. What does cloture 
mean? If you decide in this body--and you are the most junior Member of 
this body, you are the last one elected, you are the 100th in seniority 
and you sit back by the candy door because that is the last desk--I 
guess we should not talk about a candy drawer, perhaps, but you sit way 
back in the corner and you are No. 100 in the Senate. Once you are on 
your feet and recognized by the Presiding Officer, nobody else can take 
the floor from you--not the majority leader, not the most senior Member 
of the Senate. The floor is yours and you can speak until you are 
physically and mentally exhausted. That is the way the rules are; it is 
the way the Senate works. Washington described the Senate as a saucer 
that cools the coffee. You pour the coffee into the saucer and it 
cools. The Senate isn't supposed to work quickly or efficiently. It is 
supposed to slow things down, take a better look at it, and have more 
evaluation and ask: Does this make sense for the country?
  That is the way the Senate was created. It is hard to get things 
done. But it is near impossible to get things done these days because 
of something called a filibuster and cloture motions.
  I wish to provide some interesting statistics. This could not happen 
and wouldn't happen in any city council in America. There is no city 
council in America where this sort of thing could happen, no matter 
what the rules were, because they would be laughed out of town. We have 
people blocking bills they support. Can you imagine that? If you were 
on the city council and your business was to block things you support 
and your neighbor said: What are you doing, are you nuts? No, I am 
blocking things I support because it has a strategy attached to it. 
What is the strategy, they would say.
  Here is the situation: In 2009 and 2010, it is projected we will have 
146 cloture motions to shut off debate in this Congress. Let me 
describe what we are involved with next. We are on one now, by the way. 
We are now in what is called 30 hours postcloture. We had a nomination 
that should have been approved in 5 minutes. Those who want to vote 
against the nomination should vote no. But we could not do that. 
Instead, those who oppose the nomination for the Solicitor for the 
Department of Labor, a nomination--instead of having an up-or-down 
vote, during which those who don't like this nominee should vote no, 
they said you cannot even have a vote. You have to file a cloture 
motion and then wait for 2 days and then have a vote and see if you get 
60. If you get 60, after you get the 60, we are going to insist you 
bleed off 30 more hours because the rules allow us to do that. Only 
then can you have a vote. That is where we are now. We had a cloture 
vote. It prevailed. Now we are waiting for 30 hours to elapse so 
nothing can be done during the 30 hours. It is just stalling. So then 
the 30 hours is done, and we will vote on this. Then we will go to the 
next nomination. So this week we will do two nominations, both of which 
should have taken 5 minutes, if people of goodwill worked together and 
decided: Here is the agenda; let's bring up these candidates for a 
vote. And if you like the candidate vote yes; if you don't, vote no.

  So the next one is going to be Martha Johnson, GSA Administrator. By 
the way, this one has been objected to, and it has waited for 7 months. 
So 7 months ago this President nominated Martha Johnson to be GSA 
Administrator. April 3, 2009, was her nomination. June 8, the 
nomination passed through the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee unanimously. So this nomination was voted on 
unanimously and approved by the committee, and that was June 8. Here it 
is February of the year following, and we now are going to get to vote 
on this nomination that passed the committee unanimously, but not until 
we are able to shut off a filibuster and then have 30 hours 
postcloture. It is the most unbelievable thing in the world.
  Is this person qualified? Yes, absolutely. She served as the head of 
GSA during the Clinton administration and is hailed by former and 
current GSA employees as the ``golden heir of GSA.'' She was the chief 
of staff back during the Clinton administration. She would be a vast 
improvement, by the way, over the previous head of the GSA, the 
previous head of the GSA--and I spoke about her on the floor of the 
Senate--Lurita Doan.
  On April 29, 2008, the Office of Special Counsel for the United 
States asked that she be disciplined to the full extent for the most 
pernicious of political activity prohibited by the Hatch Act. She then 
submitted her resignation, in accordance with that request by the White 
House. She had been accused of providing no-bid contracts to friends 
with whom she had extensive personal and business relationships. She 
and a deputy in Karl Rove's office at the White House had joined in a 
video conference with 40 regional GSA Administrators after a PowerPoint 
on polling about the 2006 election, and she said: ``How can we help our 
candidates?'' This is a nonpolitical office--heading the GSA--in our 
country.
  This person got drummed out of office--and should have gotten drummed 
out of office--and resigned under pressure. So here is someone who is 
fully qualified and it is 7, 8 months later and we are finally going to 
get to have a vote, but only if we go through the motion of filing a 
cloture petition to end a filibuster. That is unbelievable to me.
  Let me give some other examples of what is happening. Here is a bill 
that was filibustered--the credit card holders bill of rights. There is 
a filibuster against that by the other side, the Republicans. They 
filibuster everything--everything. So the credit card holders bill of 
rights, they went through a filibuster, delayed, and after the delay it 
passed 90 to 5. Obviously, we had a bunch of folks who said: I am going 
to lay down on the track until it is inconvenient for everybody, and 
then I will get up and vote for it.
  We have people blocking things they support. You would get laughed 
out of town in any town in this country if you tried that on the city 
council.
  The Department of Defense appropriations--filibuster. Had to go 
through the motion of filing--2 days, 30 hours--and then it passed 88 
to 10. So, obviously, we had a bunch of folks on the other side who 
decided they were going to block something they supported, kind of a 
curious strategy.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill--that was my bill that I 
chaired--went through filibuster, cloture, and in the end 80 people 
voted yes. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act was filibustered by 
the Republicans. Then when it was finally voted upon, after they had 
delayed it, 92 of them voted yes. Again, we see people blocking things 
they support. Only in the United States Congress, I guess.
  Unemployment compensation extension was the subject of a filibuster, 
and then 98 people voted yes. People blocking things they support. What 
a curious thing.
  I mean, what do you tell your children if they ask: What was your 
role, Dad or Mom?
  My role was to slow things down. I just wanted to sort of spread glue 
around the Senate. Not that we don't think it is slow enough the way it 
is, we want to slow it down even further.
  The fact is, people send men and women of goodwill to this Chamber. 
One of the things I have learned in many years in this Chamber is that 
almost every desk is occupied by someone who has pretty unique and 
interesting and special skills to get here. In almost every case, there 
are people here with very substantial skills. But they are not sent 
here with an agenda that says: You know what I would like you to do? I 
would like you to block everything and then vote for it in the end. 
That is not a message that comes from any State that I am aware of. 
They are sent here to try to do good things for this country. All of us 
are. We might have a disagreement about what that means and how to do 
it, but there shouldn't be any disagreement about these kinds of 
things.
  In the middle of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, 
seven of this President's high-level nominees for the Treasury 
Department are not yet confirmed--seven of them. How do you justify 
that? How do you justify deciding, in the middle of the deepest 
recession since the 1930s, that you are

[[Page S413]]

going to prevent the U.S. Treasury Department from having a full 
complement of people who can think through and work through trying to 
put this country back on track; who can restart the economic engine and 
put people back to work again? How do you justify deciding we shouldn't 
have a full complement of people to do that?
  We had a fully qualified Surgeon General who was nominated, and that 
Surgeon General nominee was blocked. And this was after the H1N1 flu 
had been declared a major health threat. Think of that. That nominee 
was blocked even after we had a major health threat. We had the 
Ambassador of Iraq--obviously an important position--blocked during a 
time of war just when we most needed to resolve some political issues 
there.
  One single Senator on the other side held up the nomination of the 
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative for 9 months--9 months that was held 
up--to try to force that U.S. Trade Representative's Office to file a 
complaint against Canada on some issue. I don't have the foggiest idea 
what that issue was, but I will tell you this: I would never, and have 
never, held up a nomination for 9 months in order to try to force 
something that I insist should happen. That is not the way the Senate 
is supposed to work.
  One Senator on the other side blocked a highly qualified nominee to 
be Assistant Under Secretary for the Western Hemisphere at the State 
Department, and it had to do with our relationship with Hugo Chavez, 
which left us without the person who was supposed to be responsible for 
coordinating our response to the difficulty in Honduras last year. One 
Senator held up that nomination on and on and on.
  Again, the fact is, as I said, this is called the great debating 
body, the most exclusive club in the world, and all of those 
descriptions. But this is not the way it is supposed to work. We have 
some models of how it is supposed to work. In the old days--and when I 
say the old days, I mean some decades ago--people would get together 
and decide what is the major challenge facing our country and how do we 
work together to find a way to resolve it; not who gets the credit or 
who gets the blame, but what is needed to be done to fix what is wrong 
in America. That is the way the Senate used to work. Regrettably, these 
days, it does not.
  Our country rests on the precipice of a very significant cliff. We 
are still not out of this financial and economic crisis, although I 
think there has been some stability and we have, hopefully, found some 
foundation. But at a time when we most need cooperation, we see almost 
none--almost none. It doesn't. Just read the record: An estimated 146 
cloture petitions are filed to shut off filibusters, and on issue after 
issue after issue we have the minority in this Chamber blocking things 
they ultimately vote for. How do you explain that--I was against it 
before I was for it?
  Madam President, this country deserves and expects a whole lot 
better. This country is going through tough times. While I speak here, 
and while my colleagues are objecting to proceeding on anything--while 
we are in a 30-hour period where nothing is happening on the floor of 
the Senate--nothing--a whole lot of people are out looking for work. 
They are stopping by business after business with their resume, and 
thinking: Can I find a way? Can I please find a way to get on a payroll 
and get a job to help my family?
  There are a whole lot of folks who need a job, need some hope, need 
to keep their house, who are struggling. They deserve a lot better from 
this Congress. The last thing they deserve is a Congress that decides 
its mission in life is to stop things from happening. The mission for 
every Senator ought to be to get up in the morning and reach out and 
see how we can work together to get the best ideas of what both parties 
have to offer this country. That is happening far too seldom in this 
Chamber.
  It is not my habit to come to the Senate floor to be critical of the 
Republican side of the Senate. I don't do that often, but I see what is 
happening. We are sitting here today--and this is a good example of 
it--for 30 hours doing nothing. Why? Is it because there is nothing to 
do? No. It is because the other side insists on cloture, insists on the 
2 days, then insists on the 30 hours. So what they will have done this 
week is insist that we will only be able to confirm two Presidential 
nominees--one is a Solicitor General in the Labor Department and the 
second is to head the GSA. That is what we will get done this week. 
That should have been done in 5 minutes, having a vote on those 
nominations. If you don't like the nominee, vote no; if you like the 
nominee, vote yes. Dispose of the nominations.
  In my judgment, this system is broken, and it can't be 1 person or 10 
people who fix it. It has to be 100 people with reasonably goodwill who 
want to make good things happen for the future of this country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Tax Code

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, on Wednesday of last week the President 
gave his State of the Union Address and talked about a lot of issues. 
One of the issues he mentioned that is especially important to me is 
one I have worked on for some long while here in the Senate, and that 
is changing the Tax Code to begin cutting out and getting rid of the 
tax break that is offered to companies that shut their American 
factories and move their jobs overseas. It is strange to most people to 
hear, but we actually have in the American Tax Code a reward for 
companies that would say: You know what I should do? What I want to do 
is shut down my American factory, I want to fire my American workers, I 
want to move those jobs to China and hire somebody for 50 cents an 
hour. By the way, if they do that, they actually get a tax break in 
this country. They get rewarded by the American tax system for moving 
American jobs to other countries.
  That is an unbelievably ignorant and pernicious part of our Tax Code 
and needs to be changed. I have offered amendment after amendment here 
on the floor of the Senate on it, and the President in his State of the 
Union Address last week indicated he believed we needed to do this and 
do it soon. I could not agree more.
  We are talking about jobs a lot in this Congress. We have had some 
discussions today about jobs again. Senator Durbin and I have worked to 
put together a jobs package that would try to stimulate and incentivize 
more jobs, especially small and medium-size businesses to be able to 
hire people and have the incentive to put people on payrolls. We are 
working on all of that.
  Senator Baucus and certainly Senator Reid and others have been 
working together with us to put together a jobs initiative. Even as we 
try to find a way to create more jobs in our country, we still have 
this backdoor approach in the Tax Code that rewards people for moving 
jobs outside of our country. Most of us believe what we want to do is 
see more of those signs that say ``Made in the USA.'' Made in the USA 
means there is a job someplace here, particularly in a factory that is 
producing something, that is putting somebody to work to be able to 
make a living, to provide for their family. No special program is as 
important as a good job that pays well.
  I have both written a book about this issue of moving jobs overseas 
and I have spoken on the floor so many times people have either nearly 
or completely gotten tired of it. But the stories are legend of what 
has happened in recent years. All of the little things we know and have 
expected to be American made--almost all of those things are gone. 
Radio Flyer Little Red Wagon--we have all ridden in it. It was a 110-
year-old company in this country. They made those wagons for kids in 
America, made in Illinois. Not anymore. All those Radio Flyer Little 
Red Wagons are made in China.
  Huffy Bicycles--all those people in Ohio lost their jobs. They were 
all fired and all those bicycles are now made in China. In the book I 
wrote I told the story about the last day at work at Huffy Bicycles in 
Ohio and those workers. As they left their parking lot, they left an 
empty pair of shoes in the space where their car was parked. It was a

[[Page S414]]

way for them to say to that company, the Huffy Bicycle Company: You can 
move our jobs if you want, but you are not going to be able to 
effectively replace us. Those shoes, in an empty parking space in a big 
parking lot in Ohio when all those people lost their jobs, were a 
symbol of what is wrong.
  A little company made something called Etch A Sketch. Every kid used 
an Etch A Sketch. It was also made in Ohio. Not anymore. It is now made 
in China. The list goes on and on, those American products that are 
gone in search of 50-cent labor and higher profits.
  The people who make these products--Radio Flyer Little Red Wagons or 
Huffy Bicycles or Etch A Sketch or, yes, even airplanes--the people who 
make these products ask the question, What is wrong with my work? The 
answer is nothing is wrong with your work. You just can't compete with 
somebody who makes 50 cents an hour.
  The second question is, Should I have to compete with somebody who 
makes 50 cents an hour? The answer to that is no, you should not. This 
country needs a vibrant manufacturing base and it needs to fix this 
unbelievable tax provision that says if you move your jobs overseas, we 
will give you a tax break.
  In order to remain with a manufacturing base in this country, we need 
to reward the production of things in this country. ``Made in the USA'' 
should not be a distant memory. ``Made in the USA'' ought to be 
something applied to things made here that we are proud of.
  The Senator from Washington State is here. She is going to speak in a 
moment. I will not be long.
  But in every circumstance in this area of trade and the movement of 
jobs, other countries take advantage of us because we allow them to. 
For example, airplanes--Washington State makes some great airplanes in 
the Boeing Company manufacturing plants. A country such as China that 
has an unbelievable trade deficit with us, over $200 billion a year, 
says to us: If you want China to buy your planes you have to build most 
of it in China. It doesn't make any sense to me. If we are buying all 
those products from China in this country when we have something they 
need, they ought to buy American products to be shipped to China, not 
say to us you must move your product to be produced in China.
  It is going on all the time and this country doesn't have the 
backbone or nerve or will to deal with it. What we ought to say to 
other countries is we are going to hold up a mirror and you treat us as 
we treat you.
  If I might make one additional comment on automobile trade. Our 
automobile industry has been in a very serious problem. We came close 
to losing our automobile industry in this country, which is so 
important for our manufacturing capability. This country has a trade 
agreement with China, with whom we have a $200-plus billion a year 
deficit in trade. We have a trade agreement with China that says to the 
Chinese--who are, by the way, ramping up a very large automobile export 
industry and you will see Chinese cars on the streets of America very 
soon--we say to China: If you ship Chinese cars to the United States of 
America you will have a 2.5-percent tariff attached to those cars. But 
the agreement also says if we ship American cars to be sold in China, 
they may impose a 25-percent tariff. We have an agreement with the 
Chinese that says we will give you a 10-to-1 advantage on tariffs in 
bilateral automobile trade. That is a recipe for undermining America's 
manufacturing and economic strength and it goes on all the time. 
Frankly, I am sick and tired of it. One piece of it is something the 
President talked about last week and that is let's at least cut out 
this unbelievably ignorant and pernicious provision that says: You move 
your jobs overseas and we will give you a big tax reward. We will cut 
your taxes if you move your jobs overseas.
  I say to the President: Good for you. Help us shut that provision 
down. Let's have ``Made in America'' be something we see more and more 
frequently these days.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for his passion on this issue. I would add one other issue within this, 
which is that we have to be training our workforce for the coming years 
with those skills to make those things in America--whether it is 
airplanes in my State or cars in the Midwest or South, or whether it is 
the widgets he talked about. We are losing people today in this country 
who have those basic skills--welding, electricians, those kinds of 
skills that are basic to these industries. As we move into this coming 
year and look into our budget and look at our education policy--and we 
will be talking about the President's education policy on the committee 
on which I sit--we have to make sure we are going down into our middle 
schools and high schools and making sure our kids have career pathways 
that help fill these skilled manufacturing jobs we want to have here in 
this country. I thank the Senator for his words.
  I am here this afternoon to rise again in support of President 
Obama's nominee to serve as Solicitor of Labor, Patricia Smith. I have 
to tell everyone I am very confident she is the right person for this 
critical job. The work she is going to do to protect our workers is 
more important than ever before.
  American workers are facing an incredible challenge today. We all 
know that. They are struggling with record unemployment, a devastating 
economic crisis. Today more than ever they need and they deserve strong 
leaders in the Department of Labor who are passionate about public 
service and committed to being there to fight for them. The Department 
of Labor is this agency with a name that sounds bureaucratic, but it is 
important because that agency is charged with a very critical mission 
in our Nation's government. Its role is to foster and promote the 
welfare of America's workers by improving their working conditions, by 
advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, by protecting 
workers' retirement and health care benefits and helping employers find 
workers who are skilled in the jobs provided and strengthen free 
collective bargaining.
  I believe during these challenging economic times it is absolutely 
critical that the Department has leadership within that Department to 
make those goals a reality. I was very pleased when I heard President 
Obama nominate such a strong candidate for the position of Solicitor of 
Labor.
  Ms. Patricia Smith, as the Presiding Officer knows, is Commissioner 
of the New York State Department of Labor. She has been there since 
2007. She is cochair of the New York State Economic Security sub-
cabinet and she oversees today 3,700 employees in 80 offices with an 
annual budget of $4 billion.
  For the previous 20 years, Tricia worked in the Labor Bureau of the 
New York Attorney General's Office and she served on the Obama 
administration's transition review team for the Department of Labor.
  I have received many letters of support for Patricia Smith from 
people who admire her work, from people she has worked with, and from 
workers she has helped. I want to take a couple of minutes this 
afternoon to read some excerpts from those letters because I believe 
they demonstrate Patricia's broad support and why she should be 
confirmed by the Senate.
  One letter I received was a letter of support from the CEO of the 
Plattsburgh, NY, Chamber of Commerce, who knows Tricia well. He said:

       Patricia Smith has been an outstanding partner as 
     Commissioner of the New York State Labor Department and will 
     be an outstanding Solicitor for the U.S. Labor Department. We 
     strongly encourage her earliest possible confirmation by the 
     Senate.

  I heard from the United States Women's Chamber of Commerce. They 
wrote to me and said:

       After learning of Ms. Smith's qualifications, her expertise 
     and the laws she has worked to uphold, I can clearly see that 
     she is someone who would work with conviction to enforce the 
     laws of the United States of America. Additionally, I am 
     impressed with her out-of-the-box thinking in creating 
     programs that will keep jobs. We especially need these 
     attributes in these times of economic challenge.

  That is from the United States Women's Chamber of Commerce.
  I also received a letter from a group of professors and scholars of 
labor and employment law and labor relations, from over 50 scholars of 
highly respected institutions, institutions such as Georgetown 
University Law Center, Columbia Law, Thomas Jefferson

[[Page S415]]

School of Law, Yale Law, and Cornell University School of Industrial 
and Labor Relations. They wrote to me and urged speedy confirmation 
saying that Tricia has:

     consistently demonstrated the highest integrity and 
     commitment to ethical standards. She is experienced, 
     intelligent, thoughtful and energetic. We believe this is 
     exactly what the U.S. Department of Labor needs in a 
     Solicitor. Once confirmed, she will be among the best 
     Solicitors of Labor the Department has known.

  I would tell my colleagues that her support transcends party lines. 
Former New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco, who is a Republican, had 
this to say about his former employee:

       Patricia Smith has proven herself as one of the foremost 
     experts in the nation in the realm of labor law, which is why 
     President Obama saw fit to nominate her. . . . She was an 
     asset to the New York Attorney General's office and I am 
     confident . . . she will be an asset to the Department of 
     Labor.

  Tricia Smith has bipartisan support. As Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Employment and Workplace Safety, I know the challenges American workers 
are facing today. I know they deserve a Solicitor of Labor such as 
Tricia who is going to fight every single day to protect them. When she 
is confirmed as the Department's top legal counsel, she is going to 
have the profound responsibility of enforcing more than 180 Federal 
laws and managing more than 450 attorneys nationwide. She is going to 
be responsible for defending the Department in litigation, as well as 
providing legal advice and guidance on nearly every policy, 
legislative, regulatory, and enforcement initiative of the Department. 
But, most importantly, she is going to be responsible for defending the 
rights of workers when they are not able to speak for themselves. 
Tricia has a big job ahead of her, but we need to act now to allow her 
to get started. We owe it to our country's workers to have a confirmed 
Solicitor of Labor in place.
  I have had a number of conversations with Tricia myself, and I am 
confident she is highly qualified, and she is eager to get to work. So 
I will be voting, hopefully later this afternoon or soon thereafter, to 
confirm Tricia Smith. I come to the floor this afternoon to urge my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 
up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


      IN PRAISE OF JEREMY TEELA, SHAUNA ROHBOCK, AND HEATH CALHOUN

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak once more about 
America's great Federal employees.
  Next week, in Vancouver, the 21st Olympic winter games will begin 
amid great fanfare and high hopes. Every four years, the world's top 
athletes in skiing, skating, hockey, and several other winter sports 
compete to win medals and to win hearts.
  Olympic athletes push themselves to their limits not only to win 
personal or team glory but also to represent their nations on the world 
stage. A ticket to the Olympics is purchased with years of arduous 
training and a commitment to personal integrity and athletic fairness.
  The values of Olympians are those of perseverance, integrity, 
teamwork, and national service.
  If this list of values sounds so familiar to many Americans, this is 
because they are the same values that motivate those Federal employees 
who serve our Nation in civilian roles and in the military branches.
  This week, in honor of the upcoming winter games, I have chosen to 
highlight three incredible American Olympians. They share these values, 
and all three of them chose to serve our Nation in the U.S. Army.
  Jeremy Teela is an infantry sergeant. Originally from Anchorage, AK, 
Jeremy joined the Army in 1997. In addition to serving in the infantry, 
he participates in the Army's World Class Athlete Program. Jeremy is 
one of America's best in the sport of biathlon.
  Biathlon is a grueling race that begins with cross-country skiing and 
ends with precision rifle shooting. Jeremy is a seven-time national 
champion, and he was a member of the U.S. Olympic team in the 2002 Salt 
Lake games and the 2006 games in Torino. Jeremy will once again be 
competing in the biathlon at this year's games in Vancouver. Last year, 
at the 2009 Whistler World Cup, which took place at the same venue, he 
won a bronze medal--the first American to medal in biathlon in 17 
years.
  Joining Jeremy in Vancouver will be SGT Shauna Rohbock of the Army 
National Guard. She is one of America's champion bobsled drivers. A 
native of Orem, UT, Shauna enlisted in 2000. Around that time, she 
began training in bobsled in the hopes of making it to the Olympics in 
Salt Lake City, just 40 miles from her hometown. While she didn't make 
it to those games, Shauna made it to Torino 4 years later. There, she 
won the silver medal in Women's bobsled.
  Comparing the teamwork required to succeed in the Army to the kind 
necessary in Olympic bobsledding, Shauna said recently: ``Just like any 
team or platoon, you're only as good as your weakest person. It takes 
two people to push the sled in a race. Bobsled drivers can't do this 
alone.'' This month Shauna will return to compete with Team USA in 
Vancouver.
  The Olympics are not the only games taking place in Vancouver this 
season. Following the Olympics will be the 2010 Paralympic winter 
games. There, the world's best athletes with physical disabilities will 
compete in several winter sports.
  Among those vying for a medal is retired Army SSG Heath Calhoun. 
Heath grew up in Bristol, TN, and joined the Army in 1999. In doing so, 
he followed a family tradition--his grandfather fought in World War II, 
and his father served in Vietnam. Heath trained at Fort Benning, GA, 
and was deployed to Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division.
  While on patrol in Iraq, his convoy was fired upon with a rocket-
propelled grenade, and Heath lost both legs above the knee. After 
months of recovery at Walter Reed, he was losing hope that he would 
ever walk again. But with the help of the Wounded Warrior Project, 
Heath became an advocate for other soldier-amputees.
  Determined to regain his mobility, Heath began training with special 
prosthetic legs and computerized knees. Soon he was able not only to 
walk but also to run, golf, and drive an unmodified car.
  In 2008, Heath began training for the Vancouver Paralympic Games in 
the sport of adaptive skiing. He has been training in Aspen, CO, and 
won gold in last year's Super-G National Champions in Men's sit-ski. He 
will be headed to Vancouver in a few weeks to compete for medals there 
as well.
  All three of these inspirational soldiers are not only Army strong 
they are Olympic strong. The values that called them to the Army 
teamwork, perseverance, integrity, and service are the same ones that 
drive them toward Olympic glory. It is the same set of values that 
calls other Americans to serve in the Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast 
Guard, and civilian careers in Federal Government.
  We have such talented citizens who are Federal employees, and whether 
they are Nobel laureates or Army sergeants, whether they work behind a 
desk or a spacesuit, they all share the common bond of having chosen--
let me repeat that--chosen to give back to the country we all love.
  This is the case with all of the great Federal employees I have 
honored from this desk so far and for those whose stories I have not 
yet shared or will not be able to during my brief term.
  Shauna Rohbock put it best when she said: ``I feel it's a great honor 
to be able to represent my country as a soldier and an athlete.''
  All Federal employees, military and civilian, athletes and non-
athletes alike, represent us well.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Jeremy Teela, Shauna 
Rohbock, and Heath Calhoun and offering them and their fellow American 
Olympians our support in the pursuit of victory in Vancouver.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S416]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Nomination of Judge Joseph Greenaway

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think it is important we respond to 
the public discourse and concern about what it is we do here to 
accomplish what is in the public interest. We know that for some time 
now there has been obstructionism to moving ahead with the people's 
business, that the price obtained for obstructionism is political gain. 
But, like any other transaction, when you do that--when we take the 
time and the energy devoted toward trying to move ahead and do not move 
ahead--the price that is paid for this by the American public. It is 
apparent that our friends on the other side have decided they would 
rather sacrifice the people's need for action on critical issues for 
their party's political gain.
  We have seen delay, diversion, parliamentary gimmicks, wasted time, 
and a throwaway of huge resources to distort and distract us from 
accomplishing better lives for American families. Republicans have used 
stalling tactics such as the filibuster over 100 times since the start 
of this Congress just over 1 year ago. The problem is, the victims of 
these delay-and-destroy tactics are people who need to get back to 
work, have affordable health care, better education, and other 
essentials for decent living.
  The victims are also well-qualified nominees for high government 
positions who seek to serve in order to carry America forward--nominees 
to fill an appeals court position, such as Judge Joseph Greenaway from 
my State of New Jersey.
  Joseph Greenaway is a well-qualified judge who has served on the 
Federal bench in New Jersey for over a decade. He has been nominated by 
President Obama for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He 
brings exceptional credentials and experience that are second to none. 
But his nomination has been blocked without any criticism of his 
education, experience, or merit.
  This wonderful example of America at its best came from a modest-
income family. He has great academic credentials, excelling at Columbia 
University and Harvard Law School. He brings a rare blend of 
experience, clerking for a Federal judge, serving as an assistant U.S. 
attorney in Newark in 1985, and then working in private practice. He 
distinguished himself prosecuting bank fraud and white-collar criminals 
before rising through the ranks to become chief of the Narcotics 
Division. He moved on to serve as a U.S. district court judge in New 
Jersey. In that position, he has built up a wealth of experience, 
presiding over more than 4,000 cases in his courtroom.
  He has received numerous honors and awards recognizing his work, 
among them, the Earl Warren Legal Scholar, Thurgood Marshall College 
Fund Award of Excellence, Garden State Bar Association Distinguished 
Jurist Award--the list goes on--Columbia University Medal of 
Excellence, chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni 
Council.

  Judge Greenaway has spent his career protecting the people of the 
State of New Jersey. Despite his critical bench responsibilities, he 
has always found time to give back to the community. He teaches 
criminal trial practice classes at Cardozo Law School and courses about 
the Supreme Court there and at Columbia University.
  Judge Greenaway will be an outstanding addition to the bench. The 
American Bar Association rated him ``unanimously well qualified'' for 
this position. That is why he was passed unanimously out of the 
Judiciary Committee. Not one Republican on that committee dissented. 
There was not one vote against him. Yet Judge Greenaway has been 
sidelined for over 4 months, waiting for a vote on the Senate floor, 
despite the need to fill that position. Every time we try to schedule a 
vote, Republicans have objected.
  I am pleased to note there has been consent to go to a vote on Monday 
evening. The wait has been long. It has been tortuous. There can't be 
any understanding of why. With all the wonderful accolades Judge 
Greenaway has had for his work, his experiences, his climb to the 
position he has had, what could be objected to? I say, if he is not 
acceptable in our colleagues' eyes, speak up. Vote against him. Show 
the American people why this educated, brilliant legal scholar is not 
fit to serve.
  Obstructionism last year led to the lowest number of judicial 
confirmations in more than 50 years. It is time for this to end, and it 
doesn't end with a vote on Judge Greenaway. There are lots of positions 
that have yet to be filled. I wish to say to those who hear this or 
understand otherwise what is going on, this man, people like him, and 
our country deserve better.
  When a confirmation is blocked, it is not just one judge who suffers. 
The whole system suffers under the weight of vacancies in the 
judiciary. The American people suffer with longer waits for justice in 
overburdened courts.
  The Third Circuit Court has a vacancy that needs to be filled. It is 
time for our friends--Republican Senators who I know love their 
country--to stop obstructing things, when we have well-qualified 
nominees, and allow the Senate to confirm them without further delay.
  When we have objections that are purposeful, come to the floor, 
explain why, and explain it honestly and frankly in front of the 
American people. But to hide behind objections reminds me of what we 
used to call people who refused to serve: conscientious objectors. That 
says something in that phrase. I heard it often in America when I was 
in uniform as a soldier. Conscientious objectors, people who objected 
because they have a conscience. If that is the case, and if we relate 
that to the current condition here, then let people who want to object 
come up and explain why exactly it is they don't want to vote. But, 
again, I am pleased our Republican colleagues have seen there was no 
longer any purpose in delay.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from New 
Jersey and speak for just a few minutes about Judge Greenaway. I had 
come to the floor in hope and expectation that we could actually go to 
his nomination this afternoon. I am pleased we will get a vote on 
Monday but, even still, this process has taken much too long.
  This is a nominee for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who has 
about as good as it gets in terms of bipartisan support. At the age of 
40, he became a U.S. district court judge. Then, he passed by unanimous 
consent of this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats alike, unanimous 
consent. Now he passes out of the Judiciary Committee by, again, a 
unanimous agreement. Yet he has been held up for months on the Senate 
floor. Why? Simply because you can?
  That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable, when I have heard my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for years talk about an up-
or-down vote: Give us an up-or-down vote on a nominee, particularly a 
nominee who is eminently qualified, who is noncontroversial by virtue 
of the fact that he has achieved the ability to be agreed to in terms 
of his nominations, both past and present, as it relates to the 
Judiciary Committee without qualification, without objection.
  So it is clear that up to this point the obstruction of this nominee 
is not about what is right for the Nation; it is not about acting in 
the best interests of an overburdened judicial system; it is not about 
ideology; it is not even about Judge Greenaway. It is about the 
politics of obstruction. That is consequential to the judicial system 
and to our citizens who depend on that system for the administration 
and delivery of justice. This is more than a nominee; it is everyone 
who is waiting for their cases on appeal.
  I will point out to my friends on the other side that, hopefully, 
when we go to Monday's vote, we will understand that on countless 
occasions, they argued for an up-or-down vote, demanding that a simple 
majority vote on the President's nominees is all that is necessary, a 
position diametrically opposed to their position today. I recall they 
went so far as to proclaim that filibusters of the President's 
nominations, particularly for the court, were

[[Page S417]]

unconstitutional, and they threatened what we call the nuclear option. 
I ask, again, which is it? Do my friends on the other side believe it 
is right that filibustering the President's nominees is 
unconstitutional or is the question what do they believe will work for 
them at any given moment?
  So we are looking for this up-or-down vote. I don't hear arguments of 
the unconstitutionality of filibusters now, and I submit to my friends 
you can't have it both ways. I urge my colleagues to--I know there will 
be a unanimous consent request offered. I suspect it will be approved. 
If not, I will return to the floor and have more extensive remarks on 
this issue.
  It is time for this nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to 
get a vote, up or down. This is an eminently qualified nominee. My 
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, talked a lot about his 
history. There is even more. This is a superb nominee. If this nominee 
can be held up for months, I can only imagine what we are in for as we 
move forward. At least when it comes to nominees of New Jersey or the 
district in which New Jersey is involved, I intend to come to the floor 
each and every time. But I look forward to some success here, at least 
today, and being able to make our system of justice actually work for 
our citizens and for that we need judges and justices in place.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, are we in a period of morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we are not.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Chambliss pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2977 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, since we are technically under 30 hours of 
debate on the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor of Labor, I 
will rise in opposition to that nomination, as I did yesterday. I will 
elaborate a little on my concerns about the personal privacy violations 
in a program she created in 2009 called the Wage and Hour Watch.
  The Wage and Hour Watch program recruits and trains union organizers 
and public interest groups to go into businesses with compliance 
literature and interview employees to discover violations of wage-and-
hour law. The State of New York gives participants materials to 
disseminate and official cards identifying them and their group as 
being part of the program for when they enter businesses and speak with 
employers and employees.
  As part of this process, union and community organizers were directed 
to gather personal telephone numbers, vehicle license plates, and home 
addresses of business owners, as well as details about the employees 
working there. These are people with 1 day's training and a special 
card from the government. Labor organizers and community activists were 
allowed to use this information for their own organizing activities.
  State identification cards were provided to individuals from various 
unions and community organizing groups to investigate businesses--but 
the State conducted no background checks on those they trained and 
provided identification cards to. Is this the kind of program we could 
expect Ms. Smith to federalize if she is confirmed as Solicitor?
  Another deep concern to me is how Ms. Smith described the decision 
not to conduct any vetting or background checks for Wage and Hour 
participants who could collect this personal information. When Ms. 
Smith was questioned about this by the HELP Committee last year, she 
explained that ``there is no formal vetting process for the New York 
State Department of Labor to partner with any entity. . . . The 
Department did consider the possibility of background checks on the 
groups but ultimately rejected that idea after inquiring as to whether 
Neighborhood Watch groups are subjected to background checks. The 
Department was informed that the groups participating in this more 
sensitive crime prevention partnership were not subject to a check.''
  Ms. Smith explains the lack of a background check because the program 
is modeled after the National Sheriff Association's Neighborhood Watch 
program. However, unlike Wage and Hour Watch, Neighborhood Watch is 
purely an observe-and-report program. Calling the police about 
suspicious activity in a public area is different than investigating 
the wages and hours of individual employees and recording their 
personal contact information and investigating OSHA violations.
  For all of these reasons, I have grave concerns about Ms. Smith's 
decision to allow those who may have criminal records or may not be 
legal residents of the United States to be trained and gather 
information under the auspices of New York State authority.
  These instances reinforce the serious reservations I hold regarding 
Ms. Smith's judgment, competency, and ability to lead the Solicitor's 
Office. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination for those 
reasons.
  I want to also elaborate on my concerns about her agency's treatment 
of small businesses.
  Ms. Smith's Wage and Hour Watch program specifically targets small- 
and medium-size businesses, including, for example, supermarkets, 
laundromats, nail salons, for State-authorized investigations by unions 
and community groups. Five trade associations representing small- and 
medium-size businesses wrote to Ms. Smith to question her agency's 
decision to target them and launch her program without any input from 
them. To quote them:

       The image painted by the Department of Labor in its January 
     26 release is of a posse of activists, duly deputized by the 
     weighty imprimatur of the Department, demanding access to any 
     employer in the state whom they have chosen either at random, 
     or by prejudice.

  Notably, the program had been launched and in existence for 2 months 
before she met with the trade associations. The New York Post 
characterized the program as ``vigilante labor justice'' targeting 
small business.
  In documents produced to the committee, we also find that there is a 
culture in the New York State Department of Labor where bureaucrats 
often feel little responsibility for treating business fairly. For 
example, when a reporter misquoted Ms. Smith's Deputy and protege, 
Terri Gerstein, she responded in an e-mail:

       I never have said that any part of our job is to protect 
     employers against employees who abuse their rights. I have 
     been in this field for 15 years, and I have never said 
     anything like that. Employers have attorneys who can play 
     that role. All the workers have is us.

  Small business doesn't just run out and hire attorneys, and they are 
not used to having people come in at random and flash cards and take a 
look at their business.
  In announcing the Wage and Hour Watch program, Ms. Smith stated her 
opinion of the business community as follows:

       And as the economy continues to reel, businesses find any 
     way they can to cut corners. Unfortunately, this is often at 
     the expense of the workers who keep them going. . . . The 
     future is now, it's here, and today the Labor Department 
     expands its field of battle.

  I have found that whether it is employees or employers, there is 
probably about 1 to 1.5 percent that will do the wrong thing no matter 
what the law is. We have to set up mechanisms to make sure that doesn't 
happen and that people are properly treated. But to assume they are all 
going to cut corners and harm employees is the wrong approach. 
Moreover, according to internal e-mail, the program was designed for 
``community enforcement'' and created by organized labor, allied public 
interest groups, and her Deputy without any consideration of small 
business.
  There are also questions whether the State honors its commitments to 
business. Ms. Smith met with the trade associations concerned about 
Wage and Hour Watch in March 2009--2 months after it started--and 
personally committed to banning the pilot participants from promoting 
their individual organizations simultaneously with Wage and Hour Watch 
activities. The official documents received from New York, however, do 
not show this agreement was implemented and, in fact, appear to show 
the Department allowing the groups to continue these activities.
  These instances reinforce the serious reservations I hold regarding 
Ms.

[[Page S418]]

Smith's judgment, competency, and ability to lead the Solicitor's 
Office--more reasons I oppose her nomination.
  Leaving aside the clear inaccuracies of her testimony to the Senate, 
you will recall that I spoke extensively on that yesterday, where she 
gave us testimony and then we gave her a chance in written questions to 
correct her testimony. She did not. So there are also concerns with 
Commissioner Smith's ability to be a fair arbitrator and enforcer of 
our Nation's labor laws. In every instance I am aware of, Ms. Smith has 
shown herself to be a trusted ally of organized labor and even allows 
them to participate heavily in the formulation of her agency's 
initiatives.
  Indeed, the State of New York's official records show that two of the 
pilot groups for Wage and Hour Watch, a senior union organizer and a 
public interest entity financed in part by unions, were heavily 
involved in developing all aspects of the Wage and Hour Watch program, 
including participant eligibility, program documents, training, and 
press strategies.
  One of the union's written work plans stated they were going to use 
Wage and Hour Watch in ``all of our organizing campaigns,'' including 
those outside their designated area.
  Also, a food and commercial worker union's newsletter states plans to 
specifically investigate ``nonunion'' groceries as part of the Wage and 
Hour Watch.
  The cochairman of the State's Wage and Hour Watch program is the 
president of a union.
  Several program expansion applicants have as their sole purpose union 
organizing.
  State officials also planned to ensure upstate trade unions would be 
eligible.
  Documents also show the New York Labor Department allows unions to 
participate in the wage-and-hour law investigations, including 
interviews of workers with potential claims.
  Ms. Smith's interaction with some of the organized labor allied 
groups goes back to when she headed the labor bureau for then-New York 
State Attorney General Elliott Spitzer. Records show these same groups 
teaming up to coerce neutrality agreements and organize business.
  With the Wage and Hour Watch program, union organizers now had 
official State identification cards they could use to enter any 
business in New York--possibly allowing them to avoid nonsolicitation 
laws or policies--to gather information on employers and employees. The 
unions were allowed to contact employees or employers at their homes or 
at the business as part of ``community organizing.''
  Ms. Smith twice also attempted to alter a longstanding legal position 
to restrict charter schools for the benefit of organized labor--once 
while in the Attorney General's Office in 2007 and again when she 
became Commissioner of Labor. In both instances she was reversed by a 
court.
  Commissioner Smith also maintains a senior executive for outreach 
solely to organized labor--currently staffed by someone who worked for 
23 years for the AFL-CIO in organizing and with the SEIU. Notably, 
there is no such equivalent role for outreach to small business or 
nonunion employees.
  While I appreciate that organized labor is an important stakeholder 
in New York, this record of favoritism, including allowing union 
organizers to participate in State labor law enforcement, strikes me as 
clearly inappropriate. Indeed, I cannot imagine how my colleagues would 
react if a Republican nominee in a future administration deputized 
trade associations to investigate or enforce laws with regard to 
unions.
  As you can tell, I have grave concerns about this nominee because of 
these actions. But having also learned that she misled the Senate, and 
then didn't correct her answers when she got the chance, I cannot 
support her. I urge my colleagues to oppose Ms. Smith.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Build America Bonds

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, after holding 20 townhall meetings in my 
home State of Oregon over the past month, I can certainly report that 
people are hungry for good economic news, particularly news about job 
creation growing our economy. Our people want fresh ideas that work, 
and clearly they are saying, and saying passionately, that it is time 
to set aside government that doesn't work for them.
  That is why I am proud to come to the floor this afternoon and talk 
about a positive economic development--a development that has far 
exceeded the projections and the hopes of those who advocated for it--
and that is the Build America Bonds program. Build America Bonds works, 
and it works because it puts our people to work at good-paying, family-
wage jobs.
  Mr. President, when I started working on Build America Bonds about 6 
years ago with a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
it was because I believed there was bipartisan support for shoring up 
our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and, at the same time, getting 
our economy back to work. It is a fact that investing in 
infrastructure, dollar for dollar, is one of the best economic 
multipliers we have in our country, and it is a way to jump-start 
economic growth.
  As communities deal with the recession, I and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want to give our communities new tools to 
finance essential construction projects. What Build America Bonds has 
always been about is not taking any of the tools out of the toolbox we 
have today, but putting in some additional ones for our communities. 
Build America Bonds is certainly not a replacement for direct Federal 
spending on infrastructure, but I think all people who have looked at 
this subject understand the need is so great for roads and bridges and 
water systems and schools that we ought to be looking for all cost-
effective, efficient ways to fund this essential infrastructure that 
does have bipartisan support in the Senate.
  To report, we thought that maybe getting the Build America Bonds 
Program off the ground would result in somewhere in the vicinity of $5 
to $10 billion worth of additional investment in infrastructure. The 
program was authorized as part of the stimulus legislation. It did not 
get off the ground until the middle of the next year, and my colleagues 
and I thought perhaps the $5 to $10 billion of Build America Bonds that 
were authorized would allow us to make the case that when the program 
expires at the end of this year we could call for its renewal.
  When the year wrapped up, the figures showed that almost $64 billion 
worth of Build America Bonds had been issued. In fact, a number of 
independent experts say that Build America Bonds are now the hottest, 
most attractive vehicle in the municipal bond market.
  In my home State of Oregon, it has been proven time and time again 
that private money follows public investment. People get back to work 
building a bridge, for example, and all the businesses near the 
construction site get more activity from the people who need their 
services. Once the project is finished, private investment follows the 
public investment. That bridge makes it easier for folks to get to work 
or take their kids to school, and communities grow.
  As I mentioned, this bill has a long bipartisan lineage. Then-Senator 
Talent joined with me about 6 years ago for this program. The program 
would have created a Federal tax credit bonding program to fund 
investment in transportation infrastructure. Since then, our colleague 
Senator Thune and four others on both sides of the aisle have joined us 
to make sure the Senate was on record as saying we can find sensible, 
commonsense, nonpartisan solutions that address the basic needs this 
country has to a great extent overlooked.
  I have mentioned to date more than $60 billion worth of these 
innovative bonds have funded hundreds of projects in 39 States--fixing 
our roads and bridges, rebuilding our schools, upgrading our utilities. 
These are projects that have been funded, I advise my

[[Page S419]]

good friend from Delaware, because we had a lot of discussion about 
exactly what works in infrastructure and what does not.
  On top of this $60 billion of Build America Bonds infrastructure 
investment, we have seen $80 billion of direct Federal infrastructure 
spending that was included in the Recovery Act. So you have a one-two 
punch now for the first time to mobilize all possible resources to fund 
infrastructure. You have a significant investment in what is called 
direct spending. I particularly appreciate what a number of my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have done in this area, 
particularly Senator Murray, who has championed our cause in the 
Pacific Northwest with respect to infrastructure. Senator Harkin, the 
chairman of the Pensions and Labor Committee, also has done a great job 
in school construction.
  I want it understood that those of us who support Build America Bonds 
see the bonds as a complement to the outstanding work a number of my 
colleagues whom I have mentioned are doing. This is not to supplant 
that kind of direct spending effort but to shore it up, to offer 
additional assistance, particularly additional assistance when the need 
is so great.
  As our proposal was developed, we had an opportunity to work with 
Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chair and ranking minority 
member on the Finance Committee, because we wanted to make sure this 
effort continued to be bipartisan at every step of the way. I am very 
grateful that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley in effect gave us a 
chance to jump-start this idea, to get it off the ground.
  The reality is, I suggest to my colleague from Delaware, the Federal 
Government has never bonded in the transportation area. A lot of States 
and communities wonder if they would even exist without bonds, but the 
Federal Government had never bonded in the transportation area. We, our 
bipartisan coalition, believed a tax credit bond could be especially 
effective. But because Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were 
willing to bet on our bipartisan coalition, our coalition that said 
Build America Bonds are going to be an efficient tool, we saw all the 
predictions for the success of this program exceeded. The reality of 
Build America Bonds blew past the predictions like a bullet train. 
Build America Bonds sold like hotcakes, getting desperately needed 
funding going into local communities, creating jobs, and helping to 
strengthen our infrastructure.
  As I have suggested, anyone concerned that in some way this bond 
program would displace current assistance on infrastructure ought to 
look at the numbers I have cited. Under the Recovery Act, there was $80 
billion for direct Federal infrastructure spending. It has been spent 
on infrastructure or will be spent within the next year. And Build 
America Bonds were sold on top of that assistance.
  Here are some examples of Build America Bonds quickly putting folks 
to work. In Oregon's Dayton school district, they used Build America 
Bonds to employ up to 150 people building and remodeling classrooms. By 
using Build America Bonds, the school district saved an estimated $1.2 
million in interest costs. It is a small school district. Those kinds 
of savings make a difference.
  Communities in Wisconsin have also used Build America Bonds. One 
small community used them to lower their financing costs by 2.3 
percent, allowing them to turn plans to upgrade roads, sewers, and 
buildings into reality. One of their leaders told Business Week 
magazine that without Build America Bonds, ``some projects might not be 
done'' and ``there would be less employment.''
  Recently a CBO/Joint Tax Committee report highlighted a number of 
other benefits from Build America Bonds. CBO and the Joint Tax 
Committee found that tax credit bonds, like our Build America Bonds, 
are more cost effective than tax-exempt bonds. The report also 
concludes that because the bonds are more attractive to investors, they 
are more efficient at raising capital. This saves municipalities time 
and money and effort that can be spent on other priorities. Aside from 
the fact that the funds are raised efficiently, what I have heard again 
and again--and I think this is what colleagues are going to be looking 
at when it comes to infrastructure investment--Build America Bonds get 
the job done quickly. Because they have to adhere to Federal spending 
guidelines, all of the bond funds have to be spent within 2 years of 
the date the bond is issued. This means that money is not just flowing 
into projects, it is being spent in the short term, paying to build 
roads and bridges and other infrastructure and putting folks back to 
work quickly. That is the kind of bang for our buck that Americans are 
hungry for right now. That is what Build America Bonds deliver.
  Back in the days before Build America Bonds were issued, the market 
for normal municipal bonds was almost frozen. It was very hard to sell 
municipal bonds. It certainly didn't mean the need for financing 
infrastructure was not there, it was just very hard to get them through 
the traditional bond market. Build America Bonds have changed that. The 
private sector, folks who represent the country's largest businesses--
the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers--have 
been strong supporters of it. Many of the labor groups, the trades in 
particular, have been supportive of it because clearly business and 
working families need a working infrastructure to give businesses the 
security they need to think long term about their future.
  But it is not just businesses that buy Build America Bonds. 
Nonprofits, like pension funds, have also found Build America Bonds an 
attractive investment. Although nonprofits cannot benefit from the tax 
credits, bond issuers can pass on the value of the tax credits in the 
form of a higher interest rate for Build America Bonds than other types 
of bonds. By contrast, traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds are not a 
good investment for pension funds and other institutional investors 
that do not pay taxes. So Build America Bonds are especially attractive 
as a way for nonprofits to invest in American infrastructure that 
traditional tax-exempt bonds do not provide.
  I am not surprised, and I think the judgment I have made would be 
shared by colleagues on the other side of the aisle because a lot of 
them have been involved over these last 6 years--we are not surprised 
that Build America Bonds are reinventing the municipal bond market. 
They have been a good deal for our communities and for all types of 
investors. They have freed up financing for badly needed infrastructure 
construction and ensured long-term economic growth. In some cases these 
bonds, according to people in communities across this country, make the 
difference between whether infrastructure projects are actually going 
to get done. In other cases they lower the cost of the projects and 
allow communities to reinvestment those savings in other projects.

  By any scenario you look at with respect to this program, this is one 
that helps local governments, local businesses, and the people who rely 
on infrastructure for jobs and economic security. My view is that is 
exactly the kind of solution folks are asking for from the Congress at 
this time. It is fine to speculate about programs you wish to have 
considered and you will look at down the road to see if they actually 
produce. The Obama administration now wants to make Build America Bonds 
permanent because they have seen the extraordinary response our country 
is demonstrating. Build America Bonds have produced, and they have 
produced exactly what was intended: a prompt infrastructure investment 
in an efficient fashion.
  I express my appreciation to Chairman Baucus. Under his leadership 
the Finance Committee, on which I am honored to serve, is currently 
looking at expanding and improving Build America Bonds in the upcoming 
jobs bill. I told Secretary Geithner this morning that I had 
appreciated his leadership and the administration's leadership on this 
issue.
  We have some questions about how to proceed--for example, whether, as 
I would like, Build America Bonds should be devoted to new job creation 
as opposed to assistance for operating expenses and other areas. But 
the bottom line is those are the kinds of issues that Democrats and 
Republicans here in the Senate can take on in a bipartisan way. What we 
know is we have something that is working, that is making a difference 
in this critical infrastructure area, and that literally

[[Page S420]]

has 6 years worth of bipartisan history where Democrats and Republicans 
have come together on an issue that is extraordinarily important to our 
Nation.
  If we keep working together on good ideas such as Build America 
Bonds, by the time the current economic storm passes our country's 
infrastructure will be finally ready to support a strong, healthy 
economy that lies ahead for our Nation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Nominations

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the chairman of 
the Select Committee on Intelligence to speak on two nominations that 
have been before our committee. Both of these nominees have been 
unanimously passed out by our committee.
  The first is the top person for intelligence and analysis at the 
Department of Homeland Security. Her name is Ms. Caryn Wagner. Second, 
Ambassador Phil Goldberg, who is nominated to be Assistant Secretary 
for Intelligence and Research at the Department of State.
  These nominations are critically important to the safety and security 
of this Nation. These are the top intelligence officials in two 
different departments. There has been an objection to a unanimous 
request from the other side on the question to confirm these nominees. 
The majority leader of the Senate has come to the floor twice to 
implore, to request, to ask that these two nominees be approved because 
these are top intelligence people for the respective departments.
  We just had a national threat hearing, a world threat hearing in the 
Intelligence Committee, open to the public and press, this afternoon. I 
asked the question: What is the possibility of an attack against the 
homeland in the next 3 to 6 months? Is it high? Is it low? Director 
Blair; Director Panetta; Director Mueller of the FBI; the head of the 
Defense Intelligence Agency, General Burgess; the acting head of the 
INR, the intelligence agency of the State Department, Ambassador 
Dinger--every one of them said that there will be an attempt at an 
attack. The threat is high. Yet we cannot get confirmed two top people 
whose job it is to see that the analysis of this intelligence is 
correct.
  Let me speak for a moment about Caryn Wagner. She has had a 
distinguished career in public and private service that has prepared 
her to be the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and 
Analysis.
  We just had an attempted Christmas attack on the homeland. Ms. Wagner 
is the top person of that Department to deal with the intelligence 
related to exactly this--protection of the homeland.
  You might think, well, is there a problem with the nominee? And the 
answer to that is no. She is currently an instructor in intelligence 
resource management for the Intelligence and Security Academy. She was 
hired from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior 
to that, she served as the Assistant Deputy Director of National 
Intelligence for Management and as the first Chief Financial Officer 
for the National Intelligence Program. She assumed this position after 
serving as Executive Director for Intelligence Community Affairs.
  She also previously served as the senior Defense Intelligence Agency 
representative to the U.S. European Command and the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization, as well as Deputy Director for Analysis and 
Production at the Defense Intelligence Agency. She was also formerly 
staff director of the Subcommittee on Tactical and Technical 
Intelligence on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
and a signals intelligence and electronic warfare officer in the U.S. 
Army.
  She has been an intelligence official all of her professional life. 
She is serious. She is capable. She is a good candidate for the 
position of Under Secretary of Homeland Security.
  We held a confirmation hearing on Ms. Wagner's nomination on December 
1. Given the overlapping interest of the Homeland Security Committee, 
the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee held a hearing 
on her confirmation on December 3. There were no issues with her 
nomination in that committee.
  The position to which she is nominated is the top intelligence 
position in the Department of Homeland Security. The main 
responsibilities of this office are to ensure that information related 
to homeland security threats are collected, analyzed, and disseminated 
to homeland security customers in the department at the State, local, 
and tribal levels.
  So this is an important job. There is no one in it. We have just had 
an attack, and the chances of another attempted attack in the next 6 
months are high. Yet somebody on the other side--I suspect for 
political reasons--is holding her up. It makes no sense, if you want to 
protect this Nation, to hold up this position. I hope whoever it is 
will come to the floor and explain why they are holding up this 
nominee, a woman who has had a lifetime dedicated to intelligence, who 
would be the top intelligence person in the Department of Homeland 
Security. One person holding her up, vetted by two committees, 
Intelligence and Homeland Security, without a negative vote at 
Intelligence. Why would someone hold her up? For their own agenda? Is 
it appropriate to hold her up for someone's own personal agenda, when 
you have the top person in that department responsible for 
intelligence, at a time when we have just had an attempted attack? I 
think not.
  The Under Secretary of the office leads efforts to collect and 
analyze intelligence, to see that it is shared appropriately and 
provided to other intelligence community agencies. The Under Secretary 
provides homeland security intelligence and advice to the Secretary, as 
well as to other senior officials in the Department, and serves as the 
Department's senior interagency intelligence representative. They have 
no one right now. It makes no sense to me.
  In short, this individual, the Under Secretary for Intelligence of 
the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for ensuring that 
intelligence relating to a threat to the United States is acted upon. 
That spot is vacant. From an intelligence point of view, this is quite 
terrible. It is deleterious. It is not right for this body to hold up 
this nominee.
  Unfortunately, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis has 
experienced numerous problems in its short tenure. Let me note some: 
The office's ill-defined planning, programming, and budgeting 
processes; a gross overreliance on contractors, to the point that 63 
percent of the workforce was contracted out as of this summer; and a 
lack of a strategic plan. These are three major problems for which the 
Under Secretary needs to get on board. The Under Secretary needs to 
solve these problems.
  On a number of occasions, the office has produced and disseminated 
finished intelligence that has been based on noncredible, open-source 
materials or focused intelligence resources on the first amendment-
protected activities of American citizens.
  So what is my bottom line? The office is in need of strong leadership 
from an Under Secretary with an extensive background in management of 
intelligence. The Intelligence Committee is confident Ms. Wagner is 
such a person. She is up to the challenge. She testified that, if 
confirmed, among her first tasks will be to review a draft plan to 
restructure and refine the office's mission, which will be a good first 
indication of how Ms. Wagner will manage the organization. We should 
get cracking. We should get it done. We should get this spot filled.
  I, respectfully, ask that if there is something we do not know, that 
the Homeland Security Committee does not know, that the Intelligence 
Committee does not know, that the person holding her up come to the 
floor and tell us what it is. It is a significant deficit not to have 
this position filled.
  Let me turn to the nomination of Ambassador Philip Goldberg to be 
Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research at the State 
Department. Again, the Intelligence Committee had a hearing. We 
unanimously approved

[[Page S421]]

Ambassador Goldberg's nomination on December 10, the same day we 
reported out Ms. Wagner's nomination.
  Ambassador Goldberg has a distinguished 20-year career in the Foreign 
Service, where he has served as the charge d'affairs and deputy chief 
of mission in Santiago, Chile; the chief of mission in Pristina, 
Kosovo; and in the U.S. Embassies in Bogota, Colombia, and Pretoria, 
South Africa. Ambassador Goldberg is a graduate of Boston University 
and, before joining the Foreign Service, he worked for the city of New 
York.
  From 2006 to 2008, he served as Ambassador to Bolivia, during a 
period of heightened tensions between our two countries.
  In mid-September 2008, President Evo Morales accused Ambassador 
Goldberg of supporting opposition forces, declaring him persona non 
grata, and expelled him from the country.
  The Intelligence Committee carefully reviewed Ambassador Goldberg's 
conduct in Bolivia. We have found he acted appropriately during his 
tenure and carried out the policies of the U.S. Government. In fact, an 
inspector general report on the Embassy, published in September of 
2008, gave Ambassador Goldberg and his deputy high marks, stating:

       The Ambassador and the deputy chief of mission (DCM) 
     provide clear policy guidance and leadership . . . [They 
     gather] input and the advice from their staff, forging an 
     excellent working relationship among all agencies and 
     sections at post.

  After Ambassador Goldberg's expulsion from Bolivia, the State 
Department strongly defended the Ambassador, both in the public press 
as well as in internal memoranda. In short, the Intelligence Committee 
believes Ambassador Goldberg acted professionally and bears no blame 
for the Bolivian decision to expel him.
  Since June of 2009, Ambassador Goldberg has served as the coordinator 
for the implementation of United Nations resolution 1874, which imposed 
economic and commercial sanctions on North Korea. In this position, he 
has relied on sensitive intelligence reporting to build a diplomatic 
consensus to search North Korean cargo.
  Ambassador Goldberg appeared before the Intelligence Committee for a 
confirmation hearing on December 1, 2009. Given its jurisdiction over 
the State Department, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also held 
a hearing on Ambassador Goldberg's nomination on November 19, 2009. No 
problems with the nomination were identified.
  The unanimous view is, Ambassador Goldberg is an experienced 
professional who is very capable and ready to assume his new duties.
  The position of Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research is 
a unique one in the intelligence community. The bureau, which we refer 
to simply as INR, produces all source intelligence analysis to advise 
the Secretary of State and other senior policy officials and presents 
an important viewpoint in the internal deliberations of the 
intelligence analytic community. INR analysts are highly expert in 
their fields and often improve the quality of coordinated intelligence 
assessments by challenging the views of other agencies and, if 
necessary, dissenting from consensus judgments, if they believe them to 
be incorrect or unsubstantiated.
  I first came to appreciate INR's independent-minded approach in 2002, 
when its analysts dissented from the official judgment of the 
intelligence community regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. 
INR analysts expressed less certainty regarding the claim that Iraq was 
reconstituting nuclear weapons, believing that Saddam Hussein's pursuit 
of aluminum tubing was not for nuclear purposes.
  History, of course, proved the INR analysts to be correct, as Iraq 
was not reconstituting a nuclear weapons program.
  Bottom line: Ambassador Goldberg is well qualified, and the position 
for which he has been nominated to fill is an important one within the 
intelligence community. There has been no reason put forward why he 
should not be confirmed. Two committees have held hearings. The 
Intelligence Committee recommended his confirmation unanimously. We did 
for both these nominees. Yet there is a hold on the other side of the 
aisle.

  As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I believe it places our 
Nation at a security disadvantage. I urge that change. I urge that 
whoever has the hold, if they have something that is consequential 
against either one of these nominees, do the honorable thing. Come to 
the floor of the Senate, express your objections. Have the debate and 
dialog on the ability, the experience, the doings of these two people. 
They are superbly qualified. Neither one of these was plucked out of 
some political community and thrust into these positions. They have 
both been dedicated professionals. That is one of the reasons why this 
hold is so difficult to understand.
  I wish the Senate to know that the Intelligence Committee, which I am 
proud to chair, takes its responsibility to review the President's 
nominees to positions requiring Senate confirmation very seriously. Our 
process is thorough and bipartisan. The staff does an investigation. 
The documents are reviewed. The hearing is held. Written questions are 
sent. Written questions are answered. The questions and their answers 
are read. The committee discusses it and votes. In this case, three 
committees have reviewed these two nominees. The Intelligence Committee 
has found them qualified for their positions. Yet they are held up.
  Consider that on Christmas Day we had someone who tried to explode a 
device, a device which will be perfected, which will be used again, 
which is basically impossible to find by a magnetometer in an airport, 
which will be used again, and that intelligence professionals assess 
with confidence that we face another attack. We ought to get these 
positions filled.
  Unless there is some reason why these two nominees are faulty, if 
they are not qualified, if they have done something wrong, then I say 
come to the floor and oppose them openly. But ``time's awastin'.'' 
These positions have to be staffed. This country has to be protected. 
Our intelligence professionals need to be in place. In two departments, 
we have two high-level positions relating to intelligence that are not 
filled and should be filled and these nominees are waiting.
  So I hope someone is listening. I hope, somehow, someway, this will 
make a difference. And I very much hope we will be able to confirm both 
of these nominees--reviewed by the Foreign Relations Committee, one; by 
the Homeland Security Committee, the other; and reviewed and approved 
by the Intelligence Committee, both.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, Mr. President, here we are. It is about 5 minutes 
to 6 p.m. We have been here all day today postcloture on Patricia 
Smith. Again, to recap why we are here--I am not certain why we are 
here but to recap the fact that we are here--Patricia Smith was 
reported out of our committee last year, was held up to be the 
Solicitor for the Department of Labor, and finally we had to file 
cloture because she was being filibustered. That cloture motion ripened 
last night and we had a cloture vote last night. Sixty people voted to 
end debate and bring her up for a vote. Well, under the rules of the 
Senate, there is then 30 hours of debate. So we have been here. It has 
been nearly 30 hours.
  We have been here all day today, and, as I understand, only one 
person showed up today to talk against her nomination. That was my 
colleague and good friend, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, the ranking 
member of our committee. I looked at the transcript of what he said, 
and basically it was just about what was said yesterday. Nothing new 
came out today. I know Mr. Enzi opposes her nomination. That is no 
secret. It is his right to do that. But here we are using 30 hours and 
only one person today has come over to speak against her.
  So, again, I just say this to inform the public that here we are, the 
lights are on, the electricity is running, the bills are going up, and 
we are here for

[[Page S422]]

no good reason whatsoever. We could have voted on the nominee last 
night. We could have voted this morning and moved on to other business. 
There is other business before the Senate that needs to be attended to. 
But the Republicans have decided under their leadership to slow 
everything down.
  I have heard it said by the leadership on the Republican side that 
the public wants them to stop bad legislation. That is why they use the 
filibuster. Well, this is not legislation. This is a person to be the 
Solicitor for the Department of Labor, and obviously she has more than 
enough votes to get confirmed. She is eminently well qualified. She has 
a broad swath of support. Again, they can filibuster, but we had the 
vote on that last night to end the filibuster. But, again, it is their 
right under the rules--I am not denying that--it is their right to drag 
it out for 30 more hours. But to what end? To what purpose? Has more 
information come out about Ms. Smith that might change somebody's mind 
on how they are going to vote, whether she should take this position? 
No, nothing more has come out, no new information. So here we are 
wasting time, slowing everything down. The public has to know this. 
People out there are frustrated because we are not getting anything 
done. This is a perfect example of how the Senate has become 
dysfunctional--dysfunctional. Here we are for 30 hours doing absolutely 
nothing, to no end whatsoever.
  Usually, as to the 30 hours after a cloture vote has been had, people 
will say: Well, there is new information. We have to bring out 
something new. We can maybe change some votes.
  Nothing new has come out and nothing new will come out. She has been 
thoroughly vetted since last April, almost a year. She has responded to 
every written question. She has responded to any personal request to 
meet with her. So everything is out there in the open. Yet the 
Republicans insist on dragging it out for 30 hours. Again, the public 
has a right to ask why. Again, to what end? To what end are we dragging 
out the 30 hours? Well, I guess the end is to try to keep us from doing 
anything else.
  As President Obama said in his State of the Union Address, just 
saying no is not leadership. Just saying no is not leadership. That is 
all we are hearing from the Republican side--no to everything. Well, it 
is all right if they want to say no, but at least let's vote. Let's 
vote.
  It is very frustrating--very frustrating. I know they can use the 
rules, but you can also abuse the rules. The filibuster is being 
abused. It used to be used only for weighty measures in which there was 
a true disagreement and for which, perhaps, some could be swayed one 
way or the other through the debate and arguments that came forward on 
the floor--not for nominations. So everything is slowed down.
  I also wish to say a few more words on behalf of Patricia Smith. 
Again, we have not heard anything new during these 30 hours. There was 
one thing my colleague and friend Senator Enzi said today that I do 
want to respond to. Again, it was nothing new, but it was just said 
again today about this Wage Watch that was instituted in New York as a 
pilot program, about how they were going to investigate and go into 
businesses and all that kind of stuff. Again, I do not want to repeat 
what somebody lower down has said. I want to know what Ms. Smith 
herself said about it.
  Here, as shown on this chart, is an e-mail from Commissioner Smith--
right now from her--dated January 15, 2009, when they were starting up 
this program. Here is her e-mail--not some underling's, not some staff 
person's, but Ms. Smith's, who is the subject of the nomination--

       Wage Watch groups will be conducting activities which 
     promote labor law compliance . . . including handing out 
     leaflets about labor laws to workers at community events or 
     supermarkets; giving know-your-rights training to workers; 
     talking to workers at restaurants and other businesses open 
     to the public; and talking with employers about labor law 
     compliance.
       Please note that the groups and individuals who participate 
     as Wage Watchers will not be agency employees or official 
     representatives of the Labor Department. They are not 
     replacing staff and they are not going to be conducting 
     investigations of any kind. Their role is limited to doing 
     outreach and community education, and to reporting any 
     violations they encounter to the division.

  So that is what the Wage Watch was set up to be. But, again, we keep 
hearing all of these accusations about vigilantes and all that kind of 
stuff. They are not empowered to enter any place of business unless the 
employer lets them or unless it is a place of business where the 
general public can go such as a restaurant, a Wal-Mart, whatever--
stores. Wherever the public can go, they can go, but they cannot enter 
a business that is not generally accessible to the public. I wanted to 
set the record straight one more time.
  Again, if Ms. Smith were so bad, I would daresay you couldn't find a 
business group that would support her. I have here a whole bunch of 
letters from business groups in the State of New York where she is 
presently the labor commissioner extolling her virtues and her ability 
to work with the business community. Here is the Business Council of 
New York State. I won't read it all, but it says:

       As the president and CEO of a statewide business trade 
     organization, I believe Ms. Smith is superbly qualified to 
     assume the responsibilities of Solicitor General and urge the 
     Committee's favorable disposition of her nomination.

  He goes on to say:

       Ms. Smith's long tenure as an Assistant Attorney General of 
     New York leading its Labor Bureau showed her to be thorough, 
     fair, and judicious in the use of the tools at her disposal 
     to ensure compliance with New York's labor law.

  Then he goes on further:

       What is important to note is that under Ms. Smith's 
     leadership, she made an extra effort to communicate directly 
     with the business community, to elicit feedback, to provide 
     us with a heads-up, and to balance our comments as she framed 
     policy and practice within her Department. Her outreach to us 
     and communication with us was open, honest, candid, and 
     frequent.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Kenneth Adams, president 
and CEO of the Business Council of New York, be printed in the Record 
at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The Business Council


                                      of New York State, Inc.,

                                      Albany, NY, August 14, 2009.
     Re Nomination of M. Patricia Smith, U.S. Department of Labor 
         Solicitor General.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC 
         20510.
       Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of the 3,000 members of The 
     Business Council of New York State, I write in support of 
     President Obama's nomination of Ms. Patricia Smith for the 
     position of Solicitor General at the United States Department 
     of Labor. As the president and CEO of a statewide business 
     trade organization, I believe Ms. Smith is superbly qualified 
     to assume the responsibilities of Solicitor General and urge 
     the Committee's favorable disposition of her nomination.
       As the Committee has the broadest access to Ms. Smith's 
     resume and credentials, I write to add a perspective which 
     often does not translate well from written documents or 
     background checks. Ms. Smith's long tenure as an Assistant 
     Attorney General of New York leading its Labor Bureau showed 
     her to be thorough, fair and judicious in the use of the 
     tools at her disposal to ensure compliance with New York's 
     Labor Law. She carefully balanced the disparate issues before 
     her and sought resolution as opposed to prosecution, when 
     that result would serve the best interests of New York's 
     citizens. And where blatant fraud, abuse and disregard for 
     New York's Labor Law was evident, she did not rush for 
     headlines and photo opportunities, but rather worked closely 
     with appropriate officials to build a legal case which would 
     withstand scrutiny and higher level appeals.
       In her tenure as New York's Commissioner of Labor, Ms. 
     Smith continued her vigilance and diligence on behalf of New 
     York's citizens, again balancing the many different roles the 
     Department of Labor serves in New York State. To those not 
     familiar with the responsibilities of that Department, they 
     may not understand the challenge it can be to manage an 
     agency which issues unemployment benefits; must be vigilant 
     about fraud in that $2.5 billion unemployment system; engages 
     with businesses and individuals to help put people back to 
     work; manages a workforce development system designed to 
     improve skills of our workforce; and, enforces rigorous 
     minimum wage, safety and health, and various labor standards' 
     statutes. At times, a Commissioner is asked to decide between 
     what may seem to be conflicting goals and objectives; Ms. 
     Smith always demonstrated to the business community a 
     willingness to listen, to reflect and to respond.
       To be sure, our organization did not always agree with the 
     policy direction taken under Ms. Smith's tenure. But there 
     are well-established processes through which we can pursue 
     changes to policies with which we disagree. What is important 
     to note is that

[[Page S423]]

     under Ms. Smith's leadership, she made an extra effort to 
     communicate directly with the business community, to elicit 
     feedback, to provide us with a heads-up, and to balance our 
     comments as she framed policy and practice within her 
     Department. Her outreach to us and communication with us was 
     open, honest, candid and frequent. While some may view her 
     tenure as one of strict enforcement, with little regard to 
     practical day-to-day business realities, our membership would 
     disagree, as we believe she offered an opportunity to the 
     business community to be a part of the solution, rather than 
     just reacting to the problems.
       New York's Labor Laws date back a century and reflect the 
     seriousness with which policymakers then and now feel the law 
     should protect workers and be responsive to their needs. That 
     is the statutory and regulatory environment within which New 
     York employers must operate. Where employers engage in fraud 
     and abuse of employees, enforcement of the law is a duty, not 
     an option. Ms. Smith has shown a clear ability to balance her 
     duty as a public official to enforce the law and her 
     obligation as a public official to ensure that the law 
     provides for reasonable application and reasonable solutions.
       It is those critical skills--listening, interpreting, and 
     balancing--that make Ms. Smith an ideal candidate to serve as 
     the United States Department of Labor's Solicitor General and 
     I would ask that the Committee move on her nomination upon 
     its return in September.
       Should any Committee members benefit from further 
     discussion on her nomination to which I can contribute, 
     please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Kenneth Adams,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here is a letter from the Partnership for 
New York City. Again, I won't read it all, but it says:

       As an advocate for businesses and economic development in 
     New York for more than twenty-five years, I have had the 
     opportunity to interact with many public officials. Ms. Smith 
     stands out as one of the most dedicated and effective of our 
     state commissioners and I consider her to be an excellent 
     choice for the post that the President has selected her for.

  That is from the president and CEO of the Partnership for New York 
City.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                September 1, 2009.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: I am writing in support of President 
     Obama's nomination of M. Patricia Smith for Solicitor General 
     of the United States Department of Labor.
       The Partnership for New York City is an organization whose 
     members include many of the nation's most prominent business 
     leaders. Our mission is to work with government, organized 
     labor and the not-for-profit sector to build a stronger city 
     and state, with a focus on education, infrastructure and the 
     economy.
       During the past year, we have been particularly concerned 
     about the threat that the global financial crisis and 
     recession have had on the financial services industry, which 
     is a key source of jobs and tax revenues for New York. 
     Thousands of city businesses and workers, either directly or 
     indirectly, have been casualties of this crisis. As New York 
     State Labor Commissioner, Patricia Smith has been a strong 
     voice and essential partner in addressing the issues arising 
     from this crisis and helping to insure that New York remains 
     the financial capital of the country and the world.
       Ms. Smith acted decisively to mobilize New York, 
     Connecticut and New Jersey to collaborate as a region with a 
     shared interest in the recovery of the financial services 
     industry and keeping top talent here. She led efforts to 
     secure a $20 million National Emergency Grant that is 
     currently helping thousands who have been laid off to train 
     for new careers. She established a New York Early Alert/
     Retention Team to respond to small businesses in danger of 
     closure, relocation, or financial crisis that would result in 
     mass layoffs.
       She has aggressively promoted programs that help employers 
     retain productive workers during downturns and fund employer-
     sponsored worker training initiatives. She increased employer 
     participation in the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit 
     (WOTC), which provides incentives to employers to hire people 
     who are hard to employ. The Partnership strongly supports 
     these programs, and every one of them has seen unprecedented 
     success in New York City under Commissioner Smith's 
     leadership.
       As an advocate for businesses and economic development in 
     New York for more than 25 years, I have had the opportunity 
     to interact with many public officials. Ms. Smith stands out 
     as one of the most dedicated and effective of our state 
     commissioners and I consider her to be an excellent choice 
     for the post that the President has selected her for.
       We hope you will support her nomination and would be happy 
     to answer any questions you might have about her work with 
     the New York business community.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kathryn S. Wylde,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. HARKIN. Here is a letter from the Manufacturers Association of 
Central New York:

       The Department of Labor under the leadership of 
     Commissioner Smith has been fully supportive in our mission 
     to enhance and improve our sector's workforce. Commissioner 
     Smith and her team have been informative, helpful, and 
     involved every step of the way, ensuring our membership has 
     the tools, education and skills they need in order to 
     succeed.

  It is signed by Randy Wolken, president of the Manufacturers 
Association of New York.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Manufacturers Association


                                          of Central New York,

                                 Syracuse, NY, September 11, 2009.
     Re Nomination of M. Patricia Smith as Solicitor General, 
         United States Department of Labor.

     Hon. Jeff Merkley,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Merkley: On behalf of MACNY, the Manufacturers 
     Association and its members, I fully give my support to the 
     nomination of Patricia Smith as Solicitor General of the 
     United States Department of Labor.
       MACNY is a trade association representing over 330 member 
     companies with over 55,000 employees within a 19-county 
     region, and we serve and advocate for the growth and 
     development of the manufacturing sector of New York State. 
     Founded in 1913, we pride ourselves on not only being the 
     largest association of manufacturers in New York, but also 
     one of the oldest and most widely recognized associations in 
     the nation.
       For Central and Upstate New York to retain its 
     manufacturing base, manufacturers must be able to compete in 
     the global economy. Manufacturing strength is contingent upon 
     the quality of the region's workforce. Manufacturers often 
     cite the quality of the workforce as a key reason for 
     business expansion and the lack of it as a reason for closing 
     and/or relocating. Expanding the trained and educated 
     manufacturing workforce is therefore crucial to the Upstate 
     New York economy. As such, one of MACNY's core mission areas 
     remains workforce development. Training programs help 
     manufacturers educate workers and remain in Central and 
     Upstate New York.
       The Department of Labor under the leadership of 
     Commissioner Smith has been fully supportive in our mission 
     to enhance and improve our sector's workforce. Commissioner 
     Smith and her team have been informative, helpful, and 
     involved every step of the way, ensuring our membership has 
     the tools, education and skills they need in order to 
     succeed.
       One such example is the partnership between MACNY and DOL 
     on the successful Shared Work Program. Since its inception, 
     MACNY has lent its support and continued to promote this 
     beneficial DOL program. Through this unique and successful 
     partnership, over 34 member companies have utilized and 
     benefited from the Shared Work program, including Revere 
     Copper Products, Endicott Interconnect and Manth Brownell, 
     Inc.
       In another similar partnership, in May of 2009, MACNY 
     hosted a Workforce Development partnership meeting for the 
     planning of reemployment services on behalf of Magna Power 
     train, a longtime MACNY member and major market manufacturing 
     employer located in Dewitt, New York. The meeting, in 
     partnership with the Department of Labor, focused on the 
     company's employees and the anticipated downsizings and 
     possible future plant closure. Since economic and labor pool 
     questions are regular inquiries from our membership, MACNY 
     holds a vested interest in the related progress. As a result 
     of this meeting, and with thanks to the expertise and hard 
     work of the Department of Labor, MACNY remains readily 
     available to promote an applicant pool and highly qualified 
     resumes to their membership.
       Commissioner Smith has also spent her tenure advocating on 
     the federal level for funding in workforce development 
     initiatives and continued Federal workforce training dollars, 
     a cause that has greatly benefited MACNY's membership. 
     Meeting with editorial boards and local officials, New York's 
     Congressional delegation, as well as key Congressional 
     committee members and staff, Commissioner Smith was able to 
     draw attention to and oppose the 50% cut in New York's 
     Workforce Investment Act (WIA) dollars since 2000. In recent 
     years, MACNY has been grateful in securing federal funding 
     for workforce and training initiatives, allowing members to 
     receive discounted advanced skills training as a way to keep 
     their costs down and advance their workforce. Without 
     Commissioner Smith's tireless efforts in this capacity, this 
     critical program would not be possible.
       As earlier stated, for over 95 years MACNY has been 
     tirelessly working to ensure we have the most up-to-date 
     services and information needed to allow our manufacturing

[[Page S424]]

     community to grow and prosper. In examples as cited above, 
     plus many more, our collaborative partnership with the 
     Department of Labor allows us to learn and educate our 
     membership on how the state's workforce development programs 
     can best help them. The continued leadership of Commissioner 
     Pat Smith in such instances has been exemplary, and our 
     collective membership is grateful for both her and the 
     Department of Labor's years of dedication to the state's 
     manufacturing community.
       It is Commissioner Smith's dedication, leadership, and 
     innovative thinking that make her an exceptional candidate 
     for Solicitor for the United States Department of Labor, and 
     on behalf of MACNY, I fully support her nomination for this 
     position.
       If you have any other questions in this capacity, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Randy Wolken,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Here is a letter from the Plattsburgh North Country 
Chamber of Commerce. They said:

       Since she assumed leadership of the New York State Labor 
     Department in 2007, we have enjoyed not only attention and 
     engagement from Patricia Smith but a genuine working 
     partnership.

  It goes on to say:

       I could cite additional examples, but the bottom line is 
     this. Patricia Smith has been an outstanding partner as 
     Commissioner of the New York State Labor Dept., and will be 
     an outstanding solicitor for the U.S. Labor Department. We 
     strongly encourage her earliest possible confirmation by the 
     Senate.

  This letter is signed by Garry F. Douglas, president and CEO of the 
Plattsburgh North Country Chamber of Commerce. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Plattsburgh North Country


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                 Plattsburgh, NY, August 10, 2009.
     Re Nomination of Patricia Smith to be DOL Solicitor.

     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: Our Chamber is the largest business and 
     economic development alliance in northern New York and one of 
     the five largest in our state, representing more than 3,250 
     companies. I have had the pleasure of serving as President 
     and CEO since 1993, having previously served as Executive 
     Assistant to former Congressman Gerald Solomon (R-NY 23) for 
     fourteen years.
       During my sixteen years of engagement in business and 
     workforce development in this region, I have had many 
     occasions to work with our New York State Labor Department in 
     various efforts to assist employers and to design and 
     implement meaningful workforce training programs. I am 
     writing to tell you firsthand that until Patricia Smith was 
     named Commissioner, we enjoyed an excellent working 
     relationship with our local State Labor Dept. officials but 
     enjoyed little leadership, engagement or even interest from 
     the Commissioner's office.
       Since she assumed leadership of the New York State Labor 
     Dept. in 2007, we have enjoyed not only attention and 
     engagement from Patricia Smith but a genuine working 
     partnership.
       This includes the design, funding and implementation of a 
     three-year Aerospace, Transportation Equipment & Green Tech 
     Workforce Strategy for our region, our first multifaceted 
     approach to the creation of a capacity in our region to 
     attract and support employers in these targeted sectors. The 
     creative approach features everything from support for the 
     start-up of Plattsburgh Aeronautical Institute, an FAA-
     certified A&P mechanics' school, to further development of a 
     new Global Supply Chain Management school at our local 
     university, to the launch of new electronics and alternative 
     energy technology programs at our community college, and 
     more.
       And although we are just beginning the second year of 
     implementation under the three-year plan, the results are 
     already tangible. Plattsburgh Aeronautical Institute is set 
     to fully open its doors next month, and is already putting us 
     in play in terms of marketing the former Plattsburgh Air 
     Force Base for future aerospace activities. And Volvo/Nova 
     Bus has just opened a new plant in our community with 300 
     employees for the production of transit buses in the U.S., a 
     venture that would not have been feasible without the 
     programs she helped us get up and running.
       In these and other ways, Patricia Smith has worked with us 
     to give true life to the notion of wedding economic and 
     workforce development. But at the same time, she has also 
     been a partner in serving the current needs of our employers.
       A prime example is a major workplace safety training 
     program administered through our Chamber under contract with 
     the State Labor Dept., bringing meaningful safety training to 
     hundreds of small employers who could never access it 
     otherwise.
       Even in current tough situations, in which some of our 
     manufacturers have needed to reduce production, she and her 
     team have been there with creative solutions. This includes a 
     Shared Work program now being used by a major railcar 
     assembly plant. Rather than fully lay off a percentage of 
     their workers, they are using this program to reduce their 
     hours, with NYSDOL allowing them to access unemployment 
     insurance benefits for the percentage of hours they are not 
     working while being paid by the company for the remainder. 
     The obvious result is a better economic interim for the 
     employees, and the ability for the company to hold onto 
     skilled employees they want to bring back to fulltime when 
     orders pick up.
       I could cite additional examples, but the bottom line is 
     this. Patricia Smith has been an outstanding partner as 
     Commissioner of the New York State Labor Dept., and will be 
     an outstanding Solicitor for the U.S. Labor Department. We 
     strongly encourage her earliest possible confirmation by the 
     Senate.
       Please let me know if there are any questions we might be 
     able to answer, and thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gerry F. Douglas,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. HARKIN. Here is a letter from the Long Island Forum for 
Technology. It says:

       With a strong record of achievement and leadership, 
     Patricia Smith has been an outstanding Commissioner of the 
     NYS Department of Labor. With her vision and her energy, we 
     believe she will make an outstanding addition to the U.S. 
     Department of Labor's leadership team and we urge her 
     earliest confirmation.

  It is signed by the president of the Long Island Forum for 
Technology.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Long Island Forum for Technology,

                                   Bay Shore, NY, August 21, 2009.
     Re Nomination of M. Patricia Smith, U.S. Department of Labor 
         Solicitor.

     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: As the President of the Long Island 
     Forum for Technology I am writing in support of the 
     nomination of Ms, Patricia Smith for the position of 
     Solicitor General at the United States Department of Labor.
       Founded in the 1970's, LIFT is a not-for-profit 
     organization whose focus is on technology-driven economic 
     development throughout the Long Island region. Our success is 
     evidenced by the recognition and responsibilities conferred 
     on us by our partners in the State and Federal Government 
     including:
       LIFT serves as the U.S. Department of Commerce 
     Manufacturing Extension Partner (MEP), one of nearly 350 MEP 
     locations across the country;
       LIFT serves as the NYS Foundation for Science, Technology 
     and Innovation (NYSTAR) designated Regional Technology 
     Development Center (RIDC) for the region;
       LIFT serves as the NYS DOL Sector Intermediary in the 
     Advanced Manufacturing Sector and on the National Governors 
     Association (NGA) Sector Policy Academy.
       It was in the last role that we have come into contact and 
     worked with NYS Department of Labor Commissioner Smith and 
     the programs she sponsored on work force transformation in 
     the Manufacturing and Healthcare sectors.
       Under Commissioner Smith's able and visionary leadership, 
     the New York State Department of Labor conceived, launched 
     and funded a program known as Regional Workforce 
     Transformation (13N). This program broke new ground in the 
     connectivity between industry and education. With its 
     industry-driven initiative structure it created an 
     environment for innovation, and increasing skill growth, 
     focused on creating Long Island's future workforce.
       This program is now entering its 2nd year, with over 600 
     individuals having gained a wide variety of new and upgraded 
     skills training. This has led to the transformation of many 
     individual lives with the results borne out in job placements 
     and position upgrades.
       With a strong record of achievement and leadership, 
     Patricia Smith has been and outstanding Commissioner of the 
     NYS Department of Labor. With her vision and her energy, we 
     believe she will make an outstanding addition to the U.S. 
     Department of Labor's Leadership team and we urge her 
     earliest confirmation by the United States Senate.
           Yours truly,
                                               C. Kenneth Morrell,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, here is one from the U.S. Women's Chamber of 
Commerce:

       After learning of Ms. Smith's qualifications, expertise and 
     the law she has worked to uphold, I can clearly see that she 
     is someone who would work with conviction to enforce the laws 
     of the United States of America. Additionally, I am impressed 
     with her out-of-the-box thinking in creating programs that 
     will keep jobs. We especially need these attributes in this 
     time of economic challenge.
       Please accept Ms. Patricia Smith's nomination, and confirm 
     Ms. Smith as Solicitor General of the United States 
     Department of Labor.


[[Page S425]]


  It is signed by Margot Dorfman, CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of 
Commerce.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, August 25, 2009.
     Re Nomination of M. Patricia Smith, U.S. Department of Labor 
         Solicitor General.

     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the U.S. Women's Chamber 
     of Commerce, our 500,000 members and the millions of women 
     nationwide, I am writing to send our strong support for 
     President Obama's nomination of Ms. Patricia Smith, and I 
     urge the Committee to confirm Ms. Smith as Solicitor General 
     at the United States Department of Labor. Ms. Smith has 
     demonstrated that she is well prepared and qualified for the 
     position, and will act on behalf of those who are facing 
     unfair labor practices.
       The U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce represents both 
     working women and women businesses owners. While one would 
     think that these two constituents would be contradictory in 
     viewpoint, they are not.
       From 1997-2006, the number of women-owned firms grew by 
     42.3% largely due to women leaving Corporate America in 
     droves in search of equal pay, opportunities for promotions 
     and a family friendly work environment. What they found 
     instead was more barriers to opportunity. In fact, during 
     this same time period, the revenues for all women-owned small 
     businesses grew only 4.4%--representing a 38% overall 
     decrease in revenues.
       Clearly, women found that business ownership came with a 
     whole new set of challenges including the inability to fairly 
     access federal contracts, capital and affordable health care. 
     And, most profoundly, they are faced by the growing challenge 
     of competing with businesses that undercut their 
     competitiveness by engaging in unfair labor practices.
       Those that pay fairly and play fairly do not fear Ms. 
     Smith's no-nonsense approach to labor law enforcement. They, 
     in fact, see that they are being protected.
       After learning of Ms. Smith's qualifications, expertise and 
     the laws she has worked to uphold, I can clearly see that she 
     is someone who would work with conviction to enforce the laws 
     of the United States of America. Additionally, I am impressed 
     with her out-of-the-box thinking in creating programs that 
     will keep jobs. We especially need these attributes in this 
     time of economic challenge.
       Please accept Ms. Patricia Smith nomination, and confirm 
     Ms. Smith as Solicitor General at the United States 
     Department of Labor.
           Sincerely,
                                              Margot Dorfman, CEO.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is clear that Patricia Smith is 
eminently well qualified. She has been thoroughly vetted. We need a 
Solicitor at the Department of Labor. This nomination has been hanging 
here since last April. It is time to move on. But, again, the 
Republicans are exercising their right--although I think it is an abuse 
of that right--to drag it out for 30 more hours, to keep the Senate in 
session, for no purpose whatsoever other than to slow things down in 
this Chamber. To me, that is not a good enough excuse, when only one 
person came here today to speak against her, and that person spoke 
against her yesterday. I read the transcript. Nothing new; same stuff.
  I would hope we could collapse this timeframe and vote on it, but 
evidently the Republicans are intent on stretching this out to the 
maximum 30 hours. As I said, it may be their right, but I think it is 
an abuse of that right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Sanctions Against Iran

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my 
views on the issue of sanctions against Iran. The Senate, on the 
unanimous consent calendar last Thursday, passed legislation calling 
for sanctions against Iran. This was the first opportunity I have had 
to address the subject. I wish to do so now.
  The threat posed by Iran armed with nuclear weapons is obvious and 
very serious. It is a threat which applies for the region, for the 
world. It is a vital national security interest of the United States 
that Iran not be armed with nuclear weapons. It is obviously of great 
importance to Israel that Iran not have nuclear weapons in light of the 
history--the fact that the Iranian President has called for wiping 
Israel off the face of the Earth.
  I have prepared a comprehensive statement of my views on this subject 
in anticipation of the matter coming to the Senate floor. I will ask 
unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.
  I have been reluctant to call for sanctions because I am a firm 
believer in diplomacy and have undertaken a number of steps to try to 
encourage a parliamentary exchange between Iranian Parliamentarians and 
Members of Congress. I have been working on that for the better part of 
a decade. The extensive written statement summarizes in some detail 
those efforts.
  I have met with the last three Iranian Ambassadors to the United 
Nations. I found them all to be highly intelligent, to be articulate, 
to be cordial, and to be interested in a dialog and in conversations. I 
believe if their views were reflected by the Iranian Government, it 
would be a very different picture than it is at the present time.
  One year I got permission from the State Department to have the 
Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. come to Washington at my so-called 
hideaway office a few feet away from the floor and have dinner with 
Members of Congress and the Iranian Ambassador to talk about these 
issues. At one time, there was a meeting set between Iranian 
Parliamentarians and Members of Congress in Geneva that was canceled by 
the Iranian Government. My detailed statement specifies the efforts I 
have made over that period of time. But I think we have come to a point 
now where we have to get candidly tough, and we have to impose 
sanctions.
  President Obama said he would give Iran until the end of the year--
referring to the year 2009--to come to the table. There were some 
indications that Iran would do so. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown 
has made a similar statement and, in a sense, they have drawn a line in 
the sand.
  My own personal assessment is that we are approaching the point of 
clear and present danger that Iran poses as a threat to the region, 
especially to Israel, to the national security interests of the United 
States, and to the world. So I think it is time that firm action be 
taken.
  We have seen it evolve that gradually Russia has moved to join the 
United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and other nations in 
moving toward sanctions. China, regrettably, has not done so.
  Comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just last week are 
important on this subject. The Secretary of State said:

       China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the 
     destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in 
     the Persian Gulf from which they receive a significant 
     percentage of their oil.

  Secretary of State Clinton further remarked that a nuclear-armed Iran 
would risk setting off an arms race in the Persian Gulf and that it 
could provoke a military strike from Israel which she said she would 
regard a nuclear Iran as an existential threat.
  It has long been articulated that the military option is on the 
table. Israel has demonstrated its resoluteness--a small nation 
surrounded by, vastly outnumbered by the Arab population, still 
technically at war with many of the Arab countries, peace treaties only 
with Egypt and Jordan. Israel demonstrated its capability and 
willingness to take out the Iraq reactor in June of 1981 and more 
recently the Syrian installation which is believed to have been working 
on nuclear weapons.
  Secretary of State Clinton is blunt in the grave threat posed by the 
situation that Israel is concerned about with Iran becoming a nuclear 
force.
  I think the time has come to act. In the course of my statement, I 
have gone into some detail as to the sanctions and how effective they 
could be. But I think there is no doubt that if China joined the United 
States, Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, India, and other 
nations in imposing tight sanctions, financial sanctions on the 
financial institutions, on trade, on supplying gasoline, on supplying 
Iranian needs that the world could make its

[[Page S426]]

point. I think Iran would have to capitulate. How much better it is to 
use economic sanctions than to take the military option off the table.
  I do believe if the United Nations, with China's concurrence, showed 
its determination to impose sanctions that it would have the potential 
to bring compliance by Iran. Russia has made a proposal that it would 
enrich Iran's uranium. If Iran is sincere that it does not want 
enriched uranium for military purposes, for a bomb, but only wants it 
for civilian purposes, well, take up Russia's offer to have the uranium 
enriched by Russia. At one point, Iran appeared to be willing to do 
that. Then they revoked the indication of willingness. That is still a 
possibility.

  I had occasion to visit Vienna on two occasions--met with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency head, Mohamed ElBaradei--to discuss 
the activities he has undertaken. He is a very able, skilled 
international diplomat who recently left that position, which he held 
for years. But Mr. ElBaradei was very pessimistic as to what Iran was 
prepared to do and resisted efforts to have the kind of inspections 
which would give assurance.
  I was very reluctant to see sanctions imposed on Syria, in the hope 
that diplomacy might work there, but did join in those efforts a few 
years back when the matter came up for a vote.
  I had been trying to visit Iran personally since 1989, at the end of 
the Iran-Iraq war, and in 1989 made my first trip to Iraq. In 1990, 
Senator Shelby and I had a talk with Saddam Hussein, and it was a very 
professional conversation. Iraq, at that time, had just launched a 
three-power rocket system, and I led the conversation by asking 
President Saddam Hussein if he would be willing to negotiate with 
Israel because they would take out his new weapons, just as they had 
taken out his reactor in June of 1981. He dismissed it, saying: No, he 
wouldn't negotiate with Israel; they weren't a border state. Then he 
asked me a question. He wanted to know why all the Russian Jews were 
going to Israel. I saw him shuffling some papers, and I knew he knew I 
was Jewish. I wanted him to know I knew that he knew that I knew, and 
so I said: My father was a Russian Jew who immigrated to the United 
States, and I believe the Russian Jews ought to go wherever they want 
to go. There was a 50,000 limit at the time on Russian Jews who could 
come into the United States.
  In the course of an hour-and-a-quarter discussion, it was a 
substantive talk, and I came back and told a number of my colleagues 
that I thought we ought to have more discussions with Saddam Hussein. I 
don't know if anything could have deterred him from his aggression 
against Kuwait or his later activities, but I have long been a believer 
in the maxim that you make peace with your enemies and not with your 
friends.
  In my work as chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the 104th 
Congress and work on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I have had 
the privilege of traveling extensively in foreign countries and sought 
out the people who might be categorized as our enemies. I had a useful 
talk a few years back with Chavez in Venezuela; several visits to Fidel 
Castro in Cuba; conversations with Arafat, both in Ramallah, Gaza, and 
when he came to Washington, to my office downstairs, looking for money 
from the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. I have made many trips to 
Syria, gotten to know Hafez al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad; had cordial 
conversations, as one of six Senators who visited Syria about a month 
ago to talk to Bashar al-Assad about the possibility of a peace treaty.
  I believe Syria could hold the key to a peace in the Mideast. Only 
Israel could decide if Israel wants to give up the Golan, and they 
ought to make that decision without any pressure from the United States 
or anyone. But if Israel should make that decision, there could be a 
great deal gained in terms of having Syria stopping the destabilization 
of Lebanon, stopping the support of Hamas, stopping the support of 
Hezbollah. It is a different world today than it was in 1967, when 
Israel took the Golan. It is an era of rockets. It is not the same 
strategic importance.
  But the point I make is, I think diplomacy is the way out. But 
sometimes there has to be a carrot and a stick, and I think we have 
come to the point where sanctions do need to be imposed, and that is 
why I have joined the effort. I think the President has given fair 
notice to Iran that they come to the table by the end of the year, and 
we are a little past that.
  We, obviously, have problems with China on a number of fronts. We 
have problems on the Taiwan issue and our sale of arms to Taiwan. We 
have problems with them with respect to Tibet and our issue of human 
rights. We have very serious problems on trade, and we have broader 
issues on human rights. China is emerging as a tremendous world power, 
and we are challenged at every line, but I do believe the logic of the 
situation is, it is in China's interest not to have a nuclear Iran.
  Our CODEL, after visiting in Syria, went on to India and talked to 
Prime Minister Singh, who was emphatic in agreement that it is not in 
India's interest or the world's interest to have an Iran which is armed 
with nuclear weapons. So it is my hope the action by the Senate, in 
voting for sanctions, will increase the momentum for sanctions from the 
United Nations. It can only be done in an effective way if China is 
persuaded to go along.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
my full written statement and ask that the Congressional Record recite 
the language I am using now.
  Usually, when summary is concluded and the formal statement is put in 
the Record, it is changed. If anybody reads the Congressional Record--
and I think there is a chance somebody does--they wonder why Senator 
Specter is making this repetitious statement; that he has made this 
statement, and here is all this repetition. If you put this explanation 
in, as I have said, the reader will know I have summarized and 
amplified, to some extent, and that what follows now is not a 
repetition as such but the formal statement which was prepared in 
advance.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement of Senator Arlen Specter: Enhancement of Sanctions Against 
                                  Iran

       Mr. President: There is no question that a nuclear armed 
     Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the U.S. and 
     its allies, particularly Israel. It is for this reason that 
     preventing such a situation remains a principal focus of 
     mine. Although Iran claims that its nuclear program is 
     directed solely toward peaceful energy production, the fact 
     that this program has been conducted in secret and that Iran 
     is a known supporter of certain terrorist organizations 
     betrays that assertion.
       I have long been an advocate of the proposal, currently 
     offered to Iran, to have Russia enrich Iran's uranium. If 
     Iran's interests with enrichment are benign, as it claims, 
     then it should have no problem with Russia enriching the 
     uranium to the low levels required for civilian nuclear power 
     and medical uses. Iran's refusal suggests otherwise. At an 
     Appropriations Committee hearing on April 9, 2008, I 
     questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on this 
     proposal:

       Sen. Specter: ``Let me move to . . . President Putin's 
     proposal to have the Russians enrich [Iran's] uranium. That 
     apparently would provide an answer. . . . To what extent has 
     the Putin proposal been pressed? In a sense, if we join Putin 
     and they refuse what is really a good offer to have somebody 
     else enrich their uranium so that they have it for peaceful 
     purposes, but there is a check on using it for military 
     purposes--why hasn't that worked?''
       Sec. Rice: ``Well, we are fully supportive of it, and the 
     president just told President Putin that again at Shchuchye, 
     that he is fully supportive of the Russian proposal. And in 
     fact, not only did President Putin himself put that proposal 
     to the Iranians when he was in Tehran, his foreign minister 
     went back within a few days and put the same proposition to 
     the Iranians, which makes people suspicious, Senator, that 
     this is not about civil nuclear power but rather about the 
     development of the capabilities for a nuclear weapon. . . . 
     So I think this really speaks to the intentions of the 
     Iranians.''
       Sen. Specter: ``Well, we agree on that. My suggestion would 
     be to try to elevate it. It's been in the media and the press 
     a little, but not very much. So if we could elevate that, I 
     think you'd really put Iran on the spot that they deserve to 
     be on.''

       Then, in a May 20, 2009 Appropriations Committee hearing, I 
     questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the 
     proposal:

       Sen. Specter: ``Let me come to a question with respect to 
     Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu was very pleased with the 
     meeting with President Obama, and the timetable which the 
     president has set, looking to the Iranian elections as the 
     potential for dialogue and holding out the possibility of 
     bilateral dialogue, and I hope you will pursue that, and 
     putting a timetable for the first time on not waiting 
     indefinitely with all the options on the table. And I speak 
     in generalities not to beat a tom-tom unnecessarily.

[[Page S427]]

       ``The offer that the Russians made some time ago to enrich 
     the uranium, I think, has never been pursued or publicized. 
     Perhaps it has been pursued, but not known and not 
     publicized. But that seems to me to be a perfect line. When 
     Iran insists that they're developing--enriching uranium for 
     peaceful purposes and the Russians can provide for them, what 
     conceivable excuse? When they resist something so obvious as 
     that, it seems that that would be a good wedge to get more 
     cooperation from China, Russia and other countries. What can 
     be done to pursue Russian enrichment of their uranium?''
       Sec. Clinton: ``Well, Senator Specter, that is an option 
     that is being considered within the P-5 plus one as well as 
     within our own deliberations. We have a broad range of issues 
     to discuss with the Iranians if they respond affirmatively to 
     the president's invitation to do so. And obviously they are 
     in the midst of election season. We know what that means. So 
     it's unlikely that we'll get a response or a dialogue going 
     until there is some settling of the political scene. But your 
     reference to the enrichment potential is one that we are 
     exploring.''

       Finally, on June 9, 2009, I raised the issue with Secretary 
     of Defense Robert Gates at an Appropriations Committee 
     hearing:

       Sen. Specter: ``Mr. Secretary, I was intrigued with one of 
     the points you made in testifying before the Appropriations 
     Committee on the war supplemental, where you said that it 
     would be useful in our dealings with Iran to have a missile 
     defense that is aimed only at Iran.
       ``And that played into the relationship that we have with 
     Russia, and it is generally recognized that if we're to be 
     successful in dealing with Iran, we're going to have to have 
     cooperation with other countries, perhaps mostly Russia. 
     We've talked before about the issue of having Russia enrich 
     Iran's uranium, which Russia has offered to do and Iran has 
     declined, as a way of being sure that Iran is not moving 
     toward the use of enriched uranium for military purposes.
       ``A two-part question. Number one, is any progress being 
     made on publicizing Russia's offer, which I think has gotten 
     scant--little attention? And the Iranian refusal really 
     shows--raises the inference of potential bad faith.
       ``And secondly, where do we stand on efforts to pick up 
     your suggestion that missile defense be aimed only at Iran 
     and not at Russia, which has given so many political 
     problems?''
       Sec. Gates: ``First, I think that although it's certainly 
     not been a secret, it has not been, I think, widely enough 
     publicized--Russia's offer and Iran's turn-down of it. And I 
     think equally not publicized was the fact that the United 
     States indicated that we thought that was a pretty good idea 
     and would be supportive.
       ``With respect to the missile defense, I think that the 
     Russian--I still have hope that we can get the Russians to 
     partner with us on missile defense directed against Iran.''

       But, in remarks reported by the New York Times on November 
     18, 2009, Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said 
     ``We will definitely not send our 3.5-percent-enriched 
     uranium out of the country.'' Then, on December 2, 2009, the 
     New York Times reported that Iran's president, Mahmoud 
     Ahmadinejad, said on December 1, ``Friendly relations with 
     the [International Atomic Energy Agency] are over,'' and that 
     Iran has no duty to report to the United Nations about its 
     recently announced plan to build 10 new nuclear sites.
       To this point I have resisted calling for increased 
     sanctions because I did not think it constructive given the 
     diplomatic climate; however, considering Iran's growing 
     avowals that it will not cooperate with the International 
     Atomic Energy Agency or allow foreign countries to process 
     its uranium, I think it is time to enhance sanctions. The 
     international community has offered Iran a deal which is more 
     than fair; Iran refuses to consent. We cannot make ourselves 
     a toothless tiger.
       I did not come to my decision to support the Comprehensive 
     Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 
     (S. 2799) lightly. During my tenure in the Senate, I have 
     been among Congress' most ardent advocates for aggressive 
     diplomacy, believing it holds the key to resolving 
     international disputes. As I noted in my December 2006 
     article in The Washington Quarterly titled ``Dialogue with 
     Adversaries'':

       ``My Senate assignments on the Intelligence Committee and 
     Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations have 
     provided me the opportunity to meet with Syrian President 
     Hafiz al-Asad, Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, Iraqi 
     President Saddam Hussein, Cuban President Fidel Castro, 
     Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and others.
       ``Those meetings have shown me that people are people, even 
     at the highest levels of government. They are interested in a 
     candid dialogue. They accept differences and disagreements as 
     long as the tone is courteous. . . .
       ``Sun-tzu's advice to `keep your friends close and your 
     enemies closer' is a good admonition to keep in mind as we 
     approach our relationships in the world. . . . It may not 
     work, but it is certainly worth a try when the stakes are so 
     high and our other strenuous efforts are not bearing fruit'' 
     (p. 9).

       Diplomacy has produced some results many thought 
     impossible. Negotiations with North Korea have reduced that 
     nation's nuclear threat although that situation remains 
     volatile and uncertain. Negotiations have moved Libya's 
     Muammar Qaddafi, with whom I met in August 2006, from 
     horrendous acts of terrorism, including the bombing of Pan Am 
     103 and a Berlin discotheque, resulting in the murder of US 
     military personnel, to a willingness to negotiate and reform. 
     Libya made reparations in excess of $1,000,000,000 and 
     abandoned plans to design nuclear weapons in order to be 
     admitted to the family of nations.
       This is not the first time I have supported sanctions in 
     the region. On November 11, 2003, I voted for a the Syria 
     Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, a 
     bill to impose sanctions on Syria to hold Damascus 
     accountable for its support for terrorism, its occupation of 
     Lebanon, its illegal shipment of arms to Iraq, and its 
     efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. The bill 
     became law in December 2003. Regarding my vote, I said on the 
     Senate floor on November 11, 2003:

       ``Sanctions are imposed by Congress with some frequency. At 
     first blush, this appears to be a straightforward affirmative 
     vote, but I believe the matter is more complicated than that, 
     and I have come to the view after having traveled to Syria 
     almost every year since 1984, and after having had 
     considerable contact with the Syrian Government. After 
     considering the matter at some length, I have decided that I 
     will vote in favor of the Syrian Accountability Act because 
     the problems of terrorism are so serious and because I 
     believe that Syria needs to do more'' (p. S14403).

       Prior to my vote on the Syrian Accountability Act, I wrote 
     to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on September 17, 2003:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                               September 17, 2003.
     His Excellency Bashar al-Assad,
     President, Syrian Arab Republic,
     Damascus, Syria.
       Dear President Assad: I write to inform you of growing 
     concern in the United States Senate about Syria and the fact 
     that the Syrian Accountability Act now has 76 co-sponsors. I 
     had discussed this proposed legislation some time ago with 
     your Ambassador to the United States. I had refrained from 
     co-sponsoring the Syrian Accountability Act on the premise 
     that we should try to work out the problems without resorting 
     to legislation calling for sanctions.
       Yesterday, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton submitted 
     testimony to the House of Representatives' International 
     Relations Committee that Syria is permitting ``volunteers'' 
     to pass over your border into Iraq where those so-called 
     volunteers are intent on killing U.S. troops. This follows 
     Administrator L. Paul Bremer's statement on August 20th that 
     Syria is allowing ``foreign terrorists'' to cross Syria's 
     borders into Iraq.
       When you met with Secretary of State Powell last May, there 
     was an understanding that Syria would shut Damascus offices 
     of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. In June, 
     Secretary Powell stated that Syria's efforts to shut these 
     offices were ``totally inadequate''. The Bush Administration 
     which had opposed the Syrian Accountability Act now is 
     neutral, taking no position.
       After extensive dealings with your father, President Hafez 
     al-Assad, since the 1980s and with you on our meetings in the 
     past several years, I have tried to assist in finding answers 
     to these difficult problems. With the Syrian Accountability 
     Act gaining so much support, it is my hope that your 
     Government will respond to the concerns outlined in this 
     letter before the U.S. Government resorts to sanctions.
       I call these matters to your personal attention with the 
     hope that prompt action can be taken by Syria to resolve 
     these problems. The United States greatly appreciated the 
     help that Syria provided to our intelligence services after 
     September 11, 2001 in our fight against al-Qaeda.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

       It is my hope that Congress' passage of the Comprehensive 
     Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act would 
     effect change in Tehran before the implementation of 
     additional sanctions would be necessary, as sanctions 
     invariably impact more people than just the leaders 
     responsible for shaping a country's policy.
       During my time in the Senate, I have pushed hard to engage 
     Iran diplomatically. I have tried to visit Iran since the 
     Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, with my first attempts coming 
     during my visits to Iraq in January 1989 and January 1990, 
     but I have not yet succeeded. Going back to 2000, I have met 
     repeatedly with Iranian officials in an effort to foster an 
     exchange of visits by members of Congress to Iran and Iranian 
     parliamentarians to the United States to try to open dialogue 
     between our two countries. On May 11, 2000, I joined nine 
     other senators in writing to Iranian Ambassador Hadi Nejad 
     Hosseinian proposing such an exchange (attached). I followed 
     this with a meeting with Ambassador Hosseinian on May 31, 
     2000. On October 17, 2001, I hosted Ambassador Hosseinian in 
     my Senate hideaway with Senator Mike DeWine, former 
     Representative Lee Hamilton, Ambassador William Miller, and 
     Representative Bob Ney. On November 18, 2002, I had lunch 
     with Ambassador Zarif at the Wilson Center at an event hosted 
     by former Representative Lee Hamilton.

[[Page S428]]

       As I wrote in the Washington Quarterly in December 2006, 
     ``I thought my efforts finally came to fruition in January 
     2004 when plans were made for U.S. members of Congress to 
     meet with Iranian parliamentarians in Geneva. Unfortunately, 
     Tehran later rescinded the invitation, declaring it was `not 
     on their agenda' '' (p. 10). I met in New York City with 
     Ambassador Hosseinian's successor, Ambassador Javad Zarif, in 
     October 2006 and February 2007. On May 3, 2007, I joined 
     eight colleagues in Congress writing to Gholam Ali Haddad 
     Adel, then the speaker of Iran's parliament, to propose again 
     ``a diplomatic exchange between members of the United States 
     Congress and Parliamentarians from the Islamic Republic of 
     Iran'' (attached). I followed this with a personal letter to 
     Ayatollah Khamenei on October 16, 2007 (attached). Again, the 
     offer was rebuffed (attached). My efforts to facilitate 
     engagement continued with meetings with the current Iranian 
     ambassador to the UN, Mohammed Khazaee, in February and 
     December 2008.
       On January 2, 2008, I traveled to the headquarters of the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna with IAEA 
     Director General Mohamad ElBaradei to discuss the Iranian 
     issue. On January 22, 2008 I discussed my meeting with Mr. 
     ElBaradei on the Senate floor:

       ``When solicited about his views on President Putin's idea 
     to have Russia handle Iran's nuclear material, he stated that 
     Iran did not reject it but that they wanted their own 
     capability. He suggested that an acceptable security 
     structure must be negotiated with Iran to deter them. The 
     [Director General] agreed that it is not acceptable for Iran 
     to have nuclear weapons and that his job was to verify that 
     the program is clean and under IAEA inspections.
       ``I pressed him on Iran's devious behavior in the past to 
     conceal nuclear efforts and asked if we can ever be 100 
     percent sure. He stated that you can never be 100 positive 
     but that he thinks Iran has things to tell him and that he 
     has told them they should come clean.
       ``The Director General suggested that direct U.S.-Iranian 
     negotiations should begin immediately to resolve the impasse. 
     The U.S. and international community need to understand what 
     the nuclear issue means to Iran with respect to its position 
     in the region and the world, that there needs to be an 
     understanding of the repercussions and that it must be done 
     in a manner that allows all sides to save face.
       ``We discussed Secretary Rice's precondition that the U.S. 
     would only meet with Iran if they halt enrichment. He said 
     there must be middle ground to bring the parties together on 
     this issue. He emphasized that sanctions alone won't resolve 
     the situation and only makes people more hawkish. Iran's 
     concealment of its [research and development] program, 
     according to the Director, led to a confidence deficit in the 
     international community.
       ``I asked about the capabilities of an inspection regime 
     given Iran's substantial size. He confirmed the need to have 
     a robust verification system on the ground. [El]Baradei 
     stated that the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was helpful but that Iran stopped 
     implementing it. The Additional Protocol was the result of an 
     IAEA initiative to better constrain NPT member-states' 
     ability to illicitly pursue nuclear weapons after secret 
     nuclear weapons programs in Iraq and North Korea exposed 
     weaknesses in existing agency safeguards. That effort 
     eventually produced a voluntary Additional Protocol, designed 
     to strengthen and expand existing IAEA safeguards for 
     verifying that non-nuclear-weapon states-parties to the 
     nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) only use nuclear 
     materials and facilities only for peaceful purposes. He 
     stated that the Protocol gives him a good handle on Iran's 
     nuclear program in that it provides access to additional 
     facilities and information'' (p. S74).

       Following up on this conversation, I spoke with Mr. 
     ElBaradei over the phone when I was in Vienna in January 
     2009, again following travels in the Middle East. On January 
     12, 2009, I said on the Senate floor:

       ``A year ago, I had an opportunity to meet with IAEA 
     Director Mohamed ElBaradei. He was out of town when we were 
     there [in 2009]. I had a conversation with him by telephone 
     on the issue of the efforts by the IAEA to conduct the 
     inspections and that at the moment Iran is not cooperating 
     and, further, international action needs to be taken to be 
     sure Iran does meet its obligations under international 
     agreements and that there are adequate safeguards to prevent 
     Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.''

       On November 26, 2009, shortly before stepping down from his 
     position at the IAEA, Mr. ElBaradei said, ``I am disappointed 
     that Iran so far has not agreed'' to proposals to ship 
     nuclear material out of Iran, ``[W]hich I believe are 
     balanced and fair and would greatly alleviate the concerns 
     relating to Iran's nuclear program'' (Reuters, 11/26/09).
       Our offers of diplomatic engagement, and the limited United 
     Nations sanctions enacted to date, have not ended Iran's 
     nuclear ambitions. I voted on September 26, 2007 in favor of 
     an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Defense 
     Authorization Bill to encourage the U.S. State Department to 
     place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on its list of 
     foreign terrorist organizations, as well as to expedite the 
     enforcement of U.N. Sanctions mandated by December 2006 and 
     March 2007 United Sanctions Security Council Resolutions, in 
     the hope that this could bring about positive change. 
     Unfortunately these efforts have not done enough, and for 
     that reason, with the desire to avoid greater military 
     conflict in the Middle East, I think more comprehensive 
     sanctions are necessary.
       If any sanctions are to be effective, they will need to be 
     supported by the other permanent members of the UN Security 
     Council, particularly Russia and China. While ``Neither 
     [Russia nor China] thinks Iran's missiles are aimed at 
     them,'' as the Economist noted in a December 5, 2009 
     editorial, both would suffer from the instability that a 
     nuclear armed Iran would bring about. The Economist editorial 
     concluded, ``Do nothing to give Iran pause and one way or 
     another its illicit ambitions will eventually destabilize the 
     entire Middle East.''
       It is important that the next round of sanctions be 
     measured. As RAND scholar Alireza Nader noted in a September 
     30, 2009 paper, ``Additional sanctions may create popular 
     resentment against the government, and may even increase 
     protests and opposition stemming from Iran's disputed 
     presidential election.'' The New York Times highlighted this 
     dissent on December 8, 2009 when it ran a headline stating, 
     ``Thousands Defy Iranian Authorities in Protests and Clashes 
     at Campuses.'' Edward Alden, a trade expert at the Council on 
     Foreign Relations, told Politico on September 29, 2009:

       ``A coordinated sanctions effort by the U.S. and Europe 
     could put tremendous pressure on Iran. After 9/11, the 
     Treasury developed new tools that forced banks and other 
     financial companies around the world to cut ties to charities 
     that were deemed to be supporting terrorist groups. Those 
     same tools were turned against North Korea in 2005, 
     effectively cutting off what little capability the regime had 
     to engage in foreign commercial transactions. For a country 
     like Iran that depends so heavily on oil exports, similar 
     actions against the companies that insure outgoing shipments 
     from Iran could have a devastating economic impact.''

       On July 22, 2009, Patrick Clawson of the Washington 
     Institute for Near East Policy told the House Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs:

       ``For several years, Iran's economy was cushioned from 
     foreign pressure by the high price of oil. That has changed 
     as oil prices have declined and Tehran's poor policies have 
     exacerbated serious structural weaknesses. The most likely 
     prospect is that during the next few years, Iran's economy 
     will face serious problems. Foreign economic pressure could 
     add to those problems. Furthermore, Iranian public opinion is 
     likely to exaggerate the impact of the foreign pressure and 
     to blame the Ahmadinejad government's hardline stance for the 
     country's economic difficulties'' (1).
       ``[T]here is every reason to expect public opinion to lay 
     the blame for the economic problems on the Ahmadinejad 
     government. Already, reform politicians blame that government 
     for isolating Iran from the world. If Iran is forced to 
     reduce imports substantially, the most likely popular 
     reaction will be to blame hardliners for the problems.'' (6).
       ``Foreign pressure cannot cause Iran's economy to collapse, 
     nor should that be our goal. But such pressure may well be 
     able to contribute to what is becoming an intense debate 
     inside Iran about the wisdom of a confrontational and 
     isolationist policy towards the international community. That 
     debate offers the best prospect for a fruitful resolution of 
     the nuclear impasse, because those who want Iran to join the 
     world are not willing to pay a high price for a nuclear 
     program which they increasingly see as part of the 
     Ahmadinejad agenda, not part of a national project'' (6).

       We must be careful with sanctions so as to not play into 
     the hands of the Iranian leadership, who would very much like 
     to blame Iran's current economic struggles on the West. As 
     the Economist noted on December 5, 2009, `` . . . Mr. 
     Ahmadinejad is just now having to contemplate ending ruinous 
     petrol subsidies to balance his books and would be delighted 
     to blame the pain on foreigners . . . [A] UN-backed embargo 
     on investment in Iran's oil and gas industries would hurt 
     badly, and signal resolve. So would a ban on weapons imports. 
     And Iran's repeated breach of nuclear safeguards is surely 
     justification for ending nuclear trade with its regime.''
       Time to find a diplomatic solution is running out. On 
     September 25, 2009, United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon 
     Brown said, ``Confronted by the serial deception of many 
     years, the international community has no choice today but to 
     draw a line in the sand.'' On the same day, President Barack 
     Obama said, ``We weren't going to duplicate what has happened 
     in North Korea, in which talks just continue forever without 
     any actual resolution to the issue.'' ``[T]he Iranian 
     government,'' President Obama said, ``must now demonstrate 
     through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable 
     to international standards and international law.''
       On November 30, 2009, United States Ambassador to the 
     United Nations, Susan Rice, told reporters:

       ``There has been an engagement track which we have been 
     very actively engaged in, but there is also a pressure track. 
     And as Iran makes choices that seem to indicate that it is 
     not at this stage ready and willing to take up the offers on 
     the engagement track then we will put greater emphasis on the 
     pressure track. Time is short, and we are

[[Page S429]]

     serious about implementing to the fullest extent that dual 
     track policy.''
       ``We will continue . . . to consult with our P5 + 1 
     colleagues both in capitals and elsewhere. I think the 
     President and other leaders have been quite clear that we 
     would take stock at the end of the year and see where we are. 
     And I think as the indications mount that Iran is not yet in 
     a position to take up the very concrete and constructive 
     offers that have been put to it by the P5+1 and by the IAEA, 
     it seems more likely that we will be on the pressure track, 
     even as the door remains open to Iran to accept those 
     offers.''

       On December 7, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin 
     Netanyahu told members of the Knesset, ``In the last year, 
     two things have happened: Iran has advanced its military 
     nuclear program, and Iran has lost its legitimacy in the eyes 
     of the international community,'' adding that preventing Iran 
     from securing a nuclear arsenal was Israel's ``central 
     problem,'' according to a December 8, 2009 article in the 
     Jerusalem Post.
       Israel did not agree with the 2007 US National Intelligence 
     Estimate on Iran's nuclear program which concluded that Iran 
     halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The New York 
     Times noted on December 5, 2007 that then Israeli Defense 
     Minister Ehud Barak rejected the American assessment of 
     ``moderate confidence'' that Tehran had not restarted its 
     nuclear weapons program by mid-2007 and that the end of the 
     program ``represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons 
     program.'' Defense Minister Barak said, ``It is our 
     responsibility to ensure that the right steps are taken 
     against the Iranian regime.'' ``As is well known, words don't 
     stop missiles,'' he continued. Assessments may differ, Mr. 
     Barak said, ``but we cannot allow ourselves to rest just 
     because of an intelligence report from the other side of the 
     Earth, even if it is from our greatest friend.'' According to 
     a December 11, 2007 New York Times article, ``Israeli 
     intelligence estimates say Iran stopped all its nuclear 
     weapons activities for a time in 2003, nervous after the 
     American invasion of Iraq, but then resumed those activities 
     in 2005, accelerating enrichment and ballistic missile 
     development and constructing a 40-megawatt heavy-water 
     reactor in Arak that could produce plutonium.''
       According to a December 5, 2009 article in the Economist, 
     ``Last year Israel carried out a long-distance military air 
     exercise over Greece that looked like a rehearsal for action 
     in Iran. In June [2009] a missile-carrying Israeli submarine 
     ostentatiously sailed through the Suez Canal.'' These 
     military exercises, coupled with Israel's public disagreement 
     with the US over intelligence estimates on Iran's nuclear 
     program and Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent public 
     comments, show that Israel's security calculus differs from 
     our own. Time to find a diplomatic solution is running short; 
     Israel--like every other nation--will act in defense of what 
     it sees to be its own best interests.
       Iran's continued nuclear program is a ticking time bomb. 
     All parties--Iran included--will benefit from its end. On 
     this state of the record, enhanced sanctions, with the goal 
     of ending Iran's nuclear program and preventing wider 
     conflict in the Middle East, are our best option.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and in the absence of 
any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Job Loss

  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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           REGIONAL LABOR MARKET DATA
                                      [Seasonally Adjusted--December 2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Rate
                                                    Labor force     Employment     Unemployment      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States (Civilian--Dec 2009)..............     154,235,000     139,339,000      14,895,000           10.01
Pennsylvania (Dec 2009).........................       6,310,100       5,750,600         559,500             8.9
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton-NJ (Carbon, Lehigh,           416,100         375,300          40,700       9.8 (+.5)
 Northampton plus Warren County, NJ)............
Altoona (Blair).................................          63,400          58,400           5,000       7.9 (+.3)
Erie (Erie).....................................         138,000         124,200          13,800        10 (+.6)
Harrisburg-Carlisle (Cumberland, Dauphin, Perry)         280,500         258,200          22,300       7.9 (+.4)
Johnstown (Cambria).............................          67,700          61,300           6,400       9.4 (+.3)
Lancaster (Lancaster)...........................         262,400         242,200          20,200       7.7 (+.2)
Lebanon (Lebanon)...............................          70,200          65,200           5,000       7.1 (+.1)
Philadelphia Metro (Not full MSA; excludes non-        1,945,200       1,781,100         164,100       8.5 (+.1)
 PA; Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery,
 Philadelphia)..................................
Pittsburgh (Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,              1,199,600       1,104,100          95,300             7.9
 Butler, Fayette, Washington, Westmoreland).....
Reading (Berks).................................         199,900         181,100          18,800       9.4 (+.3)
Scranton/W-B (Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wyoming).....         278,800         251,700          27,100       9.7 (+.3)
State College (Centre)..........................          74,200          69,700           4,500       6.0 (+.1)
Williamsport (Lycoming).........................          53,900          53,100           5,800       9.8 (+.6)
York-Hanover (York).............................         224,000         204,200          19,800       8.9 (+.3)
Philadelphia....................................         624,800         556,800          67,900            10.9
Pittsburgh (not seasonally-adjusted)............         151,100         139,000          11,100       7.4 (-.1)
Allegheny County................................         628,600         581,500          47,100       7.5 (+.1)
Lackawanna County...............................         105,900          96,100           9,800       9.2 (+.2)
Luzerne County..................................         158,700         142,700          16,000      10.1 (+.4)
Lehigh County...................................         174,700         157,800          16,800       9.6 (+.2)
Dauphin County..................................         134,300         123,300          10,700       8.0 (+.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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

[[Page S430]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S431]]

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________