A bill to prohibit the use of Department of Justice funds for the prosecution in Article III courts of the United States of individuals involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

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

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

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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about job loss in the United States but in particular some of the individuals--the real people and real families--across our State whom I have met in the last couple weeks and who have told some of their stories about how they are struggling in this recession.

Unfortunately, just in terms of numbers, they have not gotten better in our State. We went a long period of time, when at least as a percentage of those who were out of work, we were fortunately in the bottom tier or in the middle. At least we didn't have double-digit unemployment. That is changing, to a large extent. We are not in the 10 percent number that most of the country is, but we are at about 8.9 percent right now. We got some regional numbers today. Our State is divided into 14 labor markets and, unfortunately, in almost every one of them, that number keeps going up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a two-page summary of the unemployment data from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I will highlight one or two regions to give a sense of the gravity of the problem.

In southeastern Pennsylvania, we have two major regions that have had very strong economies over time. The Philadelphia metropolitan region-- the city of Philadelphia--and the suburban counties have done well economically, but that number is going up. The total number of unemployed is over 164,000 Pennsylvanians in that corner of the State. That is about 5 counties--164,000 people.

Just above that and north of that in the Lehigh Valley--the Allentown, Bethlehem region--they are at 9.8 percent, with some 40,700 people out of work. In my home area of northeastern Pennsylvania--north of the Lehigh Valley--we received reports today of the job market going up to 9.7 percent unemployment, the highest in 17 years. You could go across the State and hear the same story.

So the numbers are going higher. Of course, that means the challenges, the misery, and the heartache for those who have lost their jobs are only rising.

We have to meet that challenge. Part of meeting that challenge is not just addressing it in terms of policy--I will talk about that tonight for a couple of minutes--but also to try to understand as best we can from the distance of Washington, but even when you are, as I was, sitting in the same room more than a week ago with eight of our unemployed Pennsylvanians. I will just give two examples.

One individual sitting right across from me, his name was Ron. He was laid off last April. He is 61 years old. His was one of the most compelling stories in terms of where he was with a job and where he is today. Before he was laid off, he managed a staff of 12 people. Over the course of his long and successful career, he worked in various

management positions, at international trade groups, manufacturing facilities, and rental companies.

During my conversation with Ron, he talked about his fear that his wide experience seemed to be working against him in this labor market. Ron was earning more than $100,000 before he was laid off. Today he and his wife are currently getting by with her earnings in a clerical job and his unemployment compensation, which amounts to just $40,000. In his life it is a $100,000 income versus now a $40,000 income.

I also met Annetta. She was just on my right as we were talking to these eight individuals. She had a lot of energy and vigor. You could tell she was a very good employee. She worked for a retirement home until she was laid off. Annetta has been using her time to study to be a CNA, certified nurses aide, through the Yorktown School of Technology. In order to obtain her certification, Annetta had to pay for a final exam and a physical. She didn't have the money to up-front the costs of those tests and thus could not obtain her certified nurses assistant certification.

According to Annetta, the most frustrating part of her situation is that she has the experience of a certified nurse from a previous employer who did not require formal certification. But I was particularly touched by her comments that, as a single person, Annetta fears having no one to fall back on in these tough times. Also, her embarrassment. We would always say to her or anyone in this situation: You shouldn't be embarrassed. You are in a very difficult situation. You have lost a job through no fault of your own.

But, of course, that is not the way she sees it in terms of what she feels in her heart. She does feel a sense of embarrassment over having to turn to churches for food. That is why we have an increase in food stamps. We legislate to do that because it is not only good for that individual, taxpayers have an added economic benefit from an increase in food stamps and an increase in unemployment insurance, just to name two examples.

What strikes me most about the stories that each of these individuals told, but in particular as I cite them tonight, Ron and Annetta, they are looking for work in the worst job market in modern times, but they speak very candidly about their fears. But mostly they talk about the incredible efforts they have made to get back to work.

I know the Presiding Officer would remember the presentation that President Obama made to us in December, on a Sunday. We were meeting in a caucus about health care and he came over to talk to us. He talked about meeting individuals who were out of work in another part of Pennsylvania, in Allentown, at a job site. What he said in early December was very similar to what I heard in late January, and that is these are individuals who are out of work through no fault of their own. They are working and struggling, leading lives of tremendous struggle and sacrifice and heartache, but they are not complaining. They are determined to get a job. They are filling out scores and scores of applications--sometimes being rejected formally and sometimes hearing nothing at all. That is the life they are leading.

I think the President's visit and other visits by some of us in the Senate are confirming that sense of determination, that sense of gratitude they have that there are programs to help them while they are unemployed, but also a tremendous resilience and ability to live and work through this struggle.

What do we do? We could cite their cases and say how much we hope their prospects will improve. We could continue to enlarge and expand, as we must and we should, a safety net. We could pass other legislation. But I think one of the best ways to jump-start job creation is to provide significant tax incentives to employers, lots of employers out there who want to hire, who want to invest in their business, who want to maybe move people up who have done a good job and increase their payroll in that way--but especially to hire more people, to hire folks who are out of work.

I believe the best way to do that, not the only way but the best way, is to pass legislation like the bill I introduced yesterday, the Small Business Job Creation Tax Credit Act. It is rather simple, but I think the impact of it could be substantial--a very substantial number of jobs created. What this act does is provide a nonrefundable quarterly payroll tax credit based upon an increase in the employer's wages that are paid. It would be a 1-year bill. It would be in effect for 1 year so it is very targeted in terms of the time. The credit would apply to an employee's wages up to the Social Security base of $106,800--that would be the limit of what you could count for the tax credit. If you had fewer than 100 employees, you would get a 20-percent credit; more than 100 employees, 15 percent.

We know as we have heard today and on so many other occasions that the driver of our economy tends to be almost overwhelmingly small business. In Pennsylvania, if you look at a 3-year period from 2003 to 2006, small businesses accounted for more than 91 percent of the job creation. So we know that by giving small businesses a 20-percent tax credit for those with under 100 employees, that can have a substantial benefit for those employers, obviously, for those who can obtain work, and I think in a larger way our economy. We put a limit on the credit. One company could not have more than $\1/2\ million by way of a credit. You would basically compare one quarter in 2010, for example, versus that corresponding quarter in 2009.

We know one of the referees around here is the Congressional Budget Office, maybe the main referee, in terms of how legislation is given a price or a score or a number, so to speak. The Congressional Budget Office has said that a tax credit based upon an increase in payroll would have the greatest positive impact on America's gross domestic product and employment, when compared to other job creation strategies.

I believe Congress should pass a job creation tax credit to reduce up-front labor costs. This credit could provide for one small business, just one business alone, a 20-percent job creation tax credit.

Other economists across the board, the Economic Policy Institute as well as others, have estimated that a job creation tax credit would create approximately 40 percent more jobs than other proposals.

Finally, I would make a point about how it works. Sometimes we pass legislation around here and we do not often think about how it works in the real world--the real world of being an employer, the real world of hiring people and making ends meet, meeting your bottom line, getting your product out the door, all of the real-world challenges our employers face.

The way this would work is, every employer is familiar with what the IRS calls form 941. It is just one of many forms we hear about. But all we would need to do, if we pass this tax credit, is to have a line or two added to that form. The employer would fill it out quarterly and see it right in front of him. He wouldn't have to hire a team of lawyers or tax accountants or other experts, he would just fill that in and be eligible and receive the credit.

It is vitally important that we take these steps for people such as Ron, whom I spoke of before, and others as well, such as Annetta and those individuals I have met. I know the Presiding Officer has met individuals in the State of Colorado and across our country who are facing similar challenges.

Especially when we see more and more the rise in these job loss indicators, to have headline after headline say: Highest job loss in 17 Years, highest job loss in 20, in 23, in 25 years--these are just headlines I have seen over the last couple of weeks in Pennsylvania. To see that, it is not enough to say we will weather the storm and we will try to provide a safety net. We have to have a safety net, but I believe we have to have very targeted and focused strategies that are not theoretical.

We know this will work. We have prior evidence and experience with it. We need to pass the Job Creation Tax Credit to jump-start the creation of jobs this year, in 2010, in the next couple of months and throughout the year.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.