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 some additional ones in there 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 that the need is so great from 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 united states senate. now, to report, mr. president, we thought that maybe getting

the build america bonds program off the ground would result in somewhere in the vicinity of of $5 billion to $10 billion worth of additional investment in infrastructure. the program was authorized as part of the stimulus legislation it didn't really get off the ground until the middle of the next year. and i and my colleagues thought that perhaps the $5 billion to to $10 billion of build america bonds were authorized, that would allow us to make the case that when the program expires at the end of this year, we could call for its renewal. mr. president, 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's 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. so as i mentioned, this bill has a long bipartisan lineage. then-senator talent joined with me about six years ago for this program. the program would have created a federal tax credit bonding program to fund investment and transportation infrastructure. since then, our colleague, senator thune, and four others

on both sides of the aisle have joined us to make sure that the senate was on record as saying we can find sensible, common sense, nonpartisan solutions that address the basic needs that this country has to a great extent overlooked. so 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 would advise my good friend and colleague from delaware, we have had a lot of discussion about exactly what works in infrastructure and what doesn't. now, on top of this $60 billion of build america bond 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 really mobilize all possible resources to fund infrastructure. you have a significant investment in what is called direct spending. i particularly appreciate when 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 -- calls 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 compliment to the outstanding

work that a number of my colleagues who i mentioned are doing. this is not to supplant the kind of direct spending efforts, but to shore it up, to offer additional assistance, particularly additional assistance when the need is so great. so as our proposal was developed, we had an opportunity to work with chairman baucus and senator grassley, the chair and the ranking minority member, on the finance committee because we wanted to make sure that this effort continued to be bipartisan at every step of the way. and i'm 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 that 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, and we felt, our bipartisan coalition, that 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 have sold like hot cakes, getting desperately needed funding flowing into local communities, creating jobs, and helping to strengthen our infrastructure. and as i have suggested, anyone

concerned that in some way this bond program would displace current assistance on infrastructure ought to look just at the numbers that i have cited. under the recovery act, there was $80 billion for direct federal structure spending. it was spend on infrastructure or will be spent within the next year, and build america bonds were sold on top of that assistance. now, 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 district saved an estimated estimated $1.2 million in interest costs. it is a small school district,

mr. president. those kinds of savings make a difference. communities in wisconsin have also used a build america bonds one small community used them to lower their financing costs by 2.3%, allowing it 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 joint c.b.o. joint tax committee report highlighted a number of other benefits from build america bonds. c.b.o. 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 would be spent on other priorities. aside from the fact that the funds are raised efficiently, what i 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 two years of the date the bond is issued. this means that money isn't just flowing into projects. it's being spent in the short term, paying to build roads and bridges and other infrastructure and putting folks back to work quickly. that's the kind of bang for our buck that americans are hungry for right now. that's what build america bonds

deliver. now, 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 wasn't 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, 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 isn't just businesses that buy build america bonds. nonprofits like pension funds have also found build america bonds and attracted investment. although nonprofits can't 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 type of bonds. by contrast, traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds are not a good investment for pension funds and other institutional investors that don't 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. so, mr. president -- and i am not surprised and i think the judgment i have made would be shared by colleagues on other

sides of the aisle because a lot of them have been involved over these last six 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 and communities across this country, make the difference between whether infrastructure projects are actually going to get done or not. in other cases, they lower the cost of the projects and allow communities to reinvest 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, mr. president, that's exactly the kind of solution folks are asking for from the congress at this time. it's fine to speculate about programs that you like 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 that our country is demonstrating all across the country. build america bonds have produced and they have produced exactly what was intended -- a employment infrastructure investment in an efficient fashion. i want to express my appreciation to chairman baucus. under his leadership, the senate finance committee on which i'm 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 in the future. 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 united states senate can take on in a bipartisan way. what we know is we have got something that is working, that is making a difference in this critical infrastructure area, and that literally has six years worth of bipartisan history where democrats and republicans

have come together to team up on an issue that is extraordinarily important to our nation. if we keep working together on good ideas like 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. mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i come to the floor to speak on two nominations and i come as the chairman of the senate -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. feinstein: i appreciate that, mr. president. i ask senate quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you, very much. kim to the floor as it is -- i come to the floor as the chairman of the select committee on intelligence to speak on these nominations because both of these nominees have been before our committee and 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. his name is ambassador phil goldberg, and he 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 people in two different departments. there has been an to this request from the other side, the request to appoint these nominees. the majority leader of the senate has come to the floor twice to implore, to request, to ask that these two nominees not approved because these are top people for respective departments. we just had a national threat hearing, a world threat hearing in the intelligence committee open to the press this afternoon. i asked the question, is -- what is the possibility of a -- an attack against the homeland in the next three to six months. is it high?

is it low? director blair, director panet panetta, director muller o muele fib firks the head of the intelligence agency, the head of the i.n.r., the intelligence agency of the state department, ambassador finger, every one of them said the threat is high, and yet we department get confirmed two top people whose job is to see that the analysis of this intelligence is correct. let me speak for a moment about karen wagner. she's had a distinguished career in public and private service that has prepared her for under secretary of homeland security for intelligence and analysis. now, we just had a christmas eve attack on the homeland. this is the top person of that

department to deal with the intelligence related to exactly this: protection of the homela homeland. and the obama administration has been in office for a year now and we cannot get this nominee confirmed. now, you might think, well, is there a problem with the nominee? and the answer to that is no. she's currently an instructor in intelligence resource management for the intelligence and security academy. she retired from the house permanent select committee on intelligence. prior to that, she served as assistant deputy director of national intelligence for management, and the first chief financial officer for the national intelligence program. she assumed this position after serving as executive director for intelligence community affairs. she has previously served also

as the senior defense intelligence agency representative to the united states european command and the north atlantic treaty organization, as well as deputy director for analysis and production at the defense intelligence administration. she was also formerly the staff director of the subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence at the house permanent select committee on intelligence and a signals intelligence and electronic warfare officer in the united states army. now, where am i going? 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. now, given the overlapping interests of the homeland

security committee, she went to -- then to the homeland security and government affairs committee. there was a hearing there on december 3, and she was passed out of that committee. the fogs 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 attack in the next six months are high. and 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 would hope, whomever it is would whom to the floor and explain why they're holding up this nominee, a woman has a had a lifetime dedicated to intelligence, who would be the top intelligence person in the department of homeland security, one person holding her up. passed out by two committees -- intelligence and homeland security -- without a negative vote. 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've just had an attempted attack? i think not. the under secretary of the 0 office leads efforts to collect

and analyze intelligence, to see that it's shared appropriately, and provided to other intelligence community agencies. the under secretary provides homeland security intelligence and advice to the secretary as well to other senior officials in the department and serves as the department's senior interagency intelligence representative. so 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. and 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.

now, unfortunately, the office of intelligence and analysis has experienced numerous problems in its short tenure, and let me note some of them. the office's ill-defined planning, programming, and budgeting processes. a gross overreliance on contractors, to the point that 63% of the workforce was contracted out as of this summer, and the lack of a strategic plan. these are three major problems. the under secretary needs to get on boards. 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's 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 that 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 0 organization. we should get cracking. we should get it done. we should get this sphot filled. and so -- we should get this spot filled. and so i would respectfully ask that if there is something that we do not know that the homeland security committee of this body does not know, that the intelligence committee of this body does not know, that the person holding her up -- let the

person holding her up come to the floor and tell us what it is because it is a significant deficit not to have this position filled. now let me turn to the nomination of ambassador phillip goldberg to be assistant secretary for intelligence and research at the state department. again, the intelligence committee had a hearing. we had unanimously approved ambassador goldberg's nomination on december 10, the same day we reported out ms. wagner's nomination. ambassador goldberg's distinguished 20-year career in the foreign service where he has served as the charge d'affaires and deputy chief of mission in santiago, chile, the chief of mission in pristina, and also in bogota, columbia, and in south

africa. he is a graduate of boston university and 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 morales accused ambassador goldberg of supporting opposition forces, declaring him persona nongrata and expelled him from the country. the intelligence committee carefully reviewed ambassador goldberg's conduct in bolivia. we have found that ambassador goldberg acted appropriately during his tenure and carried out the policies of the united states government. in fact, an inspector general report on the embassy published in september of 2008 gave ambassador goldberg and his deputy high marks, stating -- and i quote -- "the ambassador

and the deputy chief of mission -- the d.c.m. -- provide clear policy, leadership, and guidance. they gather, they input, and the advice from their staff has forged an excellent working relationship among all agencies and sections at post." end quote. after ambassador goldberg's expulsion from bolar live yarks the state department -- bolivia, the state department strongly defended the ambassador both in the press ads as well as in internal memberia. the intelligence committee believes that ambassador goldberg acted professionally and there is bares no -- bears no blame for the expulsion. since june of 2009, ambassador goldberg has served as the coordinator for the implement thaition of united nations resolution 1876 which imposed

economic and commerce 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 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. the view -- the unanimous view, i believe -- is that 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 i.n.r., produces all all-source intelligence analysis to advise the secretary of straight and other senior policy officials and presents an important viewpoint in the internal deliberations of the intelligence analytic community. i.n.r. 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 i.n.r.'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.

i.n.r. 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 i.n.r. 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's been no reason put forward why he should not be confirmed. two committees have held hearings and recommended his confirmation unanimously, as with both of these nominees, and yet there is a hold on the other

side of the aisle. and as chairman of the intelligence committee, i believe it places our nation at a security disadvantage. and i would really urge that that change. i would really urge that whomever 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 united states senate, express your objections, have the debate and dialogue on the ability, on the experience, on the doings of these two people. they are superbly qualified. neither one of these is just plucked out of some political community and thrust into these positions. they have both been dedicated professionals, and that's one of the reasons why this hold is so

difficult to understand. mr. president, i want you to know -- i want this senate to know that the intelligence committee of which i'm proud to chair takes its responsibility to view the president's nominees to positions requiring senate confirmation very seriously. our process is thorough, and it is bipartisan. the staff does an investigation. the documents are reviewed. the herlin hearing is held. written questions are sent. written questions are answered. questions and their answers are read. the committee discusses it, and the committee votes. in this case, four committees -- well, actually three committees have reviewed these two nominees and found them qualified for their positions.

and yet they are held up. so, bottom line: if you consider that on christmas day we had someone that tried to explode a device, a new device which will be perfected, which will be used again, which is difficult to find by a ma magnetometer in an airport -- will be used again, that the intelligence officials assess with confidence that we face another attack, we ought to get these positions filled. so, mr. president, unless there is some reason why these two nominees are faulty -- if they're not qualified, if they have done something wrong -- then i say, come to the floor of

the senate and oppose them openly. but time is awaisting, and these positions have to be -- but time is awasting, and these positions have to be staffed. and this country needs to be protected and our intelligence professionals need to be in place. and in these two departments, you 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 some way this will make a difference. and i very much hope that we will be able to confirm both of these nominees unanimously approved by the foreign relations committee, one; by the homeland security, the other; and by the intelligence committee, both. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, here we are; it's about 5:55 p.m. we've been here all day today postcloture on patricia smith. again, to recap why we're here -- i'm not certain why we're 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 shror tor

of -- solicitor of labor for the department of labor. finally we had to file cloture because she was being filibustered. that cloture petition ripened last night, and we had a cloture vote last night, and 60 people voted to end debate and bring her up for a vote. well, under the rules of the senate, there are then 30 hours of debate. we've been here over 30 hours. and we are here all day today, and as i understand it, only one person showed up today to talk against her nomination. that is my colleague, senator enzi, of our committee. i looked at his transcript; about what was said yesterday. nothing new came out today. i know mr. enzi opposes her nomination. that po*e no -- that's no secret. that's his right to do that. here we are, 30 hours, only one

person come over to speak against her? again, i just say this to inform the public that here we are, the lights are on, the electricity's running, the bills are going up, and we're here for no good reason whatsoever. we could have voted on this 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 tended to. but the republicans have decided under their leadership to slow everything down. now, i've heard it said by the leadership on the republican side that the public wants them to stop bad legislation. that's why they use the filibuster. this isn't legislation. this is a person to be the solicitor of labor, and obviously she has more than enough votes to get confirmed. she's eminently well qualified, 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'm not denying that -- it's their right to drag it out for 30 more hours. but to what end? for what purpose? has more information come out about ms. smith that might change somebody's mind on how they're going to vote whether she should take this position or not? 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're 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 30 hours after a cloture

vote has been had is usually -- people say, well, there's new information. we've got to bring out something new. we can maybe change some votes. nothing new has come out and nothing new will come out. she's been thoroughly vetted since last april, almost a year. she's responded to every written question. she's responded to any personal request to meet with her. so everything's out there in the open. and, yet, the republicans insist on dragging it out for 30 hours. again, the public has the 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. well, as pr*epl said in his -- as president obama said in his state of the union, skwrufrt saying "no" is not leadership. just saying "no" is not

leadership. that's all we're hearing from the republican side. no to everything. at least let's vote. let's vote. well, it's very frustrating, very frustrating. now, 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 in 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. not for nominations. so, everything is slowed down. well, mr. president, i also just want to say a few more words on behalf of patricia smith. again, we haven't learned anything new in the last 30 hours. i want to make sure, there was

one thing that my colleague and my friend, senator enzi, said today that i did want to respond to. again, it was nothing new but it was said again today, about this watch, 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. well, again, i don't want to repeat what somebody lower down has said. i want to see what did ms. smith herself say about it. what she said about it was that -- here's an e-mail from commissioner smith, from her, january 15 of 2009 when they were starting this program up. here -- here is here email. not some staff person, but ms. smith who is the subject of our nomination here. the watch groups conduct activities which promote labor

law compliance, including handing out leaflets about labor laws to workers at community events or supermarkets, giving know your rights trainings 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 agents, will not be agents, will not be employees, will not be official representatives of the labor department. they are not replacing staff. 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. that's really the way the watch was setup to be. but, again, we keep hearing all these accusations, vigilante and all that kind of stuff.

they're not empowered in any place of business unless the employer let's them or unless it's a place of business where the general public can go, a restaurant, a wal-mart, whatever, stores wherever the public can go, they can go. but they couldn't enter a business that was not generally accessible to the public. so i just want again to set that record straight one more time. now, again, if ms. smith was so bad, i would dare say you couldn't find a business group that would support her. mr. president, i have here a whole bunch of letters from business groups in the state of new york where she is presently the labor commissioner. ex to telling her virtues -- ex tolling her virtues and her ability to work with the business community. here's the business council of new york state. i won't read it all. but it says as the president an c.e.o. of a business statewide

trade organization, i believe ms. smith is superbly qualified to be the solicitor general and urge the committee's immediate disposition of her nomination much he goes on to say ms. smith's tenure leading the labor bureau showed her to be thorough, fair and judicious to ensure compliance with new york's labor law. and 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 balance us with comments as she framed policy and practice within her department. her outreach to us and communication with us was open, honest, candid and frequent. mr. president, i ask consent that the letter from the c.e.o. of the business council of new

york be printed in the record at this point. and here's a letter from the partnership for new york city. and, again, i won't read it all, but it says as an advocate for business and economic development in new york for more than 25 years, i've had the opportunity to interact with many public officials. ms. smith stands out as one of the ms. 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. katherine s. wild, president an c.e.o. of the partnership for new york city. i ask that that record be -- be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: this is from the manufacturers association, the department of labor under the she'dership of commissioner smith has been supportive in enhancing our sector's workforce. commissioner smith and her team have been informative and helpful ensuring our members

have the tools, education, skills, they need in order to succeed. sandy -- signed by randy wolkin. i ask unanimous consent that that letter be in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: here is a letter from the plattsburg 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. he 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 department and will be an outstanding solicitor for the u.s. labor department. we strongly encourage her earliest possible confirmation by the senate. signed by gary f. douglas, c.e.o. of the plattsburg north country chamber of commerce.

i ask that that be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: this is from the long island form for technology. it says with a strong record of achievement in leadership, patricia smith has been an outstanding commissioner of the new york state department of labor. with her vision and energy, we believe she'll make an outstanding addition to the new york department of labor team. signed by c. kenneth morally, president of the long island forum for technology. i ask consent that that be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: 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 see that she is someone who will work with conviction to enforce the laws of the united states of america. additionally i'm 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 at the u.s. department of labor signed by margaret dorfman, the new york women's chamber of commerce. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: ms. smith is imminently well qualified and well vetted and we need a solicitor of labor at the department of labor. this nomination has been hanging here since last april. since last april. it's time to move on. but, again, the republicans are exercising their right. although i think there's an abuse of that right to drag it out for 30 more hours, keep the senate in session for no purpose whatsoever other than just to slow things down in this chamber. to me that's -- that's not a good enough excuse. whatsoever. 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. so i would hope that we could collapse this time frame and vote on it. but evidently the republicans are intent on stretching this out to the maximum 30 hours. as i said, maybe they're right. but i think it's an abuse of that right. mr. president, i yield the floor. toy in the the absence of a -- i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. specter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. specter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. specter: 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 angsz against iran, and -- sanctions against iran, and this is the first opportunity that i had to address the subject and 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. that it is a vital national security interest of the united states that iran not be armed with nuclear weapons. it is of obviously great importance to israel that iran not have nuclear weapons in light of the history, the fact that the iranian president has called for blasting 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 floor, and i ask consent that they be reprinted in full at the conclusion of these -- this summary as if read in full. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. 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 eyiranian parliamentarians and members of congress. and i've been working on that for the better part of a decade. and the extensive written statement summarizes in some detail those efforts. but i have met with the last three iranian ambassadors to the united nations. i've found them all to be highly intelligent, to be articulate, to be cordial and to be interested in a dialogue and in conversations. and i believe if their views were reflected by the ey iranian government, it would be a very different picture than it is at the present time.

and one year i got permission from the state department to have the iranian ambassador to the u.n. come to washington, and in my hideaway -- so-called hideaway office a few feet away from the floor had 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 and it was canceled by the iranian government, and my detailed statement specifies the efforts that i've made over that period of time. but i think we've come to a point now where we have to get, candidly, tough and we have to impose sanctions. president obama said that he would give iran until the end of

the year, referring to the year 2009, to come to the table, and there were some indications that iran would do so. prime minister -- british prime minister gordon smith, gordon brown has made a similar statement, and in a sense, they have drawn a line in the sand. and 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 -- toward sanctions. china, regrettably, has -- has not done so, and comments by secretary of state hillary clinton just last week are important on this -- on this subject. the secretary of state said that 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 as a nuclear iran as an existential threat. well, it has long been articulated that the military option is on the table, and israel has demonstrated its

resoluteness, a small nation surrounded by -- vastly outnumbered by the arab population, still technically at war with the arab countries, peace treaties only with egypt and jordan. israel demonstrates its capability and willingness to take out the iraq reactor in 1981 and more recently the syrian -- syrian installation which is believed to have been working on nuclear weapons. and secretary of state clinton is blunt in the grave threat posed by the relationship that -- situation which israel is concerned about with iran becoming a nuclear force. so 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 and russia and great britain and france and germany and other nations, india, in imposing really tight sanctions, financial sanctions on the financial institutions, on tra trade, on supplying gasoline, on supplying iranian needs that we could -- the world could make its point. and i think iran would have to capitulate. and how much better it is to use economic sanctions than to take the military option off the table. i do believe that if the united

nations, with china's concurrence, had showed its determination to impose sanctions that it would have a -- a -- have the potential to bring compliance by iran. russia has made a proposal that russia would enrich iran's uranium. if iran is really sincere that iran does not want enriched uranium for military purposes for a bomb, but only wants them 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've had occasion to visit

vienna on two occasions. i met with the international atomic energy agency and muhammad el bardi to discuss the activities that he has undertaken. very able, skilled international diplomat, recently left that position which he held for years. but, mr. el-bardi was very pessimistic as to what iran was prepared to do, 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 for a vote. i have 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, and in 1990 senator shelby and i had a talk with saddam hussein. 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 october of 1981, and 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 of the

russian jews were going to israel. i saw him shuffling some papers, and i knew that he knew that i was jewish. i wanted him to know that i knew that he knew, and i said my father was a russian jew who emigrated to the united states. i believe the russian jews ought to go wherever they want to go, and there is a -- and 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. and i do not know if anything could have deterred him from his

aggression against kuwait or his later activities, but i have long been a believer with a 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've had the privilege of traveling extensively in foreign countries and have sought out the people who are -- who might be categorized as our enemies. i had a useful talk a few years back with the leader in venezuela, several visits to fidel castro in cuba, conversations with arafat both in ramallah, gaza, when he came to washington, came to my office downstairs looking for money from the foreign operations

subcommittee; have made many trips to seer kwrarbgs got to know hafez al asad and bashir assad, one of six senators who visited syria about a month ago to talk to president bashir assad about the possibility of a peace treaty. i believe syria could hold the key to peace in the mideast. only israel could decide if israel wants to give up the golan. 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. and it is a different world today than it was in 1967, when israel took the golan.

it's not the same strategic importance. the point that 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. that is why i have joined the effort. i think that the president has given fair notice to iran, that they come to the table by the end of the year, and we're a little past that. and we obviously have problems with china on a number of fronts. we have problems on the taiwan issue on 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. we have broader issues on human rights and china's emerging as a tremendous world power. we're challenged at every line. but i do believe that the logic of the situation is that it is in china's interest not to have a nuclear iran. our codel, after visiting in syria, went on to india, 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 a nuclear -- an iran which is armed with nuclear weapons. so it is my hope that 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 renew my request that my full written statement be included in the record, and i ask that the "congressional record" recite the language i'm using now. usually when summary is concluded and a formal statement is put in the record, it just is changed. if anybody reads the "congressional record" -- i think there is a chance that somebody does -- they wonder why senator specter's making all this repetitious statement, that he's made this statement and here's all this repetition. if you put this explanation in just as i have said it, the reader will know that i have summarized and amplified to some extent. what follows now is not repetition as such, but the formal statement which was

prepared in advance. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. specter: i thank the chair and yield the floor. in the absence of any other senator seeking recognition, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: thank you, mr. president. i would ask consent that the quorum call be be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise tonight to speak about job loss in the united states of america, but in particular, some of the individuals, real people and real families across our state that i have met the last couple of weeks who have told some of their stories about how they're struggling in this recession. and, unfortunately, just in terms of numbers, the numbers have not gotten better in our state. we went a long period of time when, at least as a percent of those who are 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're not at the 10% number that

the country is, but we're at about 8.9% right now. we just got some regional numbers today. we have have, our state's divided up into 14 labor markets. unfortunately, in almost every one of them that number keeps going up. i'd ask consent that i be permitted to insert, or make part of the record a two-page summary of the unemployment data from pennsylvania. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i'll just highlight one or two regions to give you a sense of the gravity of the problem. we have in southeastern pennsylvania, two major regions that have had very strong economies over time. the philadelphia metropolitan region, the city of philadelphia, the suburban counties. they've done well economically. but that number is going up. the number, the total tphufpl

unemployed is over -- number of unemployed is over 164,000 pennsylvanians in that corner of the state. and that's just about five counties. 164,000 people. just above that in -- north of that in lehigh valley, the allentown-bethlehem region, they're at 9.8%, some 40,700 people out of work. my home area in northeastern pennsylvania, north of the lehigh valley, we got reports today of the job market going up to 9.7% unemployment. highest in 17 years. we could go across the state and tell the same story. so the numbers are going higher. and, of course, that means the challenge, the misery, the -- the heartache, really, for those who have lost their jobs is only rising. so we have to meet that

challenge and part of meeting that challenge isn't just addressing in terms of policy. and i'll 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're -- as i was sitting in the same room more than a week ago, with eight of our unemployed pennsylvanians. just give you two examples. one individual sitting right across from me, his name is ron, he was laid off last april. he's 61 years old. one of the most compelling stories in terms of where he was with a job and where he is today. he was laid -- 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 rap rental companies.

during my -- facilities and rental companies. during my conversation with ron, he talked about his wide experience seemed to be working against him in this labor market. ron was earning more tha than $100,000 before he was laid off. today he and his wife are getting by on her earnings in a clerical job and his unemployment compensation, which amounts to just $40,000. so in his life it's a $100,000 incomverseus now a $40,000 income. i met anetta, she was on my right as we were talking to these eight individuals, and she had -- a lot of -- a lot of energy and vigor. and you could tell she was a very good employee. she worked for a retirement home until she was laid off.

anetta has been using her time to be a c.n.a., certified nurse's aid. in order to obtain her certification, anetta, had to pay for a final exam and a physical. she didn't have the money -- she didn't have the money to upfront the cost of those tests and, thus, couldn't obtain her certified nurse's assistant certification. according to anetta, the most frustrating part of her experience, she has the experience of a certified nurse of a previous employer who did not require formal certification. i was particularly touched by her comments that a single person, in this case i should say as a single person, anetta fears having no one to fall back on in these tough times. and also her embarrassment, what we would always say to her, anyone in this situation, you

shouldn't be embarrassed. you're in a difficult situation. you lost a job through no fault of your own. but, of course, that's not the way she sees it in terms of how she feels in her heart. she feels a sense of embarrassment to have to turn to churches for food. that's why we have an increase in food stamps here. we legislate to do that. it's not only good for that individual. taxpayers have an added economic benefit from an increase in food stamps an increase in unemployment insurance, just to name two examples. but what strikes me most about the stories that -- that each of these individuals told but -- in particular, as i cite them tonight, ron and anetta, they're 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've made to -- to -- to get back to work. i know that the presiding officer would remember the presentation that president obama made to us in december on a sunday. we were meeting in caucus about health care, and he came over to talk to us. he talked about meeting individuals who are out of work in -- in another part of pennsylvania in allentown at a job center. what he said from early december was very similar to what i heard in -- in late january, which is these are individuals who are out of work through no fault of their own. they're working and struggling, leading lives of tremendous struggle and sacrifice and heartache, but they're not complaining. they're determined to get a job. they're filling out scores and scores of applications. sometimes being rejected formally and sometimes hearing nothing at all.

that's the lives that they're leading. and i think the president's visit and other visits by -- by some of us in the senate are confirming that sense of determination, that sense of gratitude that they have for -- that there are programs to help them while they're unemployed. but also a -- a tremendous resilience and ability to -- to live through and work through this struggle. so what do we do? well, we could -- 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. and 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 -- in their business. who want to maybe move people up who have done a good job and increase their payroll in -- in that way. but especially to hire more people. to hire folks that 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 one that i introduced -- the bill that i introduced yesterday, the small business job creation tax credit act. it's 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 one-year bill. it would be in effect for one year so it's very targeted in terms of the time. the credit would apply to an

employee's wages up to the social security base o of $106,800. that would be the limit of the -- what you could count for the tax credit. if you got less than 100 employees, you get a 20% credit. more than 100 employees, 15%. we know, as we've heard today on -- in -- 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 three-year period from 2003 to 2006, small businesses accounted for more than 91% of the job creation. so we know by giving small businesses a 20% tax credit under 100 employees, that that can have a substantial benefit on those employers. obviously on those who can -- can obtain work and i think in a larger way our economy. we put a limit on the credit.

one company couldn't have more than a half million dollars by way after credit. -- by way of a credit. and you would basically compare one-quarter in 2010, for example, v. that corresponding quarter in 2009. we know that 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 -- or a score or number so to speak. the congressional budget office has said a 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 upfront labor costs. this credit could provide for one small business -- one -- just one business alone a 20%

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% more jobs than other proposals. finally, i'd make a point about how it works. sometimes we pass legislation around here and we don't 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, and meeting your bottom line, getting a product out the door. all of the real world challenges that our employers face. well, the way that this would work is every employer is familiar with -- with the i.r.s. calls form 941. just one of many forms that we hear about. but all that we would need to do if we pass this tax credit is have a line or two added to that form. the employer would fill that out quarterly and see it in front of

them. wouldn't have to hire a team of accounts ants or lawyers and could fill that in and receive the credit. it's vitally important that we take these steps for people like ron that i spoke of before -- of before and others as well like anetta and other individuals that i met with and i know the presiding officer has met individuals in the state of colorado and across our country who are facing similar challenges. an especially when we see more and more -- and especially when we see more and more the rise in these job loss indicators to have -- to have headline after headline say highest job loss in 17 years, highest job loss in 20 -- in 23 and in 25 years. just headlines i've seen over the last couple of weeks in pennsylvania. to see that, it's not enough just to say weather the storm and we'll try to provide a safety net. we have to have a safety net.

but i believe we have to have targeted and focused strategy that's are not theoretical. we know this will work. we have prior evidence and experience with it. we need to pass a 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. and, with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor and neat the -- and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. 2000 without objection, so ordered. -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: after the opening of the senate on february 4, that the senate resume consideration

of calendar 474, the nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor of the department of labor. that 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 made and laid upon the table. no -- no further motion to be in order. the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. that there be two hours of debate prior to a cloture vote with respect to calendar number 188, the nomination of martha johnson to be administrator of the g.s.a. 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 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: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to en bloc executive calendar numbers 654, 661, 667, to and including 685, and all nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, marine corps and navy. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, that no further motions be in order, that any statements relating to the

nominations appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permited to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 405, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 405, reaffirming the centrality of freedom and expression and press freedom as cornerstones of united states foreign policy and united states efforts to promote individual rights, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be

laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of s. res. 406, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 406, recognizing the goals of catholic schools week and honoring the valuable contributions of catholic schools in the united states. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 noon on thursday, february 4. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed

expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the smith nomination as provided for under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, the senate will not be in session tomorrow in order to accommodate the democratic issues conference. we were, however, able to reach an agreement to vote at approximately 12:30 p.m. thursday on confirmation of the nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor for the department of labor. following disposition of the smith nomination, there will be two hours for debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of martha johnson to be administrator for general services. also under the agreement, if cloture is invoked on the johnson nomination, the senate would immediately proceed to vote on confirmation. therefore, there would be up to two additional votes in the

3:00 p.m. range, so that would mean one vote around 12:30 p.m. and up to two votes around 3:00 p.m. thursday. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 12:00 noon thursday, february 4. >> "washington journal"

continues. host:çq jaç nmirvea is presidt and ceo of la raza. what is your concern about the u.s. economy, especially as it affects the latino community? guest: like all american families, a hispanic families are concerned about jobs and the economy. we certainly would like to see specific strategies implemented that would target latino families and communities of color. our sense is that during the last stimulus package, that was approved and push forward, there

was a lot of funding in there to reach out to states and localities but it is not entirely evident to us that much of that funding reached the most needed individuals and families. to engage congress and the w3administration as we look at a new jobsç creation package to makeç sureç that there are targeted programs2that reach te most vulnerable families and also provide relief to middle- class families. host: last week the national council of la raza put out a news release talking about a partnership with freddie mac, tell us about the portion of what you are trying to do. guest: basically we want to ensure there are more opportunities for transparency when it comes to lending and community development. we want to make sure there is access to community development funds as well as loans that are

fair, and allow our folks to really understandq what are goig to be the implications when they take on loans, when they looked at trying toç develop communities. they want to make sure there are targeted funds there that are actually going to leverage in many ways for those communities. freddie mac has been a great partner in many ways for those communities, and so freddie mac has been a great partner in making sure we are reducing the amount of predatory lending that is out there. there's a number of folks in our communities that are very vulnerable when it comes to predatory lending practices. there are on scrupulous actors out there in the lending community and we want to make sure our families have full access to information and also when it comes to purchasing a home we have found and the data supports homeownership

counseling is the most effective way to make sure that families are fully informed and educated when they are making these significant purchases and not only that but helping them plan for these purchases. a lot of folks need better education and exposure to the credit system and understanding about savings and how they can maybe do more savings for their families and plan for that purchase and these homeownership counseling programs in partnership with entities like freddie mac have been quite successful and best practice models we want to take to scale as a result of that. >> host: do you feel predatory lending has been targeted specifically at the latino and hispanic community? >> guest: there's no question the communities of color are quite vulnerable. latino and african-american families have been highly indexed. we see the data support a higher index than other families where they are absolutely taken and

then the judge and you have bad actors and there is no real regulation, no real accountability when we see the bad actors at play in these communities and so as a result there is legislation moving through the congress now that i think is going to try to target many of those bad actors and provide again more opportunity for education for vulnerable families so that they can use the education as a tool to arm themselves and be educated when they engage lenders were too small loans. that's very important because we find many of our families get into trouble when they are not fully educated informed and not looking into the background of these lenders. we still find when you don't read the fine print and the convoluted and complicated and people are easily taken

advantage of. there's no reason for that. we should have homeownership counseling programs in every community so that we are harming our folks in the best possible way to make the best possible loans and savings and investments for their families. >> host: in the jobs bills working their way through the congress right now do you feel the enough is being done by the folks in washington, d.c. to help get jobs into the latino community? >> guest: not enough, and we are very much engaging brenau with the out fenestration and congress they do need to act and act soon as we know but a number of the funds that went through the stimulus package we found didn't quite reach down into the communities that most need them and individuals that need them. we are hoping this next opportunity to get their jobs package will actually make sure there are proposals that in sure small business community members

can have access to funds they can use to than create jobs and perhaps this tax credit the president submitted in in his budget i think is an attractive tax credit for allowing any small business to hire someone to get a 5,000-dollar tax credit that applies not only to small businesses but for us to nonprofit community and we have a network of 300 community-based organizations between the small business and nonprofit community that is a large segment of the sector that in place latinos today. so we think incentives that can be targeted directly and one thing i talked about before that i think we can really see a more infusion of funds around as homo hershel counselors. we are finding right now as we know the housing situation across the country is in dire straits. many of these properties need to be rehabilitated.

we can find ways where we are doing two things. what we are engaging individuals to help rehabed these properties and make them more suited to be inhabited and making sure the ground around a lot of these different properties are up kept and that is a key way to keep a lot of folks in jobs. there is whether programs that can lead to the green jobs being created. there must be a target of fundy's there but to help folks get into some of the homes we need infusion of funds so we can create more of these homeownership counselors. that is a way we are going to be able to bring people to work and see a benefit as a result of that work and taking care of another issue. at the foreclosure rate for communities of color is much too high right now. i think the estimate is between now and 2012 between african and latino families we are going to

seek out to 2.3 million families at risk of losing their homes. there are strategies we can put in place in a jobs creation package that can address the foreclosure issue as well as the jobs creation issue and we needs more strategies that are targeted to localities and reached to those families who can benefit the most and we haven't seen that so far. >> host: we are talking with janet murguia of the national council of la raza, she is the president and ceo and we are talking about the economy and the latino community. if you want to get involved in the conversation, 202-737-0001 for republicans, democratic and co for democrats, independent, 202-628-0205. yesterday in the white house briefing robert gibbs responded to the reporter's question regarding president obama stance on immigration reform. we are going to show that and then get your response.

despite the president's position on immigration reform and what he supports is enormously clear. he campaigned on it and he worked on legislation that i think is quite similar to what would come up this year in the house and the senate with people like john mccain and lindsey graham in 2005 and 2006 in the samet. like climate change there are bipartisan efforts on going to bring legislation like this to the floor and create bipartisan majority to kick it passed. the president hosted a meeting not too long ago to keep the process going, and we look forward to taking part in it. >> host: janet murguia. >> guest: we are disappointed and frustrated that there wasn't

more attention given to this issue both in the state of the union and by the administration to engage the congress more directly on this issue. we believe that a strong case can be made for immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform are around the economy and jobs creation. it's hard to ignore a segment of sleeper that is -- labor that is in this country but not benefitting from the revenue these individuals are currently potentially able to provide. there have been studies shown that a strong fiscal case can be made that if we do comprehensive immigration reform there were loud simply be a boom into the economy and we can see jobs created.

i will mention to you the most recent report by the samet to the cassette for american progress where they make a strong case in addition to job creation we see wage increases for american workers as a result of comprehensive immigration reform in the report raising the floor for american workers it concluded the u.s. gdp would rise by $1.5 trillion over ten years if congress enacts comprehensive immigration reform and granting legal status to hire undocumented and creating flexible legal limits on immigration flow would also raise the wage floor for all american workers and enacting such legislation would generate enough consumer spending to support 750,000 to 900,000 new jobs. so we can make the case that if you can do country inns of immigration reform it may be counter intuitive. there's a lot of folks who would think that's a threat to the american job situation. absolutely can help benefit the

american job situation and the economy and we would like to see not only the president but congress and forward on this issue, show the courage they can not only address the job creation situation and the economy but also deal with a problem that needs to be dealt with and can be done in a bipartisan way. so we are encouraged by the work senator schumer is doing with senator lindsey graham, republican of south carolina. we are encouraged congressman luis gutierez introduced a very good bill in the house of representatives, but it really is going to take much more leadership from the president who made a promise quite frankly to the latino community that hasn't been forgotten that he would make this issue a priority in his first year. >> host: let's take a call from louisiana. danny on the line for democrats. you were with janet murguia with the national council of la raza. colcord yes, ms. murguia, i see

inconsistencies in your argument. for one thing, it seems the take away from them. if you do make all of these illegal is illegal, they are quneducated, cannot speak english, and all things being equal pay wise, they are going to choose the more educated american worker over them and what we are doing is in fact importing a whole class of welfare people in the end when qtup&. guest: obviously i disagree with that assertion. there is no question in our mind that therei] is enough data out >> guest: well, there is no question in our mind that there is enough data out there to support the fact that when we are looking at the economy a strong case can be made for leveraging of the benefits of

revenue from the work force that currently right now is being exploited and taken advantage of and we need to make sure that we are raising the wage base for all workers and not just one segment of workers and if you ignore that segment of workers that is also there you are not going to solve the whole problem and for us we believe that by leveraging comprehensive immigration reform is part of an infusion of creating more opportunities to generate and stimulate the economy that you can benefit from this increase of revenue that currently is not moving into the system so i g. agree with his assertion i sold real estate during the 1980's and 1990's, and it was my experience that if a latino family could manage to come up

with the down payment in order to get into the house, they were the best credit risk imaginable because their home meant soç mh to them that they would do anything to stay in it. now, as far as what has happened since then, i don't have as much experience with that. çand these were more conventiol loans. but they would never go into foreclosure. but i do have one they would never go into foreclosure but i do have one comment and this also goes along with the change is that what does your guest plan to do about the huge dropout rate in the current latino community? >> host: thank you for your call, linda. sorry to cut you off.

>> guest: i think linda points out an important fact and it's one that i think is represented by the data is that when we are able to ensure that latino families actually get a little help navigating the system, understanding mortgages and the down payments and looking for the fees as they engage they are very worthy of credit because they are very mindful of making the payments and they treat that situation for me tell you perspective, and it really is something that they understand that their word is at stake when they sign a paper that says they are going to make a commitment, and we've seen that manifested in the different ways when families have been bombarded in the system and they've been fully informed and educated about what their responsibilities are. they very much want to make sure

they are doing everything they can to honor that system and that is something that we can benefit from if we have more transparent and accountable system when it comes to those lenders and folks who are playing roles in the market system, and we want to make sure that latinos and all families vulnerable are getting access to that information. so, she's right. the credit ratings for latinos are actually very good and positive. the problem is they are still vulnerable when they are not fully informed. >> host: air and in phoenix arizona, go ahead. aaron? >> caller: yes, thank you for >> host: thanks for waiting. >> caller: i would like to ask the la raza viewpoint on the clear lead racist border walls. what's happening is they're putting the bubbles up in areas where there is a lot of migration or there is a higher

number of immigrants passing and the result is the situation has gone from bad to worse where there is more fatalities in the desert. more families are being found dead out there. the government and police will try to stop you from taking water. it is a clearly -- that brings to mind other things in history. and what was the result of those? thanks for taking my call. thanks. >> guest: the caller mentions a tragic thing still occurring every day and i think the average is at least one person dying every day to try to come in this country, and for us i think we believe that it really does call for the need for comprehensive immigration reform. we shouldn't have families and

individuals dying literally to get into this country. we should have a more rational human system and that should be reflected in a comprehensive immigration reform and it does call for the sense of urgency that's needed and the moral imperative that we have to create a comprehensive immigration reform that is obviously fair and follows the rule of law but we want to make sure that it is also a humane, and right now the signals being sent, the fact that it is a broken system there are families who are lured to come to the united states because they have a vision of coming and creating a better life for themselves and if they find themselves tragically often in the midst of life threatening and oftentimes we have seen death occur on the border as a result of that and it's really reflective of a

current broken system that reflects an inhumane policy and we should do comprehensive and immigration reform and to bring more sense of humanity into that. >> host: the next call comes from ditty in waukegan illinois on the line for democrats. >> caller: i disagree with the leedy. the hispanics have taken over. every job you go to it is the african americans suffering in my town. they felt their own currency changes, they've built their own airline services. if you don't speak both languages you can't get a job, so i disagree with the lady. it's the african-american suffering, not hispanics. have a good day. >> guest: thank you. well, i'm sorry she feels that way. i know that there are sometimes

tensions around this issue and l.a. times i think there are folks who can fall into -- i think this misperception that when new commerce coming to this country that somehow they are taking away from the current environment in some fashion but the reality is these newcomers, and we've seen this history throughout, you know, the whole of our country and that is that we have thrived as a result of the dynamism and the contributions that immigrants have given to this country. we just have to find a system that is a rational system that allows them to come into place and allows rules to be set and be followed. and we need to have a comprehensive reform that clarifies what the standard will be for the future flow of

immigrants, with the enforcement standard should be and allow us to once and for all have a legalization for those who are here. if we could do all of that, i think it would go a long way to address these perceptions that somehow newcomers are taking away from others. i don't think that is the case at all and we should respect our history as a nation of laws but also recognize we have been a nation of immigrants and benefited tremendously from that. >> host: our conversation regarding economy and latino community continues with juan on the line for republicans in fairfax virginia. hello? >> caller: yes i just wanted to say -- i wanted to tell ms. murguia regarding the homeownership and instructors of educating the community here in northern virginia we have many,

including myself and my mother who have small business owners in the area. i am a third generation doing very well, and i think what is needed is not only comprehensive reform and immigration but also just a comprehension of the latino community. it is a great organization that prides itself in the understanding of the community, but i think that a little bit of more -- in my experience when i was a university student there was a little more radical leftist kind of organization that i felt very not welcoming to the latino like myself and i have been that way since i was little. republican latinos, we want to be involved, we want to be part of that movement and getting to know the latino community means getting to know latino republicans in the north of virginia area and i think that would help a lot toward, you know, people like myself and my mother to be more open for

working with organizations to bring the construction to the community and we don't have to be democrat, republican or independent, we just want to help and that is what we are all about. >> host: juan, we are out of time. i'm going to let you go. >> guest: i appreciate that. the fact is we are a nonpartisan organization, and our mission really is to open the door to the american dream for all families including the latino family, and to create opportunities for hispanics is not a partisan edge. we are not a partisan organization. we've reached out to members of congress and individuals on both sides of the aisle. we serve all of those we believe can benefit from that mission and we have engaged republicans and democrats in the past. for us it's not really about those labels. it's about what's in the best interest of the community, and i

hope that juan will get a chance, look at the website and engage many of our affiliates, and we affiliate's in northern virginia that work in particular with small-business owners and help create opportunities for entrepreneurs and we certainly don't look at labels. i know there are some people who have used the name la raza in a way that has been derogatory and a lot of it has been by the critics but the reality is that we are an american institution that has served the latino community and many families in this country for 40 years and w are a great american institution with a tremendous record of surface and one that i think folks if they look at the website at nclr.org can see the tremendous benefits we are creating in opportunities that we are creating for many families today. >> host: and while we are looking at the website we will take the next call from blair's town new jersey. mark on the line for independent.

>> caller: yes good morning. my name is mark from blair's town new jersey. i'm also going to be running for congress against illegal aliens and i think the need to be removed. i'm a small business contractor. i work in the construction trade and over the last five years the legal community completely decimated the value of american workers. they've destroyed our health care system. how can it be fair to! give thee people amnesty without holding them accountable and making them pay for their damage to the country? >> guest: i don't know if you caught this, rob, but in the question he did something that is highly offensive to many of us in the latino community and who are citizens of this great country. he acquitted of the hispanic community with the legal community and i want to if anybody else, that but obviously i caught it and that is something that i think has created an issue for many, and particularly many that we saw

reflected on the extreme viewpoints that have i think polarized debate around immigration reform but they are often times and officials who will paint a broad brush when they talk about the undocumented come emt and refer to what they call as the legal and pay this broad brush with all the hispanic community is a very unfair assertion and one that i think not only the hispanic community represents but anybody .l-h%'q)e withoutl6ks#a oute ause of gimmicksuevogmj4óbá5aq%= that assertion and plans to get the latino vote, i will make a prediction you will not get very far in the race.

we should not be painted for this broad brush. we have fought and died for this country and have a record of great patriotism and for folks to sing aloud undocumented immigrants and tried to paint a broad brush. host: for viewers and listeners tune in to see the senate finance committee hearing, they are a little bit late getting started. ç. we will go live until they start a hearing. we will continue our discussion about the latino community. our next call comes from boise, idaho, linda on the line for

democrats. go ahead. caller: i am listening with great interest. i was born in phoenix, arizona, in 1943 and lived there most of my life. i left that state in 2000. i also was university of arizona in tucson right after high school. that town has and had been a wonderful hispanic community that keeps going for many years since before the turn of the century. i do admire their contributions. but the influxççó of a criminal element, whether it is legal or illegal, into arizona, has destroyed both of those towns that i love so much. phoenix has more kidnappings

than any other town in america, and they are all drug-related, because so many of the hispanics but, across the border bring their drugs -- drug- dealing ways with them, and are extremely violent. host: linda, i will leave it there. guest: i appreciate linda's point ofç view is thatxd no on# welcomes a criminalç element in their community, not hispanics, not anybody. that isokçç çç

guest: use the an over-abuse, sometimes, of that authority.i] it is harming not only our community, but is really a threat to our american society. we need comprehensive immigration reform for a lot of reasons. i think we should be clear that no one at welcomes the criminal element.

on behalf of the intelligence community. direct care of the central intelligence agency, leon panetta. director federal bureau of investigation, bob mueller. director of the defense intelligence agency, lieutenant general ron burgess. an act team assistant secretary of state, it ambassador john dinger. mishearing presents an annual opportunity to focus on the threat our nation faces and it provides a rare form for the public to receive strategic intelligence analysis. i think that right now the top right on everyone's mind is the heightened terrorism threat,

especially against our own homeland. the committee has held hearings in the past two weeks to review the christmas day attempted attack by umar farouk abdulmutallab and the fort hood shootings by united states army major hassan. we have also reviewed the attack on cia's coast base in the third afghanistan on december 30th, the most deadly attack against cia personnel in decades. these three events are reminders of the ongoing threat to the nation faces from within and without. and the challenges and dangers with which the intelligence community must deal on a daily basis. we've been briefed on the continuing terrorist threat and how to think direct their mueller for our discussion yesterday. i received a link be followed briefing on the status of

ongoing terrorism investigations and intelligence we received as part of those investigations. i know this is a very sensitive matter and will ask its members to a question relating to counterterrorism operation will hold them until we can go to a classified session at the end. the written testimony submitted to rest today provides an important reminder, stating that and i quote, the recent successful and attempted attacks represent an evolving threat in which it is even more difficult to identify and track small numbers of terrorists, recently recruited and trained and short-term plats than to find out follow tarasov condition plots that have been going on for years, end quote. our committee stands ready and willing to provide the tools,

gentlemen, you need to make sure our counterterrorism efforts are the very best they can be. despite the christmas day and fort hood intelligence shortcomings, the intelligence community has supported numerous terrorist plots and apprehended several suspects in 2009. and i'd like to take a few off. al qaeda operative, living outside denver was identified through good intelligence work is having trained in pakistan and conspiring with others to detonate a bomb in the united states. to what his associates were arraigned in january and his father also has been charged. secondly, chicago-based david hedley was identified for his involvement in the last car you paid the attacks on mumbai in 2008 and for his connection to a

plot to bomb a danish newspaper. three, 14 people were charged in minnesota this year for recruiting from mali american youth to travel to somalia, trained and fight alongside terrorist groups. in october, tarik mohammadi was arrested in boston and challenged with plotting to attack shopping malls and seeking out terrorist training. in september, omar hasan was arrested for planting a bomb in a dallas skyscraper. earlier in the year, daniel boy was identified as having traveled to terrorist training camps and plotting an attack on u.s. military police now at the quantico marine base. he was charged along with six others on charges that include spidering to provide material

support to terrorists. so clearly, there have been both counterterrorism successes and a few failures. a threat to the homeland is high in the terrorist groups have identified ways of getting operators and facilitators into the country without raising suspicion. that may shift from terrorism to the topic at dni blair highlights in his written testimony, the threat to our government, public and private sector firm cyber espionage, crime and attack. director, your description of the problem is very blunt and i believe it to be accurate. the need to develop an overall cyber security strategy is very clear. this committee has carefully examined cyber security through five hearings in the past year. carefully reviewed various