{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6886", "2014-12-16", 113, 2, null, null, "NOMINATION OF ANTONY BLINKEN TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SNOMINATIONS", "S6886", "S6897", "[{\"name\": \"Barbara A. Mikulski\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Orrin G. Hatch\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Benjamin L. Cardin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Johnny Isakson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Hoeven\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheldon Whitehouse\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Coburn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John McCain\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert Menendez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Carl Levin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Michael B. Enzi\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jon Tester\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Cornyn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Harry Reid\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"3013\"}, {\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"3019\"}]", "160 Cong. Rec. S6886", "Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S6886-S6897]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n      NOMINATION OF ANTONY BLINKEN TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will\nproceed to the consideration of the following nomination, which the\nclerk will report.\n  The bill clerk read the nomination of Antony Blinken, of New York, to\nbe Deputy Secretary of State.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5\np.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.\n  The Senator from Maryland.\n\n         Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 1058\n\n  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague\nSenator Ben Cardin from Maryland.\n  Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Take your\nconversations out of the Chamber.\n  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does that mean all conversations, Mr. President?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Please take your conversations outside the\nChamber. Thank you.\n  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am on the floor, along with my\ncolleague Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland, to advocate for Carolyn\nColvin to be confirmed as the Social Security Commissioner, making her\nthe chief executive officer of the Social Security Administration.\n  I am very frustrated that her nomination has become a casualty of the\nSenate clock and unfair attacks by some Members of the Republican\nParty. We need a Social Security Administrator and we need a competent,\nqualified person to lead it and that is Carolyn Colvin. Ms. Colvin's\nnomination is important because the work of the Social Security\nAdministration is important.\n  Over 60 million Americans rely on Social Security--900,000 in\nMaryland. Seniors, individuals with disabilities, and children depend\non the benefits and services of the Social Security Administration. It\nis a big agency with big responsibilities. It supports 63,000 Social\nSecurity employees; 11,000 are in the Social Security headquarters in\nWoodlawn. It is not about the numbers, it is about what they do.\n  Guess what they do. They administer $950 billion in benefit payments,\napproximately 25 percent of all government spending. Last year over 40\nmillion people came to its field offices, 47 million people called the\n800 number, 5 million came for retirement, 2.8 million came for their\ndisability. I go through the numbers because it shows an agency, with\nthe magnitude of its responsibility, making sure we determine who is\neligible for Social Security, that there is no fraud in Social\nSecurity, and that it is administered in a competent, careful way for\nthe American people.\n  That means you have to have a permanent Administrator; you cannot\nhave someone acting. That is why we go to Carolyn Colvin. She is\nskilled. She is seasoned. She is experienced. She started out as a\nclerk at Social Security, and in her public service she has risen\nthrough the ranks in a variety of very important positions, being well\nknown and well respected, and is an excellent public administrator. She\nis a problem solver, she is a reformer, and she has been the Deputy\nsince December 2010 and Acting Commissioner since February 2013.\n  I am frustrated at the attacks on Ms. Colvin. It is about a techno\nboondoggle that began under her predecessor, not under her. In fact,\nshe commissioned the McKinsey & Company to study the problem. The\nminute she wanted to get to the bottom of the problem, she was accused\nof all kinds of things.\n  Everything has been referred to the inspector general. They said\nlet's wait for the inspector general. Guess what. The inspectors\ngeneral keep recusing themselves for this reason or that reason. While\nthey are recusing, the Republicans are using it as excusing, and we\ncan't get to Carolyn Colvin.\n  For those who need Social Security, as well as for those who want to\nmake sure the benefits are administered competently, we need a\npermanent Administrator.\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the\nfollowing nomination: Calendar No. 1058, the nomination of Carolyn\nWatts Colvin to be the Commissioner of Social Security; and further\nthat the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination;\nthe motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table\nwith no intervening action or debate; and that no further motions be in\norder to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the\nRecord; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's\naction.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.\n  Mr. HATCH. No, Mr. President; reserving the right to object.\n  I spoke at length on the floor about my opposition to confirming Ms.\nColvin at this time. While I do not doubt Ms. Colvin's qualifications\nfor this position, there is a cloud hanging over her nomination, and I\ndo not believe the Senate should move forward with her confirmation\nuntil that cloud is removed.\n  Since Ms. Colvin's nomination was reported out of the Finance\nCommittee, several sources, including the House Ways and Means\nSubcommittee on Social Security, the House Oversight and Government\nReform Committee, and individual whistleblowers have reported that the\nSocial Security Administration, over a 6-year period, burned through\n$300 million in a failed attempt to develop and implement the\nDisability Case Processing System or DCPS. Some of this happened on Ms.\nColvin's watch as she has served as Acting Commissioner of the SSA.\n  Sadly, it gets worse. We also heard allegations from multiple sources\nthat SSA officials intentionally misled the agency's inspector general,\nas well as Congress, about the deficiencies in the development of the\nDCPS in order to facilitate Ms. Colvin's confirmation in the Senate.\n  These are serious allegations, and an investigation--one that may\nvery well conclude a criminal element--is ongoing. Once again, Ms.\nColvin currently serves as the Acting Commissioner of SSA. This\ninvestigation includes people working in her immediate office.\n  Put simply, the Senate should not move forward on her nomination\nuntil this matter is resolved. I intend to work with our two colleagues\nfrom Maryland to see if we can resolve this issue. It may very well be\nthat Ms. Colvin has done nothing wrong. I voted for her out of\ncommittee. I certainly hope she has done nothing wrong. I hope that is\nthe case. But we should at least be sure before we move her nomination\nforward; therefore, I have to object at this time.\n  I believe my colleague Senator Isakson may have some comments on this\nmatter as well.\n  I will surely try to work with my colleagues and see if we can\nexpedite this if there is no problem.\n  I have nothing against Ms. Colvin at all. In fact, I interviewed her\nin my office. I quite enjoyed meeting with her.\n  We will see what we can do to move this forward, but as of right now\nI have to object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.\n  The junior Senator from Maryland.\n  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I greatly respect Senator Hatch and his\nrespect for the integrity of our system. I know he is acting with his\nsincere beliefs, but I am disappointed and I need to say that.\n  The inspector general's report is a serious investigation. It\ninvolves episodes that took place during the previous administration in\nwhich the Commissioner was appointed by a Republican. There is no\nindication at all of Carolyn Colvin being the subject of the\ninvestigation.\n  In fact, she has tried to take steps to be totally open and\ntransparent about what has happened and has been totally forthcoming\nwith our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, in providing\ninformation.\n  I wish to stress what Senator Mikulski said about the urgency of this\nmatter. If we don't confirm her during the lameduck session, it will be\nmore than 2 years that the Social Security Administration has operated\nwithout a\n\n[[Page S6887]]\n\nconfirmed Commissioner. This is one of the most important agencies in\nthe government.\n  As an Acting Commissioner, she cannot appoint her key team in order\nto carry out the responsibilities of the Social Security\nAdministration. The morale of the agency is very much impacted when you\ncan't get a confirmed Commissioner. Quite frankly, the Senate Finance\nCommittee recommended her appointment 3 months ago, and as Senator\nHatch pointed out, it was a 22-to-2 vote. The vote in the Senate\nFinance Committee at that time was not even close, and now we cannot\nget her confirmed.\n  As Senator Mikulski pointed out, we know Carolyn Colvin. She started\nout as a stenographer clerk at the Social Security Administration in\nthe 1960s while working her way through college. She went on to become\nthe Deputy Commissioner, carrying out major responsibilities.\n  Her passion has always been for public service. She was the secretary\nfor human resources for the State of Maryland. She knows State; she\nknows Federal. Her whole life has been devoted to public service. She\nis a very honorable person and is dedicated to leading the Social\nSecurity Administration.\n  We have some very critical issues in the next Congress, and we may\nhave some different views on some of those issues, but that is what\nthis Senate is about--to debate those issues. But we need to have a\nconfirmed Commissioner in place to help us sort through the challenges\nwe face. Tens of millions of Americans depend upon the Social Security\nsystem. They demand accountability, not just from us but from the\nagency. How can you have accountability if you don't have a confirmed\nCommissioner?\n  All I can say is we have a qualified person who has gone through the\nprocess and has been recommended by the committee. She has all the\ntalent, commitment, and drive to do the job, and it looks like we are\nnot going to be able to get this person confirmed. If we don't confirm\nher now, we will have to wait until the next Congress and start all\nover again, and we don't know how long that will take.\n  I appreciate Senator Hatch's willingness to work with us, and I know\nwe will work together on this issue. Senator Hatch has always been an\nhonorable person--and I very much appreciate that--to work with on so\nmany different issues, but I have to express to my colleagues my deep\ndisappointment that we cannot get this nomination up for a vote.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.\n  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I have the greatest of regard for my two\ncolleagues from the State of Maryland, and I respect their passion for\nthis nominee, but I rise to support delaying the advancement of Carolyn\nColvin for the Social Security Administration, and I wish to explain\nwhy. In fact, my reasons somewhat address some of the reasons for my\nurgency.\n  I interviewed Carolyn Colvin on July 29 as a nominee to come before\nthe Finance Committee in my office, as I do with every nominee who will\ntalk to me. It was 2 days after the 2014 trustee's report of the Social\nSecurity Administration--a report that talked about the disability\ntrust fund being in danger by 2016 and Social Security being in danger\nin 22 years.\n  I asked her questions about what she would recommend to us to fix the\nunfunded mandates that would be coming up with Social Security. Her\nanswers were at best glib and at worst nonexistent.\n  I was one of the two votes against her nomination that Senator Cardin\nreferred to in the committee because I didn't feel I got the kind of\npassionate answer I needed from her as someone who was going to run the\nSocial Security Administration.\n  Subsequent to that vote, and before today's debate, the issue came up\narising from the disability technology problem and the investigation\nthat is taking place at the Social Security Administration.\n  I recognize this implementation took place before she was in the\nposition she is now in, but she is in a position of responsibility at\nthe Administration. So until that investigation is complete, I think it\nwould be a rush to judgment to confirm her for the position.\n  I don't get up and oppose many people on the floor of the Senate. I\ntake my job very seriously, but I do represent the people of my State--\nthose who are Social Security beneficiaries today and those who will be\nbeneficiaries in the future.\n  I was reading an announcement today about the chief counsel, who is\nalso the State director in my office in Georgia, Edward Tate. He and\nhis wife recently had a baby, Whitaker McMillan Tate, born 4 months\nago. Seventy years from now he will probably be a beneficiary in the\nSocial Security Administration. We have to fix it in some way so it is\nthere for him in the future.\n  I want to make sure the appointees we approve in this Senate are\nappointees--while they have the Social Security Administration under\ntheir care--who will do the things I would want them to do so when I am\nlong gone, those children who will be beneficiaries in the future will\nhave the funds and the money and the Administration to see to it that\nthey are paid.\n  Reluctantly, but for reasons of commitment, I object to the\nadvancement of the nomination of Carolyn Colvin to the Social Security\nAdministration.\n  I yield the floor.\n  Ms. MIKULSKI. To be continued.\n  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum\ncall be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                      Tax Increase Prevention Act\n\n  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to talk about the\nTax Increase Prevention Act. I have been speaking on this issue and I\nintend to speak on it until we get this legislation passed. I am\nhopeful that we will get this legislation moved tonight or maybe even\ntomorrow. But in any event, we need to get this very important\nlegislation passed this week to make sure that taxes don't go up on our\nsmall businesses, farmers, and the hard-working citizens of this\ncountry. That is why I have been down talking about the legislation and\nits importance, and I have also been presenting and reading letters and\nemails from my constituents who have been contacting me about the\nimportance of getting this done. I want them to be heard because they\nknow very well how heavy their tax burden is and why we need to make\nsure they get relief for their families and for their businesses. I am\ntalking about family farmers, men and women who work long hours and\nlong days on the farm. I am talking about small business owners,\nmanufacturers, shopkeepers, the whole gamut of small businesses across\nthis great country, your neighbors and mine.\n  First I am going to talk about some of the provisions in the\nlegislation. I am going to start with one that is incredibly important\nfor farmers in my State but really for small businesses across the\ncountry, as I said earlier. That is the section 179 small business\nexpensing and depreciation provision.\n  The section 179 small business expensing limitation and phaseout\namounts in effect from 2010 to 2013 through 2015: Taxpayers can expense\nup to $500,000 of acquired business property, rather than the current\nlevel of expensing $25,000 and $200,000 respectively. The $200,000 is\non the depreciation.\n  The section 179 expensing and depreciation provision is very\nimportant for small businesses. It is very important that we get it in\nplace now because they are doing their year-end planning, and they are\ndoing their tax planning. They need to know the rules of the road. They\nneed to know what they can expense and what they can depreciate and how\nmuch. It is not just an issue of preparing their tax returns; it is\nalso very much an issue in terms of their planning for next year. What\nequipment do they buy? If you are a farmer, what ag equipment do you\nbuy? If you are a small manufacturer, what manufacturing equipment do\nyou buy? What repairs do you do? Can you expense those repairs or do\nyou have to go through an elaborate process of setting up a\ndepreciation schedule and then depreciate that repair over a long\nperiod of time?\n\n[[Page S6888]]\n\n  These are things that make it very difficult to do business for small\nbusinesses and also impede their willingness and their ability to go\nout and buy equipment and to make those needed repairs to keep their\noperation running. That hurts our economy. That hurts job creation in\nour country. It is very important. The section 179 provision is\nincredibly important to our farmers and small businesses throughout the\ncountry.\n  Also, another very important provision is the bonus depreciation for\nproperty that is placed in service during 2014 or, in some cases, 2015\nfor property with a longer production period. If we are not allowed to\ntake that depreciation, you may not buy that new equipment. If you\ndon't buy that new equipment, obviously that has ramifications all the\nway through our economy.\n  There are eight provisions in the legislation for individuals,\nincluding the deductibility of State and local sales tax, the deduction\nof certain expenses for elementary and secondary schoolteachers, the\nextension of the above-the-line-deduction for qualified tuition, and\nthe extension of tax redistributions from individual retirement plans\nfor charitable purposes.\n  Also included in the legislation are a total of 30 business-related\nprovisions in addition to section 179 and the bonus depreciation. They\nare very important and make a big difference in terms of the taxes our\nbusinesses will be required to pay.\n  The legislation includes the research and development tax credit that\nallows companies a 20-percent credit for incremental qualified research\nexpenses or a 14-percent alternative simplified credit for R&D\nperformed in the United States. I will use an example. We have a large\nMicrosoft location in my State, in Fargo. They employ more than 1,700\npeople at their campus in Fargo.\n  I am going to use Microsoft as an example. Microsoft is on a pace to\nspend over $12 billion on research and development this year, primarily\non U.S. jobs. Other countries are competing for the same R&D investment\nfrom Microsoft and other companies. Many of them have lower corporate\nincome tax rates, they have stable R&D incentives, and plenty of\nresearch and development talent. A consistent and stable U.S. R&D tax\ncredit gives businesses such as Microsoft an incentive to invest and do\nthat research and development in the United States versus some other\ncountry.\n  Again, we are talking about not only economic activity and jobs in\nour country, but we are talking about innovation right in our country\nthat drives job creation and economic growth. As I said, the real key,\nI believe, is the impact this legislation has on small business across\nthis country. Small business is the backbone of our economy.\n  I want to take a few minutes to read some more of the letters and\nemails I have been receiving on the importance of passing this\nlegislation and putting in place the section 179 expensing and\ndepreciation for our small businesses.\n  The first letter I am going to read is from Wayne Hauge, a CPA from\nRay, ND, a small town in North Dakota. He is speaking on behalf of many\nof his clients. He writes:\n\n       Senator Hoeven, what about the IRC Section 179? $25,000 is\n     far too low of a limit, and should be eliminated if that is\n     all that can be expensed in a year. Far better would be\n     reinstating prior limits and making such a change permanent.\n       A farmer does not plan a crop after you've harvested it.\n     You plan it a year in advance. Income tax planning is the\n     same. It is an extremely poor financial planner who decides\n     to buy something based on an ever-changing tax policy, and\n     after the fact.\n       I realize the political system in this country is\n     stagnated, with refusals by both parties to agree on\n     anything. But the time is now to put some semblance of future\n     planning back on the table and help us to stay on top of the\n     game, rather than whining about what should have been done.\n\n  We owe it to Wayne and his clients to get this bill done before we\nleave.\n  Here is another one. This one is from Mike Van Gorkom with Titan\nMachinery in Wishek, ND. Titan Machinery is a dealer for Case IH, Case\nConstruction, New Holland, and New Holland Construction. Titan\nMachinery also represents Titan Rentals, Titan Aggregate, and a varied\nlist of short-line equipment to meet specialized customer demand and\nniche product needs.\n\n       I was just wondering if anyone can tell me when to expect a\n     vote on extending Section 179 tax deductions. I have been\n     following this bill along with many of my customers. Many\n     farmers are waiting to purchase equipment from me until they\n     find out if they can use it for this year's deductions or\n     wait until next year. Thank you and have a nice day.\n\n  Lawrence D. Stockert, a small business owner in Bismarck, ND, wants\nto purchase new equipment this year, but he is not certain he can\nbecause we have yet to pass the tax extender package. He writes:\n\n       I would like to know if there is a possibility for the\n     Senate to pass the increases in the Section 179 depreciation\n     rules. The previous year's provision enabled me to buy new\n     equipment. Can you take this bill to the Senate and get it\n     passed? I would like to purchase additional equipment this\n     year as well.\n\n  Then from Stephen Stafki, vice president of service, General\nEquipment & Supplies in Fargo, ND. He is concerned about the bonus\ndepreciation provision in the extender package. The Tax Increase\nPrevention Act extends the 50-percent bonus depreciation to property\nacquired and placed in service during 2014 or 2015 for certain property\nwith a longer production period. He writes:\n\n       Senator Hoeven, I am writing to you to express my support\n     for passing bonus depreciation before the end of 2014. As a\n     small business owner this legislation is crucial to us and\n     our customer base. I truly hope you will fight to push this\n     legislation through Congress and garner enough support to be\n     able to override any Presidential veto.\n\n  The last letter I would like to read today comes from Jay Hansen of\nFargo, ND. It is especially telling, because like the earlier letter I\nread from a CPA, he is also a CPA. Essentially he is speaking for the\n1,000 farmers whom he does work for.\n\n       My name is Jay Hansen. I am a CPA working for Iver Eliason\n     CPA PC in Minot, ND. We have approximately 1,000 farm clients\n     who rely heavily on depreciating farm machinery as part of\n     their overall tax planning strategy. With the discussion\n     regarding the tax extender bill being on the agenda before\n     the end of the year, we are curious to know if you have any\n     insight on what we can expect and when we can expect it. Any\n     information you can provide me regarding the Section 179\n     expense deduction would be greatly appreciated.\n\n  So time is of the essence. We are days from the end of the tax year,\ndays away from the holidays. Millions of Americans are depending on us\nto spare them a burden that will hurt their businesses and hurt their\nfamilies. If we do not act, taxes will go up on hard-working Americans,\non small businesses across this country, on farmers. So we need to act.\nWe need to make sure that does not happen. We need to pass the\nlegislation we have here on the floor. We need to get it done now.\n  So I urge my colleagues to join together in bipartisan fashion and\nget this done. Let's pass the Tax Increase Prevention Act and make sure\nwe do not see a tax increase on our small businesses and the hard-\nworking taxpayers of this great Nation.\n  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                             Climate Change\n\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, we are winding down the end of this\nyear and, indeed, the end of this Congress, and I am here today to give\nthe last ``Time to Wake Up'' speech in this Congress. I am particularly\npleased to be delivering it while my friend from West Virginia is\npresiding. He actually took the trouble to come to Rhode Island and\nhear firsthand about what is happening in my State on these issues.\n  The year that is ending now ushered in some mighty dubious\nmilestones. January through November 2014--the year so far--were the\nhottest first 11 months of any year recorded. Unless something dramatic\nchanges in December, 2014 is on track to be the hottest year since we\nbegan keeping records back in 1880. That would mean that 14 of the\nwarmest 15 years on record were in this century. According to the World\nMeteorological Organization's secretary general, ``There is no\nstandstill in global warming.''\n  This chart shows the decades-long rise in the ocean's heat content\nfrom the surface down to a depth of 2,000 meters--a little over 1 mile.\nLook at 2005 to 2014, the red part. NASA estimates that the amount of\nenergy needed to\n\n[[Page S6889]]\n\naccount for that much warming in that much ocean is equivalent to four\nmagnitude-6.0 earthquakes occurring every second for those 9 years.\nFour 6.0 earthquakes every second for 9 years would create the kind of\nenergy necessary to warm that much. Well, obviously it wasn't\nearthquakes that did it. We would have known about that. And the first\nlaw of thermodynamics--conservation of energy--decrees that all that\nheat in the ocean had to come from somewhere. The near certain source\nof that heat is increased greenhouse gases, mostly carbon pollution\ntrapping heat from the Sun.\n  Since the rise of fossil fuel energy, we have been on a carbon binge.\nAs long as humans have been on the Earth, we have existed safely in a\nrange of about 170 to about 300 parts per million carbon dioxide in the\natmosphere. This year the concentration of carbon dioxide in the\natmosphere, measured at the famous Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii,\nexceeded 400 parts per million for more than 3 months. Archeologists\nestimate that our human species has been around on this planet for\nabout 200,000 years. The Earth last saw such high levels of carbon as\n400 parts per million for that long a period more than 800,000 years\nago.\n  Oceans have absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess heat that the\ncarbon has trapped. As seawater warms--we all know by the law of\nthermal expansion--it expands, and as a result sea levels rise.\nSatellite measurements show that in this period, global average sea\nlevel rose about an inch. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory attributes\nabout one-third of global mean sea level rise to the warming of the\nupper ocean. Combine that with the melting of glaciers on land, and you\ncan see that climate change is significantly increasing sea level\nworldwide. In my home State I see this. And the Presiding Officer was\nthere. The Newport tide gauge records nearly 10 inches more water than\nit did in the 1930s.\n  Carbon pollution in the atmosphere also dissolves in the ocean. It\ndoesn't just warm it up, it dissolves in it. When it dissolves in it,\nit makes it more acidic. Indeed, the extra carbon dioxide that humans\nhave pumped into the oceans has caused a nearly 30 percent increase in\nthe acidity of the upper ocean, which means a lot for shellfish, such\nas mussels and clams and oysters, that make their shells from calcium\ncarbonate because calcium carbonate dissolves in acidified seawater.\n  In July 2014 a Maine oyster farmer--a guy named Bill Mook--came to\nthe Environment and Public Works Committee and described for us the\ndifficulty his oyster crop--his oyster spat, they call it--had\nmaturing. Here is what he said:\n\n       Through observation, trial, and error, we reached the same\n     conclusion made by researchers using controlled, replicated\n     experimentation. Acidification is not a future problem. It is\n     a problem now, and it will only get worse.\n\n  He said it is a problem now and it will only get worse.\n  Measurements of the atmosphere and ocean tell us that climate change\nis real. We already see the harm connected with it in storm-damaged\nhomes, flooded cities, drought-stricken farms, and raging wildfires, in\nfish disappearing from warming, acidifying waters, in shifting habitats\nand migrating contagions. Climate change loads the dice for these\nevents, which carry real costs to homeowners, business owners, and\ntaxpayers. A key cause is undeniably carbon pollution.\n  Some of my Republican colleagues continue to deny that climate change\nis even happening or at best they will stand mute in the face of the\nchanges we see, in the face of so much evidence. ``I am not a\nscientist'' is all we get from some. Well, if they are not scientists,\nmaybe they should ask one. Ask NOAA. Ask NASA. Ask our National\nAcademies. If a Senator doesn't know what they are talking about, they\nshould study up. That is our job. If they can't be bothered to ask a\nscientist, then look at what the military is saying about climate\nchange or what the business community is saying.\n\n  The military's 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, for example, offers a\nstraightforward assessment of the threat climate change poses to\nnational and international security. Even in Pentagon bureaucratese,\nthe assessment is pretty harsh:\n\n       Climate change poses [a] significant challenge for the\n     United States and the world at large.\n       Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to\n     sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by\n     climate change will influence resource competition while\n     placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and\n     governance institutions around the world.\n\n  The Pentagon also released a Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap this\nyear, detailing the military's plans for a changed climate. The report\nstates in no uncertain terms:\n\n       Climate change will affect the Department of Defense's\n     ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risks to\n     U.S. national security.\n\n  That would seem to me to be a phrase worth listening to.\n  The business and financial community also see climate risk. Former\nBush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson teamed up with former New York\nCity business tycoon and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Republican\nSenator Olympia Snowe, and others, to put together an evidence-based\nassessment of the risks posed by climate change to the U.S. economy.\nTheir report found that between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of\nexisting American coastal property will likely be below sea level by\nmidcentury. That pricetag could top $500 billion by the end of the\ncentury.\n  They also found extreme heat could reduce labor productivity of\noutdoor workers by as much as 3 percent by the end of the century.\n  They found that shifting agricultural patterns could cause States in\nthe Southeast, the lower Great Plains, and Midwest to see a 50- to 70-\npercent loss in average annual crop yields. It is a risk we would be\nreckless to ignore.\n  One bright light of 2014 has been the proposed limits on carbon\nemissions from existing coal plants announced this year by the Obama\nadministration. The new standard will not only reduce emissions, it\nwill change the way the polluters think. Now that it is no longer going\nto be free to pollute, I suspect some new thinking by polluters will be\nfollowed in short order with some new thinking on the other side of the\naisle here in the Senate.\n  Another bright light of 2014 was the Obama administration's carbon-\nreduction agreement with China, the world's largest carbon polluter\nnow, followed by news this weekend from Lima that every nation in the\nworld is expected to put forward a plan to rein in its carbon\npollution.\n  The public is with us on this, too. A recent poll released by the\ninsurance firm Munich Re showed that 83 percent of Americans believe\nthe climate is changing.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to\nconclude the page in front of me.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Seven Americans in ten say we should use more solar\nand wind power to battle climate change. An AP poll released this week\nsaid that half of Republicans favor regulations on carbon dioxide\nemissions.\n  In 2014, the physical evidence of climate change continued to mount.\nOur military, our business leaders, our President, and the American\npeople all affirmed their commitment to fending off the worst effects\nof carbon pollution. So in 2015, Congress will need to step up to the\nplate.\n  I have introduced carbon fee legislation that would provide a\npractical tool for getting this done. By charging a fee on carbon\npollution, we can correct the market failure that lets polluters unload\nthe costs of their pollution on the rest of us, and compete unfairly in\nenergy markets. We can use those proceeds to reduce other taxes. Most\nimportant, we can significantly reduce harmful carbon pollution. We\njust need to wake up. Maybe 2015 will be the year.\n  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy, and I yield the\nfloor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.\n\n              Social Security Disability Program and Fraud\n\n  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I hope not to use all our remaining time.\nBut I come to the floor to talk about an issue that should be very\nimportant to every American.\n  In less than 20 months, the Social Security Disability system will be\nbankrupt--out of money. That may sound\n\n[[Page S6890]]\n\nlike just a scare tactic, but that is what the trust fund trustees say.\nAnd we have known this for some time.\n  My colleague Carl Levin, as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on\nInvestigations, and myself as ranking, have spent a great deal of time\noversighting Social Security disability. We issued a report that had\nsome pretty remarkable findings in it. I thought I would go through\nsome of those findings today, because I have two major concerns.\n  One is that those people with true disabilities are going to see in\n18 months a 20-percent cut in what they get paid each month, and they\nare barely surviving on the disability payments we give them today.\n  The second thing is the failure of the Justice Department, when\nhanded an absolutely, totally perfect case to prosecute criminals\ntaking advantage not only of people with disabilities but other people\nof this country.\n  Social Security disability insurance is an important safety net for a\nlarge number of people--about 11 million--in this country. In the past\n5 years, we have gone from 11 million to 14.1 million applications for\ndisability--some of that is associated with our recession, but some\nwith true injury.\n  We started out very meticulously as we looked at this, and I wish to\napplaud some of the employees of the Social Security Administration\nbecause they were the ones who highlighted to me--people who worked in\nthe Oklahoma City Social Security office--the lousy quality of what was\nhappening as these were being processed.\n  So what we did is we went to the Social Security Administration and\nwe asked them to randomly select 300 case files--100 each--from 3\ndifferent geographical locations throughout the country. That included\nOklahoma County, in my home State.\n  What we looked at was a large random number of cases, most of them\ndrawn from decisions made by the Social Security Administration's 1,500\nadministrative law judges.\n  What we found, using Social Security's own criteria, was that 25\npercent of the cases were decided absolutely erroneously, according to\ntheir own rules and their own guidelines.\n  But that didn't surprise the Social Security Administration, because\nthey had been looking at it all along and they knew that, according to\ntheir records, 23 to 24 percent of all the cases had been being decided\nerroneously.\n  Our second step was to look where we saw this abuse at the highest,\nand that was in the Huntington, WV, Social Security Disability Hearing\nOffice. So Senator Levin and I set our investigators about doing a\ntotal and comprehensive investigation of that office.\n\n  The problems we found there were similar to the problems we found in\nour prior investigation in these three other offices, except much\nworse. The Huntington office got our attention in part because it\nprocessed more disability cases than almost every other Social Security\noffice in the Nation--much of that to just one attorney by the name of\nEric Christopher Conn.\n  Despite practicing in a town of only 500 people, Mr. Conn had become\nthe third highest paid disability attorney in the entire United States.\nHe helped thousands of people get on to the disability program, and in\n2010 he received $4 million in payments from the Social Security\ndisability program. The only other attorneys receiving more from SSA\nwere Charles Binder of Binder and Binder--who, I noticed, filed\nbankruptcy this week--who received $22 million; and Thomas Nash of\nChicago who received $6.3 million.\n  When we looked more closely at Mr. Conn's operations, what we found\nwere reasons for serious concern. While some of what Mr. Conn did\ninvolved outright fraud--which we have documented and proven--at times\nhe was simply able to exploit loopholes in Social Security's system.\nBoth of those things should be a concern to Congress.\n  To ensure the cases were approved and his attorney fees kept flowing,\nMr. Conn colluded with an ALJ in the Huntington office by the name of\nDavid B. Daughtery. The two men worked together to award hundreds of\nmillions, if not billions, of dollars in fraudulent disability claims.\nThis is an administrative law judge.\n  The plan involved several calculated steps. First, Judge Daugherty\nneeded to ensure that Mr. Conn's cases were assigned to him. Normally,\nagency rules require cases to be assigned to the ALJs on a rotational\nbasis, with the oldest case being assigned to a hearing date first.\nThis way, no one administrative law judge receives too many of one\nattorney's cases.\n  Judge Daugherty, however, would at times intercept Mr. Conn's cases\nand assign them to himself. If cases would slip past him and get\nassigned to another judge, Judge Daugherty would inappropriately go\ninto the computer system and move the case to his jurisdiction.\n  The next step in the plan involved Judge Daugherty calling Mr. Conn's\noffice every month to let them know what kind of additional evidence he\nneeded for each client to be able to award disability benefits. Judge\nDaugherty started the monthly call by relaying the name and Social\nSecurity number of each person he was ready to approve. He would then\nsay whether the new piece of evidence should relate to a mental or a\nphysical medical impairment. The list of claimants would then be typed\nup by employees in Mr. Conn's law firm. Mr. Conn's staff referred to\nthese monthly lists as the DB lists--the David B. Daugherty list.\n  We reviewed these DB lists, every one of them, from June 2006 through\nJuly 2010. Each list contained as many as 52 names each month. In\ntotal, the DB lists from that time period contained the names of 1,823\nclaimants who were all approved for disability benefits.\n  After Judge Daugherty told Mr. Conn the kind of medical evidence he\nneeded, the next step shifted to Mr. Conn to ensure a doctor provided\nthat evidence. Fortunately for Mr. Conn, he had a crew of doctors in\nhis pocket, ready to provide what he needed.\n  To find doctors willing to go along with him, Mr. Conn searched the\nInternet for ones with checkered pasts. The doctors Mr. Conn used often\nhad histories of malpractice and some had medical license revocations\nin multiple States. In fact, Mr. Conn's ``go-to'' doctor was the\nsubject of numerous malpractice lawsuits and even had his medical\nlicense revoked and suspended in several States. Mr. Conn scheduled the\nDB list of claimants to be seen by his doctors. The doctors spent as\nlittle as 15 minutes evaluating each claimant and sometimes saw 35 to\n40 claimants a day. Mr. Conn paid the doctors that he knew $500 for\neach claimant they saw.\n\n  The doctors would complete a form used by the agency to determine a\nclaimant's residual functional capacity to work in any job available in\nthe national economy. While the evidentiary forms provided by the\ndoctors were supposed to be specifically tailored to the physical or\nmental impairments of each client, all of Mr. Conn's forms were the\nsame. They were prefilled out. He had 15 versions of the physical form\nand 5 versions of the mental form that were rotated among the clients.\nAs a matter of fact, a committee determined that 97 of Mr. Conn's\nclaimants approved by Judge Daugherty had exactly the same residual\nfunctional capacity--a statistical impossibility. It could not happen.\n  Mr. Conn would then submit the RFC forms--the residual functional\ncapacity forms--with a brief description of the claimant to Judge\nDaugherty. Judge Daugherty would then approve the claim for benefits in\nan abbreviated decision, determining the evidence presented by Mr. Conn\noutweighed all the other evidence in the claimant's medical file. At\ntimes, the medical evidence Judge Daugherty ignored could be thousands\nof pages long.\n  The plan made Mr. Conn millions. In 2010 SSI paid Mr. Conn almost $4\nmillion in attorney fees, making him the third highest-paid attorney in\nthe country. In turn, he paid out almost $2 million to the doctors who\nwere giving the unscrupulous, ill-advised, and absolutely erroneous\npremanaged outcomes. Judge Daugherty, mysteriously, under our subpoenas\nhad received some $100,000 in unexplained cash deposits into his bank\naccounts during this time. But Judge Daugherty wasn't approving just\nMr. Conn's cases. In the last 5 years of working for the agency, Judge\nDaugherty awarded more than $2.5 billion in disability benefits. During\nthat period, he approved more cases then any other ALJ in the entire\nUnited States.\n  There was another judge, Chief Judge Charlie P. Andrus, who played a\nmajor role in approving the fraudulent\n\n[[Page S6891]]\n\nclaims. He allowed Judge Daugherty to decide a high number of claims.\nHe and Judge Andrus enjoyed accolades and national recognition. The\nHuntington office rose to have the second fastest processing time in\nthe entire country. No wonder--they didn't actually process claims. It\nwas a slam dunk. You get under Judge Andrus, you get under Judge\nDaugherty, you get Eric Conn, and you get approved--no matter whether\nit is true or not. Mr. Andrus, as the acting superior judge, did\nnothing to stop Mr. Conn and Judge Daugherty. He actually colluded with\nMr. Conn to target a whistleblower from his own office.\n  The second thing I would note about Judge Andrus was he was not\ntruthful in his testimony before the committee under oath, and we have\nevidence of his lying to the committee under oath.\n  When all of this was exposed, the agency put Judge Andrus on paid\nadministrative leave and filed a claim with the Merit Systems\nProtection Board. That was in January of 2013.\n  In 2014 Mr. Andrus voluntarily retired according to a decision from\nthe Merit Systems Protection Board. The complaint the agency filed\nagainst Mr. Andrus charged him with conduct unbecoming an ALJ; engaging\nin an apparent conflict of interest; lack of candor; and unauthorized\ndisclosures.\n  Despite these charges, as part of the settlement agreement, the\nagency agreed to refrain from pursuing any disciplinary action against\nAndrus and to provide a neutral reference to prospective future\nemployers. Andrus retired with his pension. So a crook retires with\ntheir pension. So no disciplinary action is taken against Charlie\nAndrus, even after he turned a blind eye for years and allowed Judge\nDaugherty to award billions of dollars in disability benefits, admitted\nhe conspired to retaliate against an employee, and was untruthful to\nCongress under oath. Nor has the Department of Justice taken any action\nagainst Mr. Conn or Judge Daugherty. In fact, Mr. Conn continues to\nrepresent disability claimants before the Social Security\nAdministration--these two men who actively committed fraud on one of\nthe most important safety net programs our government runs.\n  We should not let the actions of these individuals go unpunished. But\nthat is what is happening. I recently had a visit with the IG from the\nSocial Security Administration, Mr. Patrick O'Carroll. At this point\nthe U.S. attorneys in West Virginia and Kentucky had both recused\nthemselves and declined to prosecute Mr. Conn. Now I wonder what he has\nover them. I wonder what it is when you have a closed case--a\nprosecutorial case that you have to do no work on--and the U.S.\nattorneys will not prosecute a thief of the highest order. Since both\nU.S. attorneys recused themselves, Mr. O'Carroll is now trying to\nconvince the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice here in\nWashington, DC, to take action. But to date no charges have been filed\nagainst Mr. Conn, Judge Daugherty or Judge Andrus.\n\n  If they do not take action against Mr. Conn, the Justice Department\nis sending a message that disability fraud will go unpunished. We need\nto be sending the opposite message--that these types of fraudulent\npractices by attorneys like Eric Conn must be prosecuted to the fullest\nextent of the law--otherwise the disability program, no matter how much\noversight we do on it, will continue to be abused, leaving those\nAmericans who have no choice but to rely on it with less than what they\nexpected.\n  I would add one final statement. In working with a lot of the\ndisability community, we introduced this week what we hope the Congress\nwill take up in future years as a reform to the disability program that\ntakes the fraud out of it--the opportunity for fraud--that takes the\nability actually to hold people accountable and also gives back the\ndignity to those who can get back to work and uses that to help them\naccomplish that goal.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.\n  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate all the remarks the\nSenator from Oklahoma has said. He is one of the great Senators of all\ntime, as far as I am concerned.\n  I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to give this statement,\nwhich shouldn't be much more than 15 minutes.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                     Tribute to Departing Senators\n\n  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we wind down the final days of the 113th\nCongress, it is a good time both to reflect on the past and to look\ntoward the future. I have been very moved as I listened to the farewell\nspeeches of our departing Senators, and I wish I had time to pay\ntribute to each one of them. They have all been wonderful colleagues,\nand I enjoyed working with and getting to know every one of them. I\nwish them all the very best in all their future endeavors. They will\nmost certainly be missed.\n  In terms of the future there are a number of challenges before us. We\nhave an economy that despite recent upticks is still struggling. We\nhave a national debt that despite recent reductions in the deficit is\nheaded toward astronomical levels, and we have a pending crisis with\nour entitlement programs that threatens to swallow up our government\nand take our economy down with it. I believe we can fix these problems,\nbut it is not going to be easy.\n\n                               Tax Reform\n\n  Today I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a particularly\nimportant effort that I believe will help address some of these\nfundamental changes and challenges. I am talking about tax reform. Over\nthe last few years I have spoken numerous times on the floor and\nelsewhere about the need to fix our broken Tax Code. I would understand\nif there are some who tire of hearing me talk about tax reform, but\nthat doesn't mean I am going to stop any time soon.\n  Tax reform is no longer optional but essential. If we are going to\nget our economy moving again, we need a Tax Code that will stop\nstanding in the way. Make no mistake. Promoting job creation and\neconomic growth is the first and most important step we need to take in\norder to address our Nation's most pressing problems. This is no secret\nto anyone in this Chamber. I don't believe I have been blessed with\nunique insight into these matters. We all know what we have to do and\nthat, in and of itself, is pretty remarkable. Indeed, with all the\npartisanship and division we have seen over the past few years, there\nis bipartisan agreement on the need to reform our tax system. There are\ndisagreements on the details that cannot at this time be overlooked,\nbut on the basic question surrounding the need for reform, people in\nboth parties have reached the same answer: Reform is necessary, and it\nneeds to happen sooner rather than later.\n\n  My hope is that today I can say a few words that will help to set the\nstage for our reform efforts in the near future. Last week I released a\nreport drafted by my staff on the Senate Finance Committee entitled\n``Comprehensive Tax Reform for 2015 and Beyond.'' This report--I have\nbeen calling it a book because it is 340 pages long--outlines the major\nissues policymakers would have to confront as we undertake tax reform.\nIt describes where we are with our current Tax Code, where we have\nbeen, and most importantly, it gives some direction as to where we\nshould go with our reform efforts in the future. I hope all of our\ncolleagues will take time to read through it.\n  I need to be clear. This is not a tax reform plan. It is a discussion\nof ideas and principles that I hope will be the first step in a renewed\nbipartisan effort to reform our Nation's Tax Code in the very near\nfuture. More than anything, I hope my colleagues will view this book as\nan invitation to work together in this most important endeavor.\n  As I outlined in the book, tax reform, in my view, should be\nundertaken with a set of simple principles in mind. The most important\nprinciples are the three set out by President Reagan the last time\nCongress was able to pass a major tax overhaul, nearly three decades\nago. President Reagan's first principle, and in my view the most\nimportant, is economic growth. Tax reform should significantly reduce\nmany of the economic distortions that are present under the current\nincome tax system and promote growth in our economy. It should\neliminate the anticompetitive nature of the current tax system, such as\nthe high U.S. corporate tax rate, which stifles job growth. High\nmarginal tax rates are present up and\n\n[[Page S6892]]\n\ndown the income scale and they act as disincentives for work,\nentrepreneurship, and investment. These growth deterrents--which are\nembedded nearly everywhere in our Tax Code--should be eliminated.\n  President Reagan's second principle was fairness. The income tax\nbase, which has become riddled with exclusions, exemptions, deductions,\nand credits, should be as broad as possible. Tax reform should reduce\nthe number of tax expenditures, thereby broadening the tax base while\nsimultaneously lowering tax rates. A broader tax base coupled with\nsignificantly lower tax rates is the basis of what would be a much\nfairer tax system.\n  The final principle outlined by President Reagan was simplicity. Our\nTax Code has grown to almost four million words. Today, approximately\n59 percent of American households use paid preparers to do their\nindividual income taxes and another 30 percent use tax software to\nassist them. Taxpayers and businesses spend over $168 billion annually.\nThat is larger than the size of the entire economy of New Zealand, and\nan amount that would employ more than three million workers full time\nat an hourly wage of $25.\n  A simpler Tax Code would greatly reduce these compliance costs,\nresulting in greater efficiency and compliance by American taxpayers.\nLet's unleash resources from being devoted to figuring out or gaming\nour broken Tax Code and make the resources available for job creation.\n  The three principles from President Reagan would be vital to our tax\nreform efforts. But, as I said, it has been nearly 30 years since\nCongress tried to put President Reagan's principles into action. Much\nhas changed in that time. In order to address the needs of today,\nadditional principles are necessary.\n  One of those principles is permanence. The Tax Code needs certainty.\nThe Joint Committee on Taxation lists almost 100 tax provisions that\nwill expire between 2013 and 2023. Individuals and businesses need to\nbe able to rely on provisions in the tax law for planning purposes. The\nlack of certainty in our tax laws hinders job creation and stifles\neconomic growth. We need a tax system that no longer threatens to\nchange from year to year.\n  Another important principle is competitiveness. The combination of a\nhigh corporate tax rate, worldwide taxation, and the temporary nature\nof some tax incentives make U.S. companies less competitive when\ncompared to their foreign counterparts. In addition, U.S.\nmultinationals are discouraged from repatriating foreign earnings\nbecause of the U.S. corporate tax that applies at the time of\nrepatriation--a corporate rate that is the highest in our\nindustrialized world.\n\n  Tax reform should reduce the high tax rates on businesses and also\nachieve neutrality through a competitive international tax system,\nthereby placing worldwide American companies on a level playing field\nwith their foreign competitors when conducting business in other\ncountries. The result would be more worldwide American companies\nestablishing or retaining their corporate headquarters in the United\nStates, more exports to global markets, and retention and investment of\nmoney in the United States rather than abroad.\n  Promoting savings and investment is another important principle. Many\naspects of the U.S. income tax system discourage savings and\ninvestments by individuals, thereby hindering long-term growth. Tax\nreform should result in a tax system that actually encourages people to\nsave and invest.\n  Last, but certainly not least, there is the principle of revenue\nneutrality. I know this will be a sticking point for some, though, for\nthe life of me I can't see why. If we are scouring the Tax Code looking\nfor ways to squeeze more revenue to fuel government spending, we are\nnot reforming the Tax Code, we are raising taxes. It is as simple as\nthat.\n  Tax reform should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes on the\nAmerican people or on U.S. businesses. Any effort to use tax reform as\na revenue-raising exercise is a needless distraction. Anyone who\nbelieves that the American people are currently undertaxed should look\nat historical trends.\n  According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal revenues are\nset to exceed historical averages as early as next year and will remain\nthat way. We can talk about shoring up deficits and paying for\nspending, but we should not be looking to the Tax Code as a resource\nfor additional revenue.\n  If you count up these principles--including those established by\nPresident Reagan, and the ones added since--there are seven in total.\nIn my view, these seven principles should serve as guideposts for our\ntax reform efforts. Any idea or proposal we consider should link back\nand be relevant to at least one of these principles. The best ideas and\nproposals should probably link back to all of them.\n  As I said, the book we released last week outlines these principles\nand also provides a wealth of background information about our Tax Code\nand the need for reform. I view it as a first major step in a tax\nreform effort that I hope will get underway early next year.\n  In the coming weeks and months, I plan to reveal additional steps. I\nplan to involve many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,\nparticularly those who will be joining me on the Senate Finance\nCommittee.\n  My hope is that as this conversation continues, a path toward real\nbipartisan tax reform will begin to take shape. Of course, it will take\nmore than just talk and discussion. It will take hard work, commitment,\nand, of course, compromise.\n  I said it many times before, and I will say it again today: I am\nwilling to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to reform our\nNation's Tax Code, and I look forward to continuing this effort in the\n114th Congress, and, if necessary, beyond.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). For the information of the\nSenate, as of 5 p.m., the time until 6 p.m. is equally divided in the\nusual form.\n  The Senator from Arizona.\n  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss my opposition to the\npending vote concerning Mr. Anthony ``Tony'' Blinken, who is not only\nunqualified, but, in fact, in my view, one of the worst selections of a\nvery bad lot that this President has chosen.\n  I hope that many of my colleagues will understand that I do not come\nto the floor to oppose a nomination of the President of the United\nStates often because I believe that elections have consequences. In\nthis case, this individual has actually been dangerous to America and\nto the young men and women who are fighting and serving our country.\n  Mr. Blinken has been a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Biden\nsince his days in the Senate, but as Robert Gates has noted, Mr. Biden\nhas been ``wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national\nsecurity issue over the past four decades.''\n  At the Special Operations Fund Annual Meeting on May 6, 2013, Mr.\nBlinken discussed a number of the administration's achievements,\nincluding, one, ending the war in Iraq responsibly; two, setting a\nclear strategy and date for the withdrawal from Afghanistan; three,\ndecimating Al Qaeda's senior leadership; and four, repairing our\nalliances and restoring America's standing in the world.\n  That is as Orwellian as any statement I have ever heard. Each and\nevery issue--the conditions are a far cry from the so-called\nachievements that Mr. Blinken describes.\n  In his capacity as an assistant to the President and Deputy National\nSecurity Adviser, Mr. Blinken has been a functionary and an agent of a\nU.S. foreign policy that has made the world much less safe today.\n  Let's review some major elements of that policy, and in particular,\nMr. Blinken's role in conceptualizing and furthering it.\n  U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. It is, at best, astrategic, and\nat worst, antistrategic. It lacks any concept of how to obtain our\nforeign policy goals. This has led to countless foreign policy\nfailures, including the continued slaughter of the Syrian people by\nPresident Bashar al-Assad; the Russian reset that culminated with\nPresident Putin's invasion of Ukraine; the betrayal of our key allies,\nespecially in Central Europe, not to mention Israel; failing to achieve\na status-of-forces agreement that would help to maintain Iraqi security\nand stability; following similarly unwise strategies in Afghanistan--we\nwill see the same movie in Afghanistan that we saw in Iraq if we\n\n[[Page S6893]]\n\nhave a date-driven withdrawal rather than a status-driven, conditions-\ndriven situation; and our feckless position in negotiations with Iran\non nuclear weapons that has failed to produce any progress towards an\nagreement.\n  I could go into many other failures, such as the vaunted Geneva\nConvention of 40 nations that was supposed to arrange for the\ntransition of power from Bashar al-Assad and the object failure of the\nIsraeli-Palestinian peace talks, and what will either be an imminent\nfailure of an Iranian nuclear weapons agreement or an agreement that\nwill be disastrous in the long run.\n  There are two common sayings by the administration officials, not me,\nthat have defined the President's approach to foreign policy: ``Leading\nfrom behind,'' and ``Don't do stupid [stuff].'' These approaches have\nresulted in a failed foreign policy that has made America and Americans\nless safe.\n  Even President Obama's most strident supporters have begun to\nquestion the President's foreign policy decisions.\n  In an article entitled ``Damage to Obama's Foreign Policy Has Been\nLargely Self-Inflicted,'' the Washington Post's David Ignatius, a key\nsupporter of the administration's foreign policy goals, wrote, ``At key\nturning points--in Egypt and Libya during the Arab Spring, in Syria, in\nUkraine, and, yes, in Benghazi--the administration was driven by\nmessaging priorities rather than sound, interests-based policy.''\n  What has Mr. Blinken had to say about all of these issues, my\nfriends? I will give you a few examples.\n\n  On Iraq, at the Center for American Progress, on March 16, 2012--I am\nnot making this up--Mr. Blinken said:\n\n       What's beyond debate is that Iraq today is less violent,\n     more democratic and more prosperous--and the United States\n     more deeply engaged there--than at any time in recent\n     history.\n\n  Less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous.\n  At a White House briefing on March 16, 2012, Mr. Blinken said:\n\n       President Obama and Vice President Biden came to office\n     with this commitment: To end the Iraq war responsibly.\n       Both parts of that sentence are critical.\n       End the war.\n       Responsibly.\n       Under the leadership of President Obama and Vice President\n     Biden, who the President asked to oversee our Iraq policy--\n     and who has made 8 trips to Iraq since being elected--we have\n     followed that path to the letter.\n\n  He went on to say:\n\n       At every significant step along the way, many predicted\n     that the violence would return and Iraq would slide backward\n     toward sectarian war.\n\n  Get this. He said:\n\n       Those predictions proved wrong.\n\n  He went on to say:\n\n       Over the past three years, violence has declined and\n     remains at historic lows--even after we completed the\n     drawdown of U.S. forces late last year.\n\n  Remember, he said this in 2012.\n\n       Weekly security incidents fell from an average of 1,600 in\n     2007-2008 to fewer than 100 today.\n\n  He went on to say:\n\n       And in December, after more than eight wrenching years,\n     President Obama kept his promise to end the war--responsibly.\n       And, while Iran and Iraq will inevitably be more\n     intertwined than we, and many of its neighbors, would like,\n     one thing we learned, over more than eight years in Iraq is\n     that the vast majority of its leaders, including the Prime\n     Minister--\n\n  Who at that time was Prime Minister Maliki--\n\n     --are first and foremost Iraqi nationalists and resistant to\n     outside influence from anywhere--starting with Iran.\n\n  Everybody knows that the Iranians are probably the most influential\nnation in Iraq, certainly under Maliki.\n  On foreign policy, December 27, 2013, he said:\n\n       If we still had troops in Iraq today, the numbers would\n     have been very small. They would not have been engaged in\n     combat. That would not have been their mission, so the idea\n     that they could or would have done something about the\n     violence that is going on now in Iraq seems, to me, detached\n     from the reality of what the mission would have been had they\n     stayed in any small number.\n\n  Now you don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of Secretary\nGates, Secretary Panetta, Ambassador Crocker, and any knowledgeable\nperson about Iraq, and I will insert their quotes for the record,\nincluding Ambassador Crocker, who said: ``Of course we could have left\na residual force behind.'' Both Panetta and Gates said the same thing.\n  At no time was there a public statement by the President of the\nUnited States or Mr. Blinken that they wanted to very seriously. In\nfact, they trumpeted the fact that the last American troop at that\ntime--now we have many troops back--left Iraq and bragged about what a\ngreat day it was.\n  On Fox News with Chris Wallace, September 28, 2014:\n  Wallace:\n\n       Finally, President Obama spoke to the U.N. this week, but I\n     wanted to ask you about his speech to the U.N., saying--\n     general assembly last year, in which he said we are ending a\n     decade of war. How could the President have been so wrong?\n\n  Blinken:\n\n       The president was exactly right. What we're doing is\n     totally different than the last decade. We're not sending\n     hundreds of thousands of American troops back to Iraq or\n     Afghanistan or anywhere else. We're not going to be spending\n     trillions of American dollars.\n\n  Wallace:\n\n       Mr. Blinken . . . he said all our troops left Iraq. In\n     fact, he has just sent at least 1,600 troops back into Iraq.\n     He said we've dismantled the core of al Qaeda. [And yet,] the\n     Khorasan group which you struck in the first day is an\n     offshoot of the core of al Qaeda, and, in fact, follows the\n     direct orders of the leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri.\n\n  Blinken:\n\n       Chris, they fled. Because we were so successful and\n     effective in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they fled, because we\n     decimated the core of Al Qaeda. They removed themselves. They\n     went to Syria.\n\n  At the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on October 30,\n2014:\n\n       The White House ``sought to leave a limited residual\n     force'' in Iraq, but the Iraqi Government simply refused to\n     agree to legal protections for such troops, said then-Deputy\n     National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, who argued the final\n     decision to withdraw all U.S. troops ``was not the result of\n     a failure to negotiate.''\n       ``It's something we worked very hard,'' he said. ``But . .\n     . after a 10-year `occupation,' the Iraqi body politic did\n     not want us to stay in Iraq. That's what happened'' . . . We\n     were focused and acting on ISIL and the threat that it posed\n     more than 1 year before the fall of Mosul, but the problem\n     began to outrun the solution fueled by the conflict in Syria,\n     Iraqi reluctance, and renewed sectarianism in Iraq in advance\n     of elections with politicians on all sides playing to their\n     bases.\n\n  Statements such as these are so divorced from reality, one can only\ndraw one of two conclusions: either that Mr. Blinken is abysmally\nignorant or he is simply not telling the truth for whatever motive\nthere is.\n  By the way, here is what Ryan Crocker said on Iraq:\n\n       As a former ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, do you\n     think it was a mistake not to push hard for the Status of\n     Forces agreement with Iraq before the U.S. pullout?\n\n  I would remind my colleagues, Ryan Crocker--probably the most\nrespected member of our diplomatic corps alive today--said:\n\n       I do. We could have gotten that agreement if we had been a\n     little more persistent, flexible, and creative. But what\n     really cost us was the political withdrawal. We cut off high-\n     level political engagement with Iraq when we withdrew our\n     troops. There were no senior visits, very few phone calls.\n     Secretary of State John Kerry made one visit prior to this\n     current crisis, mainly to lecture the Iraqis on how bad they\n     were being for facilitating Iranian weapon shipments to\n     Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. And we left them to their\n     own devices, knowing that left to their own devices, it would\n     not work out well.\n\n  So we have Mr. Blinken's comments, and juxtapose them with those of\nAmbassador Crocker.\n  Here is what Leon Panetta, Democrat, Secretary of Defense said:\n\n       It was clear to me--and many others--that withdrawing all\n     our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely\n     holding Iraq together.\n\n  That is from Secretary Leon Panetta's book.\n  Then he went on to say:\n\n       My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that\n     if the country split apart or slid back into the violence\n     that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S.\n     invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot\n     attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in\n     Iraq's interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly\n     advocated for a residual force that could provide training\n     and security for Iraq's military.\n\n  Then he went on to say, talking about the Pentagon:\n\n       Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid\n     itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than\n     lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and\n     interests.\n\n[[Page S6894]]\n\n  That is a statement by Leon Panetta.\n  I will move on to Afghanistan.\n  Mr. Blinken said:\n\n       We have been very clear. We have been consistent. The war\n     will be concluded by the end of 2014. We have a timetable,\n     and that timetable will not change.\n\n  This is why I am so worried about him being in the position he is in,\nbecause if they stick to that timetable, I am telling my colleagues\nthat we will see the replay of Iraq all over again. We must leave a\nstabilizing force behind of a few thousand troops or we will see again\nwhat we saw in Iraq.\n  So let's move on to Syria.\n  In an MSNBC interview in 2014, responding to a question about\nPresident Obama's comment in August 2014 calling it ``a fantasy'' to\nsay that arming the Syrian rebels 3 years ago would have helped the\nsituation, Blinken:\n\n       Fantasy was the notion that had we started to work with\n     these guys--\n\n  Talking about the Free Syrian Army--\n\n     six months earlier, that that somehow would have turned the\n     tide.\n\n  Blinken:\n\n       Candy, you know, Assad has been a magnet for the very\n     extremism we're now fighting against. And it is inconceivable\n     to think of Syria being stable with Assad as its leader. He\n     has forfeited his legitimacy. ISIL right now is the wolf at\n     the door. But the answer to both Assad and ISIL actually is\n     the moderate opposition. They need to be built up, so that\n     they can be a counterweight to Assad. In the near term, they\n     need to be built up so they can work on the ground to help\n     deal with ISIL.\n\n  Candy Crowley:\n\n       So ISIS is the wolf at the door now, but Assad, as far as\n     the U.S. is concerned, is the next wolf at the door?\n\n  Mr. Blinken:\n\n       We have been very clear that there needs to be a transition\n     in Syria, that as long as Assad is there, it's very hard to\n     see Syria being stable, and he will continue to be a magnet\n     for the extremists we are fighting.\n\n  Crowley:\n\n       But a transition is not the same as, we will actively help\n     you bring this guy down.\n\n  Blinken:\n\n       The best way to deal with Assad is to transition him out so\n     that the moderate opposition can fill the vacuum. That's what\n     we have been working on. The more you build them up, the more\n     you make them a counterweight, the more possible that\n     becomes.\n\n  Let me just remind my colleagues of what has happened. There is a guy\nnamed Caesar who about a year and a half ago smuggled out thousands of\npictures. These pictures are the most gripping and horrifying I have\never seen. They were actual pictures which have been authenticated of\nthe atrocities committed by Bashar Assad. They are wrenching, they are\nheartbreaking, and they are terrible.\n  Now, 200,000 people have been butchered in Syria, and 3.5 million are\nrefugees; 150,000 are still in Bashar Assad's prison experiencing\natrocities such as this. These are little children here. These are\nlittle children. They have been massacred by Bashar Assad.\n  What have we done? What have we done in response to this? First of\nall, amazingly, these photographs have been authenticated by this guy\nCaesar. He did testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It\ndidn't seem to rise to the interest of the Senate Foreign Affairs\nCommittee or the American people or this administration.\n  I was at a refugee camp in Jordan where at that time there were, I\nthink, 75,000 refugees. I was being taken around by a young woman who\nwas a schoolteacher, and she said:\n  Senator McCain, do you see all of these children?\n  I said: Yes.\n  She said: Those children believe that you have abandoned them,\nSenator McCain, that you Americans have abandoned them, and when they\ngrow up, they are going to take revenge on you.\n  So here we are, this incredible slaughter, massacre, torture taking\nplace, and what is this administration doing? It is trying to make a\ndeal with the Iranians and leaving Bashar Assad to wreak havoc on the\nSyrian people who are still able to fight, butchering them with barrel\nbombs. Most of my colleagues know what a barrel bomb is. It is a huge\ncylinder, and it is packed with explosives and nuts and bolts and\npieces of shrapnell. Bashar Assad, unimpeded, flies his helicopters and\nthey drop these barrel bombs. Then, when they capture these people,\nthis is what is done to them.\n  Today it is clear that what is happening is that we are attacking\nISIS in Syria. We are not attacking Bashar Assad, this butcher. In\nfact, Bashar Assad has intensified his attacks on the Free Syrian\nArmy--intensified them. Not surprisingly, the morale of the Free Syrian\nArmy is very low.\n  So General Allen and others have recently proposed a no-fly zone or\nan aircraft exclusion zone, an idea we have been arguing for, for about\n3 years. This President still refuses to do it. It is heartbreaking. It\nis heartbreaking and it is tragic and it will go down in American\nhistory as one of the most shameful chapters because of our failure and\nthe President's personal decision not to arm the Free Syrian Army when\nall of his key national security advisers--his Secretary of State,\nHillary Clinton; the head of the CIA, General Petraeus; and Secretary\nof Defense, Secretary Panetta all strongly recommended providing arms\nto the Free Syrian Army.\n  I will move on to Ukraine. Mr. Blinken:\n\n       What Putin has seen is the President mobilizing the\n     international community both in support of Ukraine and to\n     isolate Russia for its actions in Ukraine, and Russia is\n     paying a clear cost for that.\n       The notion that this is somehow the result of Syria makes\n     very little sense to me. . . . That's because this is not\n     about what we do or say in the first instance, it's about\n     Russia and its perceived interests.\n\n  What Mr. Blinken doesn't understand is that weakness in one place\ntranslates throughout the world.\n  When I tell my colleagues, when I tell my fellow citizens that we\nwill not supply the Ukraine people with defensive weapons, they don't\nbelieve me. They have watched the country dismembered. They have\nwatched Crimea go. They have watched the shoot-down on an airliner that\nnobody talks about anymore, and they continue to create unrest and\nkilling in eastern Ukraine, and we will not even supply the Ukrainians\nwith weapons with which to defend themselves.\n  I see that I am nearly out of time. I would like to say I wish Mr.\nBlinken's words were matched by his deeds.\n  At the Holocaust Museum, October 6, 2014, he said:\n\n       A new notion is gaining currency: the ``Responsibility to\n     Protect.'' It holds that states have responsibilities as well\n     as interests--especially the responsibility to shield their\n     own populations from the depraved and murderous. This\n     approach is bold. It is important. And the United States\n     welcomes it and has included it as a core element of our\n     National Security Strategy, along with our commitment to\n     prevent genocide and hold those who organize atrocities\n     accountable.\n\n  No one can look at those pictures, the thousands, and believe that we\nhave held Bashar Assad responsible.\n  He ended up by saying:\n\n       Endorsing the responsibility to protect is one thing;\n     acting on it is another. All of us in the international\n     community will have to muster the political will to act--\n     diplomatically, economically, or, in extreme cases,\n     militarily--when governments prove unable or unwilling to\n     prevent the slaughter of their citizens.\n\n  That is a remarkable statement from an individual whose actions have\nclearly contradicted that at every turn in literally every corner of\nthe Earth.\n  I know we will probably lose the vote, but I believe history will\nhold this administration accountable. History will hold those\nindividuals who are part of this administration, who allowed these\nslaughters to go on--a dismemberment of a country called Ukraine, the\nfirst time a European country has been departitioned since World War\nII; the needless slaughter of thousands and thousands of Ukrainian men,\nwomen, and children, and the thousands and thousands of Syrian\nchildren. The list goes on and on.\n  Now we are going to promote this individual to replace probably the\nfinest diplomat I have known, Secretary Burns. Not only is Mr. Blinken\nunqualified, but he is, I believe, a threat to the traditional\ninterests and values that embody the United States of America.\n  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a\nquorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum\ncall be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor in favor of the\nconfirmation of Tony Blinken, who is no\n\n[[Page S6895]]\n\nstranger to this institution and no stranger to the most significant\nnational security issues this Nation has faced in a generation.\n  As the former staff director of the Foreign Relations Committee and a\nclose confidant of then-Chairman Biden and now a member of the\nPresident's national security team, he has earned a reputation as hard-\nworking, studious, and keenly analytical. He comes from a family of\ndiplomats and has lived his life in and around the Foreign Service.\n  His nomination as Deputy Secretary of State comes at a time when the\nUnited States is facing a range of critical challenges, from Ebola in\nwest Africa, to Russian aggression in Ukraine, to the challenge of\ncountering ISIL in Syria and Iraq, to Iran's continued request for a\nnuclear weapons program. At the same time, we are forging new global\nalliances and partnerships with India, in the Middle East and Asia, and\nlooking for opportunities to expand American exports and business\nopportunities. There will be no shortage of critical issues he will\nface.\n  Foremost on our national security agenda is countering the barbarity\nof ISIL, whose terrorist ambitions threaten our national security as\nwell as the stability of an entire region. We also face a continued\ncrisis in Ukraine, where the cease-fire has collapsed and Russian\ntanks, troops, and weapons continue cross-border incursions into\neastern Ukraine.\n  Clearly, the list of challenges is long and the diplomatic\ncalculations are complicated, and all of these challenges will be part\nof the portfolio of the Deputy Secretary of State. There will be times\nwhere we will agree and times where we will disagree. I look forward to\nworking closely with Mr. Blinken should he be confirmed, and I expect\nthat he will be.\n  I know there is opposition by some of my colleagues to Mr. Blinken.\nAs we considered his nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee last\nweek, several of my colleagues raised concerns which I would like to\ntake a few minutes to address.\n  First, there is an incredible notion that Mr. Blinken is somehow\nunqualified. Anyone who has served the Senate Foreign Relations\nCommittee as staff director, two Presidents, a Vice President, as\nDeputy National Security Adviser to the President of the United States,\nand has chaired the National Security Council's Deputies Committee is\nmore than qualified, and my colleagues know it. They simply disagree\nwith the politics and the policies of the President which are the\nresponsibility of the person who is serving that President to\nultimately promote--anyone he chooses to appoint to a key position. But\nthey cannot disagree that Mr. Blinken has served the Nation admirably,\nwith dignity, diplomacy, and has honored every position he has held,\nthat he has devoted his life serving this Nation's national security\ninterests, and he has excelled at doing it. Frankly, if Mr. Blinken is\nunqualified, then the bar my colleagues have set is too high for any\nhuman being to reach.\n  I ask those who would object to this nominee, what additional\nqualifications can there be? Outside of already occupying the position\nfor which he is nominated, it is hard to understand what additional\nqualifications my colleagues would expect Mr. Blinken to have to\ndemonstrate his worthiness. Perhaps they would prefer that he be\nnominated by a different President whose policies they agree with, but\nthat is not how it works.\n  This is an eminently qualified candidate who has the full trust and\nconfidence of this President, my colleagues' policy concerns\nnotwithstanding. They may disagree with specific policy decisions of\nthis President dutifully carried out--I repeat, carried out--by Mr.\nBlinken.\n  Even listening to my dear friend and colleague Senator McCain, a\ndistinguished member of the committee whom I regret we are going to\nlose in the next Congress from the committee--when he made the comment\nthat the President's personal decision--referring to Syria--when all\nhis national security advisers recommended providing arms to the Free\nSyrian Army, Mr. Blinken is clearly one of those national security\nadvisers, but the President is the one who ultimately makes the\ndecision on what policy will be pursued.\n  That leads us to the questions about Mr. Blinken's participation and\ndecisions involving Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world,\nwith which certain Members of this body have taken issue.\n  Mr. Blinken has had to defend those decisions no matter his personal\nviews or advice. That is his job. You can disagree with the President's\npolicies, but you cannot blame this nominee for doing his sworn\nconstitutional duty to carry them out.\n  I want to be very clear. We cannot judge the qualifications of this\nnominee or, for that fact, any nominee based on the policy decisions of\nthis President or any President. He has been part of\nthis administration, to be sure, but if the Senate starts to hold every\nnominee to account for every decision made by every President they\nserve, I think we will find that there is no one who will pass muster\nand no one who will be confirmed.\n\n  I happen to think President Bush's decision to evade Iraq was a\ngeostrategic blunder of the highest order. I opposed it at the time,\nand history, tragically, has proven that judgment right. The brave\nsacrifice of our young men and women and the squandering of hundreds of\nbillions of our children's and grandchildren's inheritance have\ncompounded the magnitude of this error. Would my colleagues suggest\nthat I should oppose all future Republican nominees who served in the\nBush administration because no matter how qualified they are, somehow\nthey must be held accountable for what I believe history will show in\nevaluating the Bush Presidency as a historic blunder that led to the\ncivil and secular wars that are changing the shape of the Middle East?\nI don't believe that is what my colleagues would suggest, but that\nappears to be how they are judging Mr. Blinken. But none of that is\nreason to oppose Mr. Blinken or any nominee.\n  I hear these references to Iraq. Well, Prime Minister Maliki at the\ntime opposed signing a status of forces agreement, and without such an\nagreement it was impossible to have our forces continue to be in Iraq\nsubject to the possibilities of any issues being pursued legally under\nIraqi law versus our own law, or, in Afghanistan, the question of what\nthe force size should be in 2014. The President has made the statement\nof what it is to be, and maybe we can even have disagreements with what\nthe size of those forces should be in 2014 as we see things evolve, but\nit is not for someone in an appointed position who is supposed to carry\nout the President's policies to say: No, we are not going to have that\nsize; we are going to have a bigger size.\n  I fully expect that if confirmed, there will be a number of issues\nwhere Mr. Blinken and I probably won't see eye to eye--or, rather, the\nadministration he will represent and I may not see eye to eye. When\nthose issues arise, I fully intend to let Mr. Blinken know exactly how\nI feel and to engage him in debate to influence the policy, and I will\navail myself of all the tools a Senator can use to do so.\n  Frankly, given his experience working for this body and given his\nprofessionalism and experience with the Senate Foreign Relations\nCommittee, I would rather it be Mr. Blinken who will be across the\ntable from me rather than someone else who doesn't have any\nunderstanding of this institution and the prerogatives of Senators. I\nam confident he will understand where I am coming from even when we\ndisagree, and I am confident that he willing approach these discussions\nwith an open mind, that he will seek to persuade but he also will be\nopen to persuasion.\n  I don't think any of us here in this body would like to be held to a\nstandard of perfection in our judgments, one that holds no space for\nloyal service to this Nation and no space for qualified nominees who\nhave honorably and faithfully implemented the policies of their\nPresident.\n  Let's be clear. We are not judging the President's policies; we are\njudging the qualifications of a man who has loyally and professionally\ncarried out those policies.\n  I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues in this body. Even when\nI may disagree, I do not doubt that they are seeking what they believe\nis the best for our Nation. At times I think they are right. At other\ntimes I think\n\n[[Page S6896]]\n\nthey are wrong. Today, as it relates to Mr. Blinken, they are wrong.\n  Tony Blinken is a tireless and able public servant who serves the\nNation well, and I urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee. He is a\nman of the Senate, a qualified public servant, and an accomplished\nnational security and foreign policy expert.\n  I yield the floor.\n  I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be\npermitted to proceed as though in morning business for 5 minutes.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n               Ending Insider Trading in Commodities Act\n\n  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, last month the Senate's Permanent\nSubcommittee on Investigations concluded a 2-year bipartisan\ninvestigation into Wall Street bank involvement with physical\ncommodities. Our investigation, which focused on Goldman Sachs, Morgan\nStanley, and JPMorgan Chase, culminated in a 400-page report and 2 days\nof hearings. The subcommittee's investigation found these banks\ninvolved in a breathtaking array of physical commodities activities.\nThey owned coal mines and oil pipelines, oil tankers and refineries,\nelectric powerplants, massive amounts of copper and aluminum and even\nuranium.\n  We examined multiple aspects of financial holding company involvement\nwith physical commodities, including the nature and extent of those\nactivities with the attendant risk, such as the threat to a bank's\nsafety and soundness from a catastrophe along the lines of the BP\noilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. We also examined the impact of those\nactivities on consumers, manufacturers, and markets. One key area of\nconcern relates to possible price manipulation and unfair trading.\n  What we found is that involvement in physical commodities gave these\nbanks access to important nonpublic information that they could use to\nprofit in their trading of financial products tied to those same\ncommodities. In the stock market, the use of such nonpublic information\nis prohibited, but no such clear prohibition exists in commodities\nmarkets. That gives the biggest Wall Street banks an enormous incentive\nto pursue physical commodities activities--often to the detriment of\nconsumers and manufacturers--in order to profit in financial trades by\nthe use of the nonpublic information they gain from their physical\ncommodities activity and to provide the opportunity in some cases to\nengage in market manipulation.\n  I have introduced, with Senator McCain, a bill intended to prevent\nsuch abuses. The Ending Insider Trading in Commodities Act, S. 3013,\nwhich we just introduced, would prevent a large financial institution\nfrom trading in physical commodities and commodity-related financial\ninstruments while at the same time in possession of material nonpublic\ninformation arising from its ownership or interests in a business or\nfacility used to store, ship, or use the same commodity. A large\nfinancial institution should not be able to control, for instance, a\nhuge number of warehouses and then use the nonpublic information that\nit gains and sometimes creates from the operation of those warehouses\nto trade on the same kinds of commodities stored in those warehouses.\n  As we learned from our investigation, a financial institution that\nowns warehouses may manipulate warehouse operations in ways that move\nthe prices of the very financial instruments and commodities the\nfinancial institution is trading.\n  In the case of aluminum, we saw that Goldman Sachs owned dozens of\nwarehouses in the Detroit area, which it used to build a near monopoly\non the storage of aluminum in the United States that is used to settle\ntrades on the London Metal Exchange, which sets the benchmark price for\naluminum around the world. Using that dominant position, Goldman\napproved warehouse deals and practices that lengthened the lines, the\nqueues for metal owners to get their metal out of the warehouses to\nnearly 2 years. By lengthening the queues, Goldman raised the premium\nthat includes such costs as storage and transportation and which, along\nwith the London Metal Exchange's benchmark price, makes up the total\nprice consumers pay for aluminum. Goldman manipulated these warehouse\npractices in ways that made metal owners wait to get their metal and\ninfluenced prices paid to buy aluminum and hedge aluminum costs. All\nthe while, Goldman was trading in aluminum and aluminum-related\nfinancial instruments.\n  It is a rigged game. It needs to be stopped, and that is what this\nbill is intended to do. I thank Senator McCain for joining me in this\nimportant effort. We hope our colleagues will take up this bill and\ncarry on this effort in the next Congress.\n  (The remarks of Mr. LEVIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 3019\nare printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills\nand Joint Resolutions.'')\n  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to express my opposition to the\nnomination of Antony Blinken to be Deputy Secretary of State.\n  There is no shortage of global conflicts or crises facing the United\nStates, and as one of the key positions at the State Department, the\nDeputy Secretary of State will play a key role in developing and\nimplementing our foreign policy. Unfortunately, I must oppose Mr.\nBlinken's nomination at this time because his track record on some of\nthe most significant foreign policy and national security issues has\nraised serious concerns about the direction his leadership would take\nour Nation's foreign policy.\n  Mr. Blinken has been a foreign policy advisor for several years and\nplayed a significant role in determining how and when the United States\nleft Iraq. I believe this has contributed to the instability in the\nregion. Additionally, Mr. Blinken has been less than forthright with\nsome of my colleagues, and has misstated the Administration's position\nwith respect to Iran sanctions.\n  I am also concerned about the speed of this nomination. He was\nnominated a month ago and is being forced through in the lame duck. I\nbelieve a nominee of this significance should be subject to a more\nthorough review because at a time when the United States is facing\ncritical national security challenges on many fronts, we must have\nproven and effective leadership.\n  For these reasons, I must oppose Mr. Blinken's nomination.\n  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                             Cloture Motion\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before\nthe Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.\n  The bill clerk read as follows:\n\n                             Cloture Motion\n\n       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the\n     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,\n     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of\n     Antony Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State.\n         Harry Reid, Brian Schatz, Patrick J. Leahy, Bernard\n           Sanders, John E. Walsh, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Tom\n           Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Debbie\n           Stabenow, Christopher A. Coons, Robert Menendez, Carl\n           Levin, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Richard J. Durbin.\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate\nthat debate on the nomination of Antony Blinken, of New York, to be\nDeputy Secretary of State, shall be brought to a close?\n  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk called the roll.\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)\nand the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.\n  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the\nSenator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.\nCochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from\nUtah (Mr.\n\n[[Page S6897]]\n\nLee), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).\n  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would\nhave voted ``nay.''\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber\ndesiring to vote?\n  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 40, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 361 Ex.]\n\n                                YEAS--53\n\n     Baldwin\n     Begich\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Booker\n     Brown\n     Cantwell\n     Cardin\n     Carper\n     Casey\n     Coons\n     Donnelly\n     Durbin\n     Feinstein\n     Franken\n     Gillibrand\n     Hagan\n     Harkin\n     Heinrich\n     Heitkamp\n     Hirono\n     Johnson (SD)\n     Kaine\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Landrieu\n     Leahy\n     Levin\n     Manchin\n     Markey\n     McCaskill\n     Menendez\n     Merkley\n     Mikulski\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Nelson\n     Pryor\n     Reed\n     Reid\n     Rockefeller\n     Schatz\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Stabenow\n     Tester\n     Udall (CO)\n     Udall (NM)\n     Walsh\n     Warner\n     Warren\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--40\n\n     Alexander\n     Ayotte\n     Barrasso\n     Blunt\n     Boozman\n     Burr\n     Coats\n     Coburn\n     Collins\n     Corker\n     Cornyn\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Enzi\n     Fischer\n     Flake\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hatch\n     Heller\n     Hoeven\n     Inhofe\n     Isakson\n     Johnson (WI)\n     Kirk\n     McCain\n     McConnell\n     Moran\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Portman\n     Risch\n     Roberts\n     Rubio\n     Scott\n     Shelby\n     Thune\n     Toomey\n     Vitter\n     Wicker\n\n                             NOT VOTING--7\n\n     Boxer\n     Chambliss\n     Cochran\n     Johanns\n     Lee\n     Sanders\n     Sessions\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are\n40.\n  The motion to invoke cloture is agreed to.\n  Cloture having been invoked, under the previous order, all time is\nyielded back.\n  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination\nof Antony Blinken, of New York, to be Deputy Secretary of State?\n  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk called the roll.\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)\nand the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.\n  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the\nSenator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.\nCochran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from\nUtah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber\ndesiring to vote?\n  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 38, as follows:\n\n                      [Rollcall Vote No. 362 Ex.]\n\n                                YEAS--55\n\n     Baldwin\n     Begich\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Booker\n     Brown\n     Cantwell\n     Cardin\n     Carper\n     Casey\n     Coons\n     Corker\n     Donnelly\n     Durbin\n     Feinstein\n     Flake\n     Franken\n     Gillibrand\n     Hagan\n     Harkin\n     Heinrich\n     Heitkamp\n     Hirono\n     Johnson (SD)\n     Kaine\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Landrieu\n     Leahy\n     Levin\n     Manchin\n     Markey\n     McCaskill\n     Menendez\n     Merkley\n     Mikulski\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Nelson\n     Pryor\n     Reed\n     Reid\n     Rockefeller\n     Schatz\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Stabenow\n     Tester\n     Udall (CO)\n     Udall (NM)\n     Walsh\n     Warner\n     Warren\n     Whitehouse\n     Wyden\n\n                                NAYS--38\n\n     Alexander\n     Ayotte\n     Barrasso\n     Blunt\n     Boozman\n     Burr\n     Coats\n     Coburn\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Enzi\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hatch\n     Heller\n     Hoeven\n     Inhofe\n     Isakson\n     Johnson (WI)\n     Kirk\n     McCain\n     McConnell\n     Moran\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Portman\n     Risch\n     Roberts\n     Rubio\n     Scott\n     Shelby\n     Thune\n     Toomey\n     Vitter\n     Wicker\n\n                             NOT VOTING--7\n\n     Boxer\n     Chambliss\n     Cochran\n     Johanns\n     Lee\n     Sanders\n     Sessions\n  The nomination was confirmed.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to\nreconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the\nPresident will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6886"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 8.987909881398082, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}