a railroad in tax policy, but unfortunately because it has the word tax to it, it seems to be radioactive and as a result we have to wait until the 11th hour and the 59th minute to pass it, and i certainly hope that we will pass it this week. well, let me give you another example. the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. you know, when you get a mortgage at the bank, you want to buy a home, the bank negotiates and sets up a mortgage so that you can buy the home. most of the banks will require you to take out an insurance policy should you fail to pay on that mortgage. we've always had the

deductibility of that insurance premium in calculating your federal income taxes. and it particularly helped low- and middle-income people deduct the amount they pay for private mortgage insurance. and therefore, what does that do? that helps folks like that to buy a home. is it home -- isn't homeowner ship something that is desirable in america? i think so. well, we better pass this tax extenders bill. and i'll give you another example. excluding foreign -- excluding forgiven mortgage debt from income. it allows people to exclude forgiven morning debt from their income. why am i raising this?

haven't we just gone through the worst recession since the great depression? didn't some people get so upside down in their mortgage with their mortgage being at this level but the value of their home dropping to this level, so that the mortgage that they owed was such greater amount than the value of their home, and so they try to work with the purchaser and the bank that has the mortgage so that, called a short sale, that a part of that difference between the mortgage amount and the value of the home, that the bank forgives part of that debt, and the poor taxpayer, the homeowner, then

instead of treating what they have been forgiven as income to the taxpayer -- the poor taxpayer that has just had to take a shellacking because of the value of their home dropping below the value of the mortgage, and lo and behold when they get a break and sell in a short sell, they end up having to pay income tax on that amount of debt that was forgiven. i don't think we want to do that. and that's why we have this provision to exclude that debt forgiven from the income tax. but for all of the last 12 months, it's not going to be forgiven if we can't pass this tax extenders bill.

i think we better get serious about it. we're talking about looking at this as the last piece of legislation this week to pass before we leave. we better get serious about it. then every one of us want to treat teachers the right way. teachers haven't been treated the right way. as a matter of fact, a lot of teachers are pulling out of their own pocket because their school districts are not providing enough money for school supplies for those little children. and those unselfish teachers go into their own pocket to bring out money to provide the supplies so the kids can learn.

if a courageous and unselfish teacher does that, should we not at least give them a deduction on that amount that they paid for those school supplies for their children? shouldn't we let them deduct that in calculating their income tax? we have in the past, but we haven't for calendar year 2014, this present year. and that is another one of the deductions that i hope the united states congress is going to pass this week in order to try to take care of our people. but as we go through this in the future, why do we have to keep waiting until the last minute so people can't plan, so people get nervous, so people don't

know what to do, so people don't know how to invest, so people don't know how to preserve their land, their business, and the future for their families. this is no way to run a railroad, but at least we can salvage some kind of victory from the jaws of defeat. i hope we will pass this bill in short order. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. it is no secret to anyone in america that the middle class of our country today is struggling struggling, that while millions of american workers are now working longer hours for lower wages, than they did in some

cases 30 or 40 years ago, we're looking at a 40-year decline of the middle class, that almost all of the new income being generated today is going to the top 1%, and tragically, the united states has the most unequal distribution of income in wealth of any major country on earth. but the issue, mr. president, is not just for the middle class right now or for working families. the issue of the economic crisis that we're in significantly impacts senior citizens and children, the most vulnerable people in this country. my hope always has been that as a great nation we will not turn our backs on the children of america but year after year that is can exactly what we do.

we continue to have millions of children living in poverty, in fact, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth, almost 20% of our kids live in poverty. we have about one out of four children in america who get their nutrition from the food stamp program. and i worry very much about the future of this country if we cannot stand with the children of america, if we cannot make sure that parents, working parents all over this country have high-quality, affordable hike, which is certainly not the case right now despite the fact that virtually all psychologists recognize that the most important years of a human being's life are zero to 4 but our child care system is a disaster. but it is not only the children that we have turned our backs on. increasingly, we are turning

our backs on senior citizens as well. and it has distressed me for a number of years to be hearing many of my republican friends and some democrats talking about the need to cut social security, cut social security. and there are various schemes that are out there, some have to do with the so-called chained c.p.i. which would reformulate how we determine cost of living adjustments for seniors, meaning over a period of years significant reductions in what seniors and disabled veterans would get, and we have worked, i have worked in opposition to that concept for years and i think we've beaten it back but i have no doubt that it will resurface again. there are folks who want to cut social security, and in my view, we have got to do everything that we can not only to defeat that proposal but what

we have got to begin talking about is how we expand social security benefits because today, the kind of benefits that millions of seniors get is simply not adequate for them in terms of giving them the income they need to purchase the medicine that they require, food that they need, heating their homes had the wintertime, and other basic necessities. in terms of social security, mr. president, let me be very clear. despite what folks on tv may be saying and some politicians may be saying, let us be very clear. social security is not going broke. let me repeat. social security is not going broke. today, social security has a surplus in the trust fund of

$2.76 trillion, a surplus of $2.76 trillion and can pay out benefits to every eligible american for the next 19 years to the year 2033. so anyone who comes forward and says social security is going broke, it is just factually not true, social security can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 19 years. and then we hear the argument, well, we have a large deficit. social security is one of the causes of our deficit and our national debt, and that is absolutely inaccurate. social security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt because social security as every worker in america knows, is independently funded through payroll tax contributions from workers and employers, 6.2%

from each, and it does not receive funding the federal treasury. so a, it's not going broke, b, it's not contributing to the deficit. but i will tell enthusiasm about social security -- in an incredibly volatile economy -- stock market goes up, stock market goes down -- social security from its inception 79 years ago through good economic times and bad economic times, social security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary with minimal administrative cost. social security is not an investment program. you can invest money on wall street, sometimes do you well. you can invest money on wall street, sometimes you lose your shirt. social security is a social insurance program. it has never failed one american

in 79 years. that is a pretty good record. but even with social security being strong and solvent for the next 19 years, we have to recognize that we do have a retirement crisis in america today and i fear very much that the appropriation bill just passed the other day which will allow pensions for millions of workers to be cut, is only going to exacerbate that problem. today in america only one in five workers has a traditional defined benefit that guarantees income in retirement. mr. president, amazingly enough and when you want to talk about anxiety among the american people, stress among the american people, why people are angry, why they are fearful,

over half of all americans have less than $10,000 in savings. stop and think about that. if you have less than $10,000 in savings, an automobile accident, needing a new car can wipe you out. anilines can wipe you out. a divorce can wipe you out. so you got millions and millions of americans who are sitting there wondering how are they going to retire with dignity when they have $5,000, $8,000, or less in savings. mr. president, when we talk about social security, here's the importance of social security -- two-thirds of senior citizens today depend upon social security for more than half of their income. one-third of all seniors depend upon social security for at least 90% of their income.

so when you talk about cutting social security, understand that a third of seniors depend upon social security for at least 90% of their income. this is not extra money, you know, this is not fun money, this is life and death money, this is the money that people need to buy medicine, food, keep their homes warm in the wintertime. now, mr. president, i wish i could tell you otherwise, but the truth of the matter is, is that the percentage of seniors living in poverty in america is going up. is the going up. in 2011, the official senior poverty rate was 8.7%. last year, the official senior poverty rate was 9.5%. that's a pretty significant increase in senior poverty.

but if you look at the census bureau's more comprehensive measure of poverty, which takes a careful look at the out-of-pocket medical costs of seniors, the poverty rate for seniors is even worse. according to this supplemental poverty measure from the census bureau, the real senior poverty rate in america is actually 14 14.6%. what that means is that one out of seven seniors living in america last year could not afford to meet their most basic needs. mr. president, the average social security benefit today is just $14,000 a year. and as someone who will be the next ranking member of the budget committee, i intend to do everything i can not only to oppose vigorously any efforts to

cut social security, i'm going to do everything that i can to expand social security benefits. and, in fact, the best way to expand social security is to ask the wealthiest people in our country to pay more into the system by scrapping the cap on income that is subject to the social security payroll tax. mr. president, as you know, right now a billionaire pays the same amount into social security as someone who makes $117,000 a year. you've got a multimillionaire, somebody's making $50 million, somebody's making $117,000, they both contribute the same amount into the social security trust fund. this is regressive, this is unfair, this is absurd. if we lifted this cap and applied the social security payroll tax to income above

$250,000 -- not $117,000 but $250,000 a year, we could not only -- we could not only extend the solvency of social security for decades to come, which is what we want to do, but we would also provide the resources necessary to expand social security benefits. and that is exactly what we should be doing and that, in fact, is what the american people want us to do. mr. president, i an august 2014 poll by lake research partners asked likely voters if they support the idea of -- quote -- "increasing social security benefits and paying for that increase by having wealthy americans pay the same rate into social security as everybody else." and interestingly, this is what the poll found.

90% of democratic voters said they support the idea and 75% strongly support that idea of lifting the cap. 73% of independent voters support that idea. 55% strongly support it. 73% of republican voters support that idea. 47% strongly support it. so there is for that idea enormously strong support suppos the political spectrum, democrats, independents, republicans. mr. president, sadly, despite this overwhelming support for expanding social security, the c.e.o.'s at the business roundtable -- the business roundtable is the organization representing the largest corporations in in americ ameriy

came out with a plan last year that does exactly what the american people do not want to do. the american people want to expand social security and the business roundtable came out with a plan that would increase the social security retirement age from 67 to 70 and severely cut the colas, cost-of-living adjustments of citizens and disabled veterans. mr. president, the congress and the senate here have got to make a very fundamental decision and that is, do we listen -- do we listen to the american people who are hurting today, to seniors who have worked their whole lives but who just cannot get by in what in many cases are meager and inadequate social security benefits? do we listen to them, do we stand up for and with the people who helped build this country, who worked the farms, who worked

in our factories, who served us in the armed forces? do we stand with them and expand social security or do we listen to those on wall street and corporate america who want to cut social security benefits and in some cases want to privatize social security? this is a huge issue for tens of millions of americans and, mr. president, i intend to do everything that i can not only to resist cuts to social security but to do everything that we can to expand social security benefits for those seniors and disabled vets who desperately need that expansion. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president and members of the senate, in a few hours or maybe within this day or tomorrow, the senate will be voting on several nominees to be

judges, district judges. i come to the floor to speak about one of these, stephen bough of missouri, for a seat on the district court for the western district of missouri. as i do with every nominee, i thoroughly examined mr. bough's record with an eye at gig him and others the benefit of the doubt if problematic issues arose. after full consideration of that record i'm regrettably unable to support this nominee. there are just too many data points, red flags, if you will, which tell me that mr. bough doesn't have what it takes to serve in a lifetime appointment on the missouri district court. these red flags will all relate to one troubling question that the nominee's record raises,

whether mr. bough has the temperament to be a federal judge. i've come to the conclusion that he doesn't have that type of temperament. so i would explain my conclusi conclusion. first, there's the issue of this nominee's professional conduct. a specific incident from last year demonstrates how mr. bough has engaged in what i believe to be unethical behavior that precludes him from service on a federal bench. last october, a member of the mississippi bar drew my attention to the nominee's participation in a civil case in federal district court. the presiding judge on that case was the nominee's former employer, senior district judge scott o. wright.

about a week before the nominee signed on to the case, the plaintiff's attorney asked the court to transfer the case to another judge. judge wright denied that motion the next day. then just one week later, the nominee entered his appearance in the case. mere hours after that, judge wright recused himself without any motion from the parties. now, why did judge wright do that? well, when mr. bough joined the case, he created a conflict of interest with judge wright. you see, mr. bough was judge wright's law clerk and remains his close personal friend today. in fact, judge wright had added the nominee to his personal conflicts list in january 2006.

and mr. bough was well aware that he was on the conflict list. so mr. bough knew that by joining the case, judge wright was guaranteed to recuse himself and that's exactly what the plaintiff's tried unsuccessfully to do just one -- plaintiffs tried unsuccessfully to do just one week before mr. bough signed on and forced that recusal by creating the conflict with the judge. now, you can reasonably ask, why is this significant? well, what the nominee did here is known as judge shopping. it's an unethical litigation practice that has been strongly criticized by the courts throughout the country. essentially, it's when a lawyer knowingly creates a conflict with a judge in order to get the judge kicked off a case and replaced with a new and perhaps more favorable judge.

that's the shopping part. the michigan supreme court has explained that judge shopping -- quote -- "exposes the legal profession and the courts to contempt and ridicule." the fifth circuit calls judge shopping -- quote -- "sheer manipulation of the justice system." another federal court has noted that the practice is -- quote "universally condemned." this isn't the kind of professional conduct that we can accept in a nominee to the federal bench. now, i gave mr. bough several opportunities to explain his conduct in questions for the record that i submitted to him. what i learned from his responses was this -- the nominee knew that by joining the case he'd create a conflict requiring judge wright's recus

recusal. i also asked the nominee to provide to our judiciary committee with the work that he says he did while he was an attorney on that case. you see, i wanted to know whether the nominee joined the case in good faith to work and to do it for the client or joined just to create a conflict with the judge. mr. bough responded that he provided advice and edits on only three documents. i requested those documents twice and id tol i told the nomo redact any content protected by attorney-client privilege. the nominee has refused to provide those documents to me. the nominee has not provided to me memorandums, billing records or any other materials to support his claim that he actually was working on that case.

nor did the nominee attend any depositions or other pretrial hearings in that case. he made no filings with the court. in short, mr. bough has provided me with almost nothing to support his claim that he actually did substantial work on the case during the seven months that he represented the client. it's for this reason and for the circumstances i've already described that i'm led to believe that the nominee's entry of appearance was not in good faith. it looks to me like a textbook case of judge shopping. but the judge shopping is only one of many red flags. let me discuss another that gives me serious pause. the nominee has been active in democratic party politics in kansas city area for a number of years. now, i want you -- i want to

make it very clear that i don't hold that against him. i have said frequently over the years that i never disqualify a judicial nominee just because he or she has been politically active. instead, the issue for me is whether a nominee has shown that they can shift gears and put aside their previous political advocacy once they put on the judge's robe. this nominee's record makes it abundantly clear that he wouldn't be able to make the switch from political advocate to impartial arbiter of law. i'll give you an example. in recent years, the nominee has written a number of blogs and those posts have been about local and national politics. i've read his posts. i'll say that some are of stridently political nature. that doesn't bother me. others, though, well, they're

simply too crude and sexist for me to quote from here, but at the conclusion of this statement i'll submit them to be included in the public record. i challenge any democrat who's voting for this nominee to read those blogs aloud to the public. i'm confident none of my colleagues will do that. so i'll just say that the sheer coarseness of those posts led me and other members of our judiciary committee to question whether mr. bough has a temperament suited to the lifetime judicial service. unfortunately, it is not just the backlog posts that make me ask that question. the nominee has shown in other contexts that he is first and foremost a political operative rather than a zealous advocate for a client or an officer of

the court. for example, mr. bough has lodged two obviously frivolous and abusive comaintse complainte federal election commission against a congressional candidate that he opposed i had ideologically. in 2008, the clition commission dis-the first of these complaints in a brief opinion. but in 2012, he redoubled his effort and filed a second 93-page complaint against the same candidate. this time the commission responded with a lengthy and meticulous opinion that is striking for its strong language dismissing mr. bough's allegations. the commission criticized mr. bough's allegations as -- quote, unquote -- "vague and speculative" and said that any violations which may have occurred were so minor as not to merit consideration. the opinion concluded that

mr. bough's complaint had no basis for its allegations and was without merit. so the bottom line here is that the nominee was using a government agency as a tool to harass a political opponent. as i said earlier, that's behavior indicative of a political operative, someone who's just not going to be able to put it all aside and consider cases objectively once he becomes a judge. now, from time to time, some of my colleagues on the judiciary committee have commented that the best evidence for the type of judge a nominee will be is the type of lawyer they have been. so i think there's a lot of wisdom in that view. so with this nominee we know what kind of a lawyer he's been defending an un-savory complaint or representing an unpopular clause is one thing. we expect lawyers to do that.

our system, in fact, demands that they do that. but acting as a political operative is an entirely different matter, and that's the kind of lawyer this nominee's record shows him to have been; a lawyer steeped in bare-knuckled political combat. i said at the beginning of this statement that i'm inclined to give nominees the benefit of the doubt when i come across something in their record that raises my eyebrows, and i probably wouldn't have done that with this nominee, too, if there had been just an isolated issue or an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment. but that's not what we have got here with mr. bough. not only do we have unethical judge-shopping; to that we have to add a number of crass, sexist, and insulting backlog ig posts. and to that we also add a pair of frivolous complaints that

abuse the jurisdiction of a government agency in order to harass a political opponent. there's just too many red flags for me to support this nominee. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i'm here today to discuss the tax increase prevention act. we're now getting down to the end of the year. it's important that we get our work done, and an important part of that work is passing the tax increase prevention act. it's often referred to as the tax extenders package, but what it really does is it extends tax credits and deductions used by

small businesses across this country. the tax increase prevention act will extend for one year 55 different tax credits and deductions that expired either at the end of 2013 or during 2014. this is a bill that's already passed the house and it passed with a huge margin, with a bipartisan vote of 378-46. one of the most important provisions in the act is the section 179 expensing and depreciation provision for small businesses. that's a provision i particularly want to paperwork on today and talk about -- focus on today and talk about and discuss why it's so important for our small businesses and, in fact, for our entire economy. section 179 allows farmers and other small businesses to expense and appreciate got they've purchased or repaired for their operations.

that's important to them so they don't see a tax increase, but also keeps our economy going. without it, small businesses will buy and repair less equipment, slowing down our manufacturing base, and slowing down our economy. quite simply, that means fewer jobs. it's not only because small businesses eos are increased but it's -- costs costs are increased but also because of the uncertainty created when they don't know the rules of the road and that's why this fix needs to be done on a permanent basis, on a permanent basis and i think it could have been done on a permanent basis this year. we were working on a deal until the president threatened to veto that legislation. now we've got a one-year fix. but we've got broad support in this chamber for the one-year fix and we need to pass it, we need to pass it now, and then

go back to work an a -- on a permanent fix next year. i was home for the weekend about a year ago and i was talking to some of the farmers in our state. they told me what they've been telling me for some time now, that's that they need the section 179 expensing and depreciation and need to know the rules of the road and need to know it now. we're at year end. we're at year end. they're doing their year-end planning, they're doing their tax work. some are still negotiating on buying equipment for next year. the depreciation and expensing rules aspect the decisions that they make. -- affect the decisions they make and also will affect the number of jobs in our economy. agriculture alone is responsible for 16 million direct and indirect jobs in our economy.

16 million. ag is also a sector of our economy that produces a positive balance of trade. and american agriculture provides the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. something that benefits every single american every day. but section 179 expensing and depreciation is important for other small businesses as well. it's not just small business. it helps keep our large industries going, too. for example, keyston holland, john deere have manufacturing plants in my home state. they produce tractors, balors and other equipment. they also make industrial equipment. so when farmers and others slow down their purchases, these manufacturing facilities slow down as well. it means less business, fewer

workers needed, fewer jobs. that's how it works. it's that simple. the truth is, small business is the backbone of our economy in this country. the hallmark of america is that it's historically been the best place in the world to do business. it's where everybody has always come to do business. we've always had the best legal, tax, and regulatory business climate. we've provided the certainty businesses need to invest, to hire people, to create jobs, and to grow the economy. that's the rising tide that lifts all boats, a higher standard of living for our people and economic growth, not higher taxes, to reduce our debt and deficit, to get them under control as well. let's create that certainty for our farmers and small businesses across this great nation.

let's make sure their taxes don't go up, and let's start by passing the tax increase prevention act and section 179 expensing and depreciation now. i'd like to close by reading from some of the letters that i've received from some of my constituents. i think so often the hardworking taxpayers of north dakota, the small business people out getting it done every day, say it best. first one is from dick udall, owner of bismarck-based udall auto plus. he says without section 179 and the bonus depreciation, udall's auto parts would really have felt the pinch last year when we purchased equipment to service diesel powered trucks and heavy equipment. since the growth in the bakken has been important he can save

clients thousands of dollars by refurbishing worn engine blocks, made possible by the equipment he bought in 2007 and 2013 for $450,000. at a 34% tax rate, he says he wouldn't have been able to make those equipment purchases work. but with section 179 expensing and depreciation, he was able to make those things work. and as a result, he's providing jobs in the western part of our state. udall's auto parts employs more than 200 people. another constituent wrote in, leon slaybaugh of roulette. she writes -- quote -- "i'm concerned about section 179 and what this is doing to the agricultural sector in north dakota. farm equipment is not being sold

as farmers are concerned about the amount they will pay taxes movement i farm with my husband, and i work in a small town small supply. farmers have quit spending due to low commodity prices and section 179. i'm concerned with the effect on our small town economy if section 179 is not revised. after with our tax consultant we are concerned with a possible liability we are facing and what this means to the future of our family farm. please push for revision of section 179" -- end quote. dennis miller, had who grew up in stark county and worked for an ag equipment dealership for 28 years is similarly concerned. i'm going to paraphrase from his letter. four years ago he started his own business, southwest ag repair. he cells and repairs all brands of farm equipment. he has six employees.

mr. miller wrote to me earlier this year anxious about the expiration of section 179. quote -- "it's going to cut sales drastically. the loss of sales will create backlash in the economy, throughout the state and the country. there has to be a better way to create the tax revenue." and mr. miller, there is. you create tax revenue with economic growth, not higher taxes. just like you create jobs, create economic activity, getting -- again, that rising tide that lifts all boats enables us to invest in the future of our country and roads and bridges, our schools, and all the things that people want for this great nation. but it comes from a growing economy. and, of course, that's what creates the jobs that we need

for our families across america. so when we talk about the tax increase prevention act, that's what we're talking about. we're talking about making sure here at the end of the year that taxes don't go up. that taxes don't go up on hardworking taxpayers across this country, that taxes don't go up on our small businesses across the country and that we understand that that is truly the backbone of our economy, that all those people and all those small businesses are the ones that make our economy go every day, every minute of every day. so it's time to act. it's time to act. the votes are here. the votes are here on a bipartisan basis in this body to get it done. let's get it done. our american intelligence, our hard -- --, our american citizens, our hardworking

taxpayers have waited long enough. with that i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. it's good for see you today.

the place is a little empty but i'm glad that you, our staff and the pages are all here. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support two critical nominations for the department of homeland security. they are russ dio and sarah soldano to be assistant secretary for immigration and customs enforcement. the committee which i'm privileged to lead, along with dr. tom coburn, the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, is responsible for working with the administration and others to help protect our nation's security at home and abroad. at the same time, we strive to make sure that federal agencies work better, more efficiently with the resources that are entrusted to them by the american people. during my years of public service, i've learned that the most important ingredient in helping organizations to work is leadership. i don't care what the organization is, whether it's a body like this, a governing

body, i don't care whether it's a sports team, a business, college or university, a school, the most important ingredient in the success of that organization is leadership. and our presiding officer is one who has led the national guard for state of -- for the state of montana for a number of years. we thank him for his service and for his leadership. when it comes to the department of homeland security, leadership or the absence of leadership, throughout the department has been a great challenge and a major cause of -- of their low standing in terms of employee morale that department faces. the congress is going to soon wrap up our session for this year, as we know, in a couple of days. senators will have an obligation to fill two key leadership posts in the department of homeland security and that is in the days

that lie ahead and that is the undersecretary for management, mr. day, who was nominated by the president -- republican, i believe -- and the assistants secretary for immigration and customs enforcement, sarah saldana. this department, as we all know, plays a critical role in protecting our nation from a number of threats, including terrorism, cyber attacks, and natural disasters, just to name a few. given the department's significant role in the security of our country, it's critical that secretary jeh johnson has a full leadership team in place and that includes russ dio as under secretary for management. that's the third highest position in the department. i just want to take a couple of minutes to plain why mr. dio's nomination is so important. as of this week, more than 10 months will have passed since congrescongressthe previous empd

down, and it's been more than a year. since then the position has not been filled. he was widely respected by the committee and the senate and the house for his leadership, management, expertise and, most of all, maybe for his candor. he helped the department make strides in many areas and led the department to its first clean financial audit, something the department was able to achieve again this year for the second year in a row. and why -- why is that important? i have a friend, you ask him how he's doing, mr. president, and says, "compared to what?" well, the department of homeland security, it took them almost a decade to come and get an unqualified audit, clean financial audit. the department of defense has been around a lot longer, and they have yet to get a clean audit. here making progress. but the homeland security acomeefachieved it two years agd

again this year. but the position needs the same leadership that rafael boris brought and we believe that russ dio is that person. he 27 years helped lead johnson&johnson, one of the top companies not just in america but the world. he was the general counsel and vice president for administration. we are so lucky that someone with his capabilities, his commitment, his smarts, his leadership skills, his integrity is willing to serve in federal government at these levels. he also spent the last 15 years serving on the executive committee at johnson&johnson, which is the principal management group responsible for the company's global operations. he was also a partner in a major u.s. law firm. russ dio is no stranger to public service and working with the law enforcement organizati organizations. he was assistant u.s. attorney in new jersey for eight years

and that included a period of time as chief of the public corruption unit there. his perspective from the private and public sectors will be invaluable -- an invaluable asset to secretary jeh johnson, particularly as the secretary implements his unity of effort initiatives at the department, which strives to help the department operate in a more unified, cohesive manner across all components. if confirmed, mr. dio will have a number of other challenges on his plate. for example, our friends at the government accountability office continue to remind us that the acquisition and budgeting systems at d.h.s., department of homeland security, are not fully mature. in fact, the overall management of the department remains on g.a.o.'s, the government accountability office's, high-risk list of government operations that need urgent attention. and, of course, if mr. dio is confirmed, he'll inherit the challenge of improving morale across the department. these are tough challenges and some have been around since the creation of the department but i believe mr. dio has the

leadership experience and the skills necessary top tackle these and to really make a difference. i'll just take a moment here if i can, you know. mr. chairman, every year there's a nonprofit organization that looks across federal government, asks questions of a lot of employees to -- to really ascertain where's morale, high? where are some of the favorite places for people to work in the federal government, the nuclear regulatory commission for a number of years has sort of led the pack there. there's roughly 15 big units, 15 big departments that are part of that survey. but all told, there's something like 314 federal agencies that are surveyed, that make up thi this -- this -- this list. and the department of homeland security runs dead last among the big agencies, it is big theg departments that are surveyed. out of all the federal agencies that are serving, there's 314 in all and i.c.e., immigrations and customs enforcement, which sarah

saldana has been nominated to lead, dead last. dead last. and one of the reasons why, whether i talk to people at the department of homeland security, the employees, whether they happen to be custom agents, whether they happen to be folks that are down on the border patrol, t.s.a. folks, whatever role they're playing across the country and around the world, the -- among the major factors they point to is -- explaining for the low morale is lack of leadership, lack of confirmed leadership. we worked so hard to address that. we have two holes left and one of them would be filled by mr. dio. we need to confirm him. and the other by sarah saldana. but here's what form he were d.h.s. secretary judge chertoff had to say when he introduced mr. dio at his confirmation hearing before our committee, before the homeland security committee earlier this year. here's what former secretary said. "russ brings to the position he's been nominated for with a

broad range of experience with one of the best enterprises in the world." that's johnson&johnson. "you will find him to be a smart, experienced and devoted public servant who will actually bring a unique set of skills to this job which are very critic critical." he went on to say -- this is the former secretary of the department -- "i could not give a stronger endorsement to russ diaw for this position. he's also received strong endorsement from three former under secretaries for management at d.h.s., people who've had that job and done this job before. paul schneider, elaine duke and the immediate past under secretary, rafael boris, whom i mentioned earlier. here's what they had to say. this is what they also said. i think just the three of them in unison had to say. "russ deyo is an outstanding choice by the president to be under secretary for management at the department of homeland security. an impressive leader, he brings the requisite skills, experience

and leadership to this important position. he is recognized as a professional, unflappable statesman who can give the challenges -- who can meet the challenges that this position faces head-on and get results." i've had the privilege of meeting with him. i don't make snap judgments about people but i want to tell you, mr. president, he is one impressive human being. one impressive leader. everything i've learned about him over the past several months has led me to conclude that he'd be not just an exceptional candidate, he would be a terrific under secretary if confirmed. i urge all my colleagues to support the nomination of russ deo. i'd like to take a few moments to turn to the nomination of sarah saldana to be the assistant secretary at the department of homeland security. we call it ice iraq, the

acronym-- --we call it i.c.e., the acron acronym. of the agencies evaluated according to satisfaction, i.c.e. was dead last. it's been almost a year and a half since they had a senate-confirmed leader. they need one. and not just anyone, they need a terrific leader. we believe that ve sarah saldana meets the qualifications and needs very, very well. immigrations and customs enforcement, ice iraq, i ice i.n the department of homeland security. far too long, particularly considering all the issues we face along our borders and the more than 400 laws -- think of that 400 laws that this agency, i.c.e., immigration and customs enforcement, is required tossen force. some of my colleagues might not be familiar with what i.c.e.

does and why it is so critical for the tegs have senate-confirmed leadership in place. let me take a palestinia a minus that. it has more unanimous 19,000 employees in all 50 states, the district of columbia, 48 foreign countries. what do all these people do? fair question. well, in 2013, i.c.e. special agents initiated over 125,000 new investigations, made over 40,000 criminal arrests, seized $1.3 billion in currency and assets and took 1.6 million pounds of narcotics and other dangerous drugs off our streets. in any given day, they arrest millions of criminal aliens in our country and removes nearly 500 criminal aliens from our country -- in any given day. managing such a large agency with one of the most complex missions in the federal government is a tall, tall

order. thankfully, ms. saldana has agreed to step up to this challenge. she is a true american success story, mr. president. she rose from the hu humble beginnings of south texas as the youngest in her family. she is now one of the nation's top law enforcement officers. saldana was unanimously confirmed by the u.s. senate in 2011 to her current position as u.s. attorney for the north district of texas. she has a distinguished record representing the u.s. government as the senior law enforcement officer in one of the largest districts in the nation, it spans some 100 counties. i don't know how many counties you have in the state of montana, mr. president. we have three. but she has grace and presides over law enforcement operation that has 150 counties in the northern part of texas. in this role, she deals as closely and extensively as

anyone else with the threats this country faces every dprai transnational criminal networksment this experience will serve her well, if confirmed to lead i.c.e. don't take my word for it. one of our good friends in the senate, john cornyn, the senator from texas -- the senior senator from texas, felt strongly enough about her qualifications that he personally introduced her at her confirmation hearing before the committee that dr. coburn and i lead. the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. here's what senator cornyn had to say about sarah saldana: "in her role as u.s. attorney, prosecutor over the past decade, ms. saldana has served our state with honor, fighting public corruption officials, organized crime, sex offenders, sex traffickers, and other dangerous criminals." that sound like a highly qualified candidate to meevmen .

that's not all that senator cornyn had to say about ms.al is dan navment he went on to say this as well, "if respect for the rule of law is our standard, then and i think it should be, d be hard-pressed to find a person more qualified to enforce the law than ms.al is did a navment "now, that is high pray -- high praise indeed. some rough saying that we shouldn't confirm her because of president obama's latest action on deportation. there are law-abiding people who are productive members of our community. some argue that the president's action should preclude the senate from confirming a highly qualified person like sara a saldana to this position. i think that's absurd. we have before us in this highly qualified candidate a person who according to her neighbor and senior senator from texas is fiercely independent, has served

with honor in her current role, and respects the rule of law. it is not -- it does not punish the president to leave this position unfilled. it punishes the citizens of this country, makes it harder for i.c.e. to accomplish its mission, and it hurts the men and women at i.c.e. who deserve a leader to ensure this important agency runs as effectively as possible. i believe the president acting within the bounds of the law in enacting his executive action, but whether you agree with me or not, opposing ms. saldana's nomination will do nothing to change what the president has done -- nothing. so i hope that ms. saldana, the first hispanic person -- second woman to run i.c.e. does not fall victim to politics here in the u.s. senate. she is by all accounts exactly what this critical agency needs -- a proven leader, a respected

member of the law enforcement community. what do they say about integrity, mr. president? if you've got it, nothing else matters. integrity, if you don't have it, nothing else matters. she has it. she has it. she is going to have a tough job ahead of her if she is confirmed this week. but i believe that she's more than up to the tafnlgt i urge db i urge so strongly for our colleagues to join me, to join senator cornyn and others to support her. you'll never regret it. with that, mr. president, i'm looking around the senate chamber, and i know we're going to have a lot of folks here in about an hour and a half voting. but right now i don't see anybody waiting to speak, so i'll note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i'm going to ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: i've been asked to

lead us through this wrap-up session, even though it's a little early to wrap up. i want to walk through it if i can and ask, as if in legislative session, i would ask unanimous consent that the committee of commerce, science, and transportation be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2754, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2754, an act to amend the hobby protection act and so so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there, to proceeding to the measure? if not, without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. carper: mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3572, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3572, an act to revise the boundaries of certain john h. chafee coastal barrier system units. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 343, h.r. 1206, and h.r. 1378, which was received from the house en bloc.

the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report rmen bloc. the clerk: calendar number 343, h.r. 1206, an act to grant secretary of the interior permanent authority to authorize states to issue electronic duck stamps and foreother purposes. h.r. 1378, an act to designate the united states federal judicial center located at 333 west broadway in san diego, california, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, senior senator if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5050, which is at the desk.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5050, an act to repeal the act of may 31, 1918, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a thiermd and passed and th the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 5185, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5185, an act to reauthorize the young women's breast health education and awareness requires learning young act of 2009.

ferrarthe presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i further ask that the bill be read three times and passed and that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: as if in legislative session, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5816, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5816, an act to extend the authorization for the united states commission on international religious freedom. the presiding officer: is is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i further ask the bill be read three times and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. carper: as if in legislative session, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 706 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 706, a bill to provide the department of justice with additional tools to target extraterritorial drug trafficking activity and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there, to proceeding to the measure? -- is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: as if in legislative session, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the homeland security and governmental affairs committee be disarnled from further consideration of the following items which are postal

naming bills and the senate proceed to their consideration en bloc: h.r. 3027, h.r. 4416, h.r. 4651, h.r. 5331, and h.r. 5562. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: as if in legislative session, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4276 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4276, an act to extend and modify a