the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of sarah r. saldana of texas to be assistant secretary of homeland security, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of sarah r. saldana of texas to be an assistant secretary of homeland security shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

wit

vote:

.

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 53. the nays are 41. and the motion to invoke cloture is agreed to. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question occurs on the

saldana nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any member wish to change their vote or to vote?

if not, on this the yeas are 55, the nays are 39 and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of state, anthony blinken of new york to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:00 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i come to the floor with my colleague, senator ben cardin, from maryland to -- mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations outside the chamber. the senate will be in order. ms. mikulski: does that mean all

conversations, mr. president? the presiding officer: please take your conversations outside the chamber. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i am on the floor along with my colleague, senator ben cardin from maryland, to advocate for carolyn colvin to be confirmed as the social security commissioner, making her the chief executive officer of the social security administration. i'm very frustrated that her nomination has become a casualty of the senate and unfair attacks by some members of the republican party. we need a social security administrator and we need a competent, qualified person to lead it, and that is carolyn colvin. had miss colvin's nomination is important because the work of the social security administration is important. over 60 million americans rely

on social security. 900,000 in maryland. seniors, individuals with disabilities and children depend on the benefits and services of the social security administration. it is a big agency with big responsibility. it supports 63,000 social security employees, 11,000 are at the social security headquarters in woodlawn. it's not about the numbers. it's about what they do. guess what they do. they administer 950 billion benefit payments. approximately 25% of all government spending. last year, over 40 million people came to its field offices. 47 million people called its 800 number. five million came for retirement. 2.8 million came for their

disability. i go through the numbers because it shows an agency with the magnitude of its responsibility making sure that we determine who is eligible for social security, that there is no fraud in social security and that it's administered in a competent, caring way for the american people. and that means you have to have a permanent administrator. you cannot have someone acting. now, that's why we go to carolyn colvin. she is skilled, she is seasoned, she is experienced. she started out as a clerk at social security, and her service in public service, she has risen through the ranks in a variety of very important positions, being well known and well respected as an excellent public administrator. she is a problem solver. she is a reformer. she has been the deputy since

december 2010 and the acting commissioner since february, 2013. i'm frustrated at the attacks on ms. colvin. it's about a techno boondoggle that began under her predecessor, not under her. in fact, she commissioned the mckenzie management corporation to study what the problem was. the minute she wanted to get to the bottom of it, she was accused of all kinds of things. now, they have all been referred to the inspector general. they would say let's wait for the inspector general, but guess what, the inspector general's keep recusing themselves, for this reason, that reason. so while they are recusing, the republicans are using it as excusing, and we can't get to carolyn colvin. the people who need social security, and for those who want to make sure the benefits are administered competently, we need a permanent administrator. therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to the following nomination -- calendar number 1058, the nomination of carolyn watts colvin to be the commissioner of social security. and further, that the senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made, laid upon the table with no intervening action and debate, and that no further motions be in order to the nomination, and that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection being heard. mr. hatch: no. reserving the right to object. i have spoken at length here on the floor about my opposition to confirming ms. colvin at this time. while i do not doubt ms. colvin's qualifications for this position, there is a cloud hanging over her nomination, and i do not believe the senate should move forward with her

confirmation until that cloud is removed. since her nomination was reported out of the finance committee several sources including the house ways and means subcommittee on social security, the house oversight and government reform committee and individual whistle-blowers have reported that the social security administration over a six-year period burned through $300 million in a failed attempt to develop and implement the disability case processing system or dcps. some of this happened on ms. colvin's watch as she served as acting commissioner of the s.s.a. sadly, it gets worse. we've heard allegations from s.s.a. officials intentionally misled the inspector general as well as congress about the deficiencies in the development of the dcps in order to facilitate ms. colvin's confirmation here in the senate. these are serious allegations, and an investigation, one that may very well conclude a

criminal element, is ongoing. once again, ms. colvin currently serves as the acting commissioner of the s.s.a. this investigation includes people working in her immediate office. put simply, the senate should not move forward on her nomination until this matter is resolved. i intend to work with our two colleagues from maryland to see if we can resolve this. it may very well be that ms. colvin has done nothing wrong here p. i voted for out of committee. i certainly hope that she has done nothing wrong, i hope that's the case. but we should at least be sure before we move her nomination forward. therefore, i have to object at this time, mr. president. i believe my colleague, senator isakson may have some comments on this as well, but will surely try to work with my colleagues and fee sea if we can expedite this if there is no problem and, you know, i have

nothing against ms. colvin at all. in fact, in interviewing her in my office i quite enjoyed her. so we'll see what we can do to move this forward but as of right now i have to object. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i certainly respect greatly senator hatch and his respect for integrity of our system, and i know that he is acting with his sincere beliefs. but i am disappointed. and i need to say that. the inspector general's report is a serious investigation, it involves episodes that took place during the previous administration, and which the commissioner who was appointed by then a republican was in charge. there is no indication at all of carolyn colvin being the subject of the investigation. in fact, she has tried to take steps to be totally open and

transparent about what has happened and has been totally forthcoming to our committee, the ways and means committee in providing the information. but i just really want to stress what no mikulski said about the urgency of this matter. it will be -- if we don't confirm her during the lame-duck session, it will be more than two years -- two years that the social security administration will have been operated without a confirmed commissioner. two years. this is one of the most important agencies in government. and with an acting commissioner, she cannot appoint her key team in place in order to carry out the responsibilities of the social security administration. the morale of the agency is very much impacted when you can't get a confirmed commissioner, and quite frankly, the senate finance committee recommended her appointment three months

ago, and it was -- as senator hatch pointed out, it was a 22-2 vote. it wasn't a close vote in the senate finance committee at that time. 22-2 vote and now we can't get her confirmation. senator mikulski pointed out, we know carolyn colvin. she started as a stenographer clerk at the social security administration in the 1960's, working her way through college. she went on to become the deputy commissioner, carrying out major responsibilities as she developed. her passion has always been for public service. she was the secretary of human resources for the state of maryland. she knows state, she knows federal. her whole life is devoted to public service. a very honorable person, a person dedicated to leading the social security administration. now, mr. president, we have some very critical issues in the

next congress, and we may have some different views on some of those issues but that's what this senate is about, to debate those issues. but we need to have a confirmed commissioner in place to help us sort through the challenges that we face. tens of millions of americans depend upon the social security system. they demand accountability, not just from us but from the agency and how can have you accountability if you don't have a confirmed commissioner? all i can say is we have a qualified person who has been gone through the process, recommended by the committee, had who has all the talent, commitment and drive, and it looks like we're not going to be able to get this person confirmed and we'll have to wait until the next congress and start all over again, we don't know how long that's going to take. so i appreciate senator hatch, your willingness to work with us and i assure you we will work together on this issue, you've always been a very honorable person working together and i

very much appreciate that on so many different issues. but i have to express to my colleagues my deep disappointment that we cannot get this nomination up for a vote. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i have the greatest of regarder my two colleagues from the state of maryland and respect their passion for this nominee but i rise to support delaying the advancement of carolyn colvin for the social security administration. i want to tell you why. my reasons somewhat address some of the reasons expressed pour urgency. on july 29 i interviewed her in my office. as i do with every nominee that will talk to me. it was two days after the 2014 trustees report of the social security administration had come out, a report that talked about the disability trust fund being in danger by 2016. i asked her questions about what she would recommend to us to fix

the unfunded mandates that would be coming in the social security administration. her answers were at best anybody and at worst nonexistent. i was one of the two votes senator cardin referred to in the committee because i didn't falafel like i got the passionate answer from her as someone who was going to run the social security condition administration. subsequent to that vote and before this debate today, the issue came up about the investigation taking place at the social security administration. i recognized its implementation took place before she was in the position shshe is in but she is in the position of responsibility for that to be determined and until that investigation is complete, i think we would have a rush to judgment to confirm her for the job. i don't get up and oppose many people on the floor of the senate. i take my job very seriously but i represent the people of my state, both those that are social security beneficiaries today and those that will be in the future and i was readening an april national endowment today about the commander in chief counsel in georgia, my

state director, he and his wife -- edward tate and his wife beth beth had a baby recently, whittaker mcmillan tate. he'll be a beneficiary of the social security. we have to fix it so he's you it's there for them. i want to make sure the appointees while they have the social security administration under their care would do the things i want them to do so when i'm long gone as a beneficiary today those children who will be beneficiaries in the future have the funds and the money and the administration of that fund to see they're paid. reluctantly but for reasons of commitment i object to the advancement of the nomination of carolyn colonel vein to the social security administration and i yield back. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

h.o.v. mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. officevitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i am here once again to talk about the tax

increase prevention act. i have been speaking on this issue and intend to speak on it until we get this legislation passed. and i'm hopeful that we'll get this legislation moved tonight or maybe even tomorrow, but, in any event, we need to get this very important legislation passed this week to make sure that taxes don't go up on our small businesses, farmers, and the hardworking citizens of this country. that's why i've been down talking about the legislation and its importance, and i've also been presenting and reading letters and e-mails from my constituents who have been contacting me about the importance of getting this done. and i want them to be heard because they know how -- they know very well how heavy chair ta-- how heavy their tax burdens and why we need to get relief

for their families and their businesses. i'm talking about family farmers, men and women who work long hours and long days on the farm, shop coopers shopkeepers,e gamut of businesses ako across s country. first i'm going to talk about some of the provisions in the legislation. i'm going to start with one that is incredibly important for farmers in my state but really for small businesses across the country. section 179, small business expensing and depreciation provision. the section 179 small business expensing, limitation, and phase-out amounts in effect from 2010 through 2013 -- to 2013

through 2015. taxpayers can expense up to $500,000 of acquired business property rather than the current level of expensing $25,000 and $200,000, respectively. $200,000 on the depreciation. so the section 179 expensing and depreciation provision -- very, very important for small businesses. and it's very important that we get it in place now because they're doing their year-end planning, and they're doing their tax planning. so they need to know the rules of the road. they need to know what they can expense and what they can depreciate and how much. and it's not just an issue of preparing their tax return. it's also very much an issue in terms of their planning for incomes year. what equipment -- for next year. what equipment do they buy? if you're a farmer, what ag equipment do you buy? if you're a manufacturer, what manufacturing equipment do you buy? what repairs do you do?

can you expense those repairs or do you have to go through an elaborate process of setting up a depreciation schedule and then depreciating that repair over a long period of time? and so these are things that make it very difficult to do business for small businesses and also impede their willingness and their ability to go out and buy equipment. and to make those needed repairs to keep their operation running. that hurts our economy. that hurts job creation in our country. so it's a very, very important -- the section ^17 9 provision incredibly important, to small businesses and farmers throughout the country. also another important provision is the bonus depreciation for property that's placed in service during 2014 or, in some cases, 2015 for property with a longer production period. we are not allowed to that i can that depreciation -- you may not buy that new equipment. dubai that new equipment,

obviously -- you don't buy that new equipment, obviously that has ramifications all the way through our economy. there's eight provisions for individuals including the deductibility of state and local sales tax, the deduction of certain expenses for elementary and secondary schoolteachers, extension of the above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition, the extension of tax redistributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes. also included in the legislation is a total of 30 business-related provisions in addition to section 179 and the bonus depreciation. they're very important and make a big difference in terms of the taxes that our businesses will be required to pay. the legislation includes the research and development tax credit that allows companies 20% credit for incremental qualified research expenses or a 14% alternative simplified credit

for r&d, research and development performed in the united states. i'll use an example. microsoft -- and we have a large microsoft location in our, in my state. in fargo they employ more than 1,700 people at their campus there in fargo, so i'm going to use microsoft as an example. microsoft is on pace to spend over $12 billion on research and development this year primarily on u.s. jobs. other countries are competing for this same r&d development from microsoft and other companies, and many of them have lower corporate income tax rates. they have stable r&d incentives and plenty of research and development talent. a consistent and stable u.s. research and development tax credit gives businesses like microsoft an incentive to invest and do that research and development in the united states versus some other country.

again we're talking about not only economic activity and jobs in our country but we're talking about innovation, innovation right here in our country that drives job creation and economic growth. as i said, the real key, i believe, is the impact that this legislation has on small business across this country. small business is the backbone of our economy. and so i want to take a few minutes to read some more of the letters and e-mails that i have been receiving on the importance of passing this legislation and putting in place the section 179, expensing and deprieshation for small business -- depreciation for small businesses. the first letter is from wayne howdy, a small town in north dakota. he's speaking on behalf of many of his clients. he writes -- quote -- "senator hoeven, what the i.r.c. section

179? $25,000 is far too low of a limit and should be eliminated if that is all that can be expense nad year. far -- in a year. far better would be reinstating prior limits and making such a change permanent. you plant a year in advance if you're a farmer. income tax planning is the same. it is an extremely poor financial planner who decides to buy something based on an ever changing tax policy and after the fact. i realize the political system in this country is stagnated with refusals by both parties to agree on anything. the time is now to put some semblance of future planning back on the table and help us to stay on top of the game rather than whining about what should have been done." to wayne and his clients, we owe it to them to get this bill done before we leave. here's another one. this one is from mike van gorken with tighten machinery in

wussun, north dakota. tighten machinery also represents tighten reynolds, tighten aggregate and a list of short line equipment to help meet niche product needs -- quote -- "i was wondering if anyone can tell me when to expect a vote on extending 179 tax deductions. i've been following this bill along with many of my customers. many farmers are waiting to purchase equipment from me until they find out if they can use it for this year's deductions or wait until next year. thank you and have a nice day." end quote. lawrence d. stockard, small business owner in bismarck, north dakota wants to purchase new equipment again this year but he isn't certain he can because we have yet to pass the tax extender package. he writes -- quote -- "i would

like to know if there is a possibility for the senate to pass the increase in the section 179 depreciation rules. previous years' provision enabled me to buy new equipment. can you take this bill to the senate and get it passed? i would like to purchase additional equipment this year as well." and then from steven staffkey, vice president of service general equipment and supplies in fargo, north dakota. he's concerned about the dough news deappreciate -- about the bonus depreciation provision. the tax increase extender act applies to property acquired during 2014 or 2015 for certain property with a longer production period. he writes -- quote -- "senator hoeven, i am writing to you to express my support for passing bonus depreciation before the end of 2014. as a small business owner, this legislation is crucial to us and our customer base.

i truly hope you will fight to push this legislation through congress and garner enough support to be able to override any presidential veto." end quote. the last letter i'd like to read today comes from jay hansen of fargo, north dakota. it is especially telling because like the earlier letter that i read from the cpa, he's also a cpa and essentially he's speaking for the 1,000 farmers that he does work for. quote -- "my name is jay hansen. i'm a cpa working in minot, north dakota. we have approximately 1,000 farm clients who rely heavily on depreciating farm machinery as part of their overall tax planning strategy. with the discussion regarding tax extender bills on the agenda before the end of the year we are curious to know if you have any insight on what we can expect and when we can expect

it. any information you can provide me regarding the section 179 expense deduction would be greatly appreciated." so, mr. president, time is of the essence. we're days from the end of the tax year, days away from the holidays. millions of americans are depending on us to spare them a burden that will hurt their businesses and hurt their families. if we don't act, taxes will go up on hardworking americans, on small businesses across this country, on farmers. and so we need to act. we need to make sure that doesn't happen. and we need to pass the legislation that we have here on the floor, and we need to get it done now. so i urge my colleagues to join together in bipartisan fashion and get this done. let's pass the tax increase prevention act and make sure that we don't see a tax increase

on our small business and the hardworking taxpayers of this great nation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i presume that we are in a quorum call and ask unanimous consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, we are winding down the end of this year in congress and indeed the end of this congress, and i am here today now for the last time to wake up speech in this

congress. and i'm particularly pleased to be delivering it while my friend is presiding who actually took the trouble to come to rhode island and hear firsthand about what is happening in my state on these issues. the year that is ending now ushered in some mighty dubious milestones. january through november, 2014, the year so far, were the hottest first 11 months of any year recorded, so unless something dramatic changes in december, 2014, it is on track to be the hottest year since we began keeping records back in 1880. that would mean that 14 of the

warmest 15 years on record are the 14 years of this century. according to the world meteorological organization secretary-general -- quote -- "there is no standstill in global warming. this chart shows the decades-long rise in the ocean's heat content, from the service down to a depth of 2,000 meters, a little over a mile. look at 2005-2014, the red part. nasa estimates that the amount of energy needed to account for that much warming and that much ocean is equivalent to four

magnitude 6.0 earthquakes occurring every second for those nine years. four 6.0 earthquakes every second for nine years would create the kind of energy necessary to warm that much. well, obviously it wasn't earthquakes that did it. we would have known about that. and the first law of thermodynamics conservation of energy decrees that all that heat in the ocean had to come from somewhere. the near-certain source of that heat is increased greenhouse gases, mostly carbon pollution, trapping heat from the sun. since the rise of fossil fuel energy, we have been on a carbon binge. as long as humans have been on

the earth, we've existed safely in a range of about 170 to about 300 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. this year, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere measured at the famous mona loa observatory in hawaii exceeded 400 parts per million for more than three months. now, archaeologists estimate that our species, our human species has been around on this planet for about 200,000 years. the earth last saw such high levels of carbon as 400 parts per million for that long a period. more than 800,000 years ago. oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the excess heat that the carbon has trapped.

and as seawater warms, we all know by the law of thermal expansion, it expands, and sea levels as a result rise. satellite measurements show that in this period, global average sea level rose about an inch. nasa's jet propulsion laboratory attributes about a third of global mean sea level rise to the warming of the upper ocean. combine that with the melting of glaciers on land and you can see that climate change is significantly increasing sea level worldwide. in my home state, i see this, and the presiding officer was there. the newport tide gauge records nearly ten inches more water than it did in the 1930's.

carbon pollution in the atmosphere also dissolves in the ocean. it doesn't just warm it up. it dissolves it -- dissolves in it. when it dissolves in it, it makes it more acidic. indeed, the extra carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the oceans has caused a nearly 30% increase in the acidity of the upper ocean, which means a lot for, say, shellfish like mussels and clams and oysters that make their shells from calcium carbonate because calcium carbonate dissolves in acidified seawater. in july, 2014, a maine oyster farmer, a guy named bill nook, came to the environment and public works committee and he described for us the difficulty that his oyster crop, his oyster

spat, they call it, had maturing. here's what he said. through observation, trial and error, we reached the same conclusion made by researchers using controlled replicated experimentation. acidification is not a future problem, he told us. it is a problem now, and it will only get worse. a problem now, and it will only get worse. mr. president, measures of the atmosphere and ocean tells us that climate change is real, and we already see the harms connected with it. in storm-damaged homes and flooded cities, in drought-stricken farms and raging wildfires, in fish disappearing from warming acid acidifying waters, in shifting

habitats and migrating contagions. climate change loads the dice for these events which carry really costs to homeowners, business owners and taxpayers, and a key cause is undeniably carbon pollution. some of my republican colleagues continue to deny that climate change is even happening, or at best they will stand mute in face of the changes we see, in the face of so much evidence. i'm not a scientist is all we get from some. well, if they're not scientists, maybe they should ask one. ask noaa, ask nasa, ask our national academies. if you're a senator and you don't know what you're talking about, you should study up.

that's our job. if they can't be bothered to ask a scientist, then look at what the military is saying about climate change or what the business community is saying. the military's 2014 quadrennial defense review, for example, offers a straightforward assessment of the threat climate change poses to national and international security. even in pentagon bureaucratese, the assessment is pretty harsh -- quote -- "climate change pose s a significant challenge for the united states and the world at large. climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. the pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on