Economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world end quote. The pentagon also released a Climate Change adaptation road map this year, detailing the militarys plans for a changing climate. The report states in no Uncertain Terms and i quote Climate Change will affect the department of defenses ability to defend the nation, imposed immediate risks to u. S. National security. Climate change will affect the department of defenses ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to u. S. National security. That would seem to me to be a phrase worth listening to. The business and Financial Community also see climate risk. Former bush treasury secretary hank paulson teamed up with form er new york city mayor and business tycoon, michael bloomberg, and indeed, former republican senator Olympia Snowe and others to put together an evidencebased assessment of the risks posed by Climate Change to the United States economy. The report found that between 66 billion and 106 billion worth of existing american Coastal Property will likely be below sea level by mid century. That price tag could top 500 billion by the end of the century. 500 billion worth of property below sea level by 2100. Extreme heat they also found could reduce Labor Productivity of outdoor workers by as much as 3 by the end of the century. They found that shifting agricultural patterns could cause states in the southeast and the lower great plains and in the midwest to see a 50 to 70 loss in average annual crop yields. Its a risk wed be reckless to ignore. One bright light of 2014 has been the proposed limits on Carbon Emissions from existing coal plants announced this year by the obama administration. That new standard will not only reduce emissions, it will change the way the polluters think. Now its no longer going to be free to pollute. Now that its no longer going to be free to pollute, i suspect that some new thinking by polluters will come. And some new thinking by polluters i suspect will be followed in short order by new thinking on the other side of the aisle here in the senate. Another bright light of 2014 was the obama administrations carbon reduction agreement with china, the Worlds Largest carbon polluter now. Followed by news this weekend from lima that every nation in the world is expected to put forward a plan to rein in its Carbon Pollution. The public is with us on this, too. A recent poll released by the insurance form munich ree showed that 83 of americans believe that climate is changing. The presiding officer the senators time has expired. Mr. Whitehouse may i ask one additional minute to conclude the page in front of me. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Whitehouse seven americans in ten say we should use more solar and wind power to battle Climate Change. An a. P. Ole poll show that half of republicans favor regulations on Carbon Dioxide emissions. Our military, our business leaders, our president , and the American People all affirmed their commitment to fending off the worst effects of Carbon Pollution. So in 2015, congress will need to step up to the plate. Ive introduced carbon fee legislation that would provide a practical tool for getting this done. By charging a fee on Carbon Pollution we can correct the market failure that lets polluters unload the cost of pollution on the rest of us and compete unfairly in energy markets. And we can use those proceeds to reduce other taxes. Most important, we can significantly reduce harmful Carbon Pollution. We just need to wake up. Maybe 2015 will be the year. I thank the senator from oklahoma for his courtesy and i yield the floor. Mr. Coburn mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from oklahoma. Mr. Coburn im coming to the floor, ill consume what im out of if i may out of our remaining time, i hope to not use it all. But i come to the floor to talk about an issue that should be very important to every american. In less than 20 months, the Social Security disability system will be bankrupt. Out of money. And that may sound like just a scare tactic, but thats what the trust Fund Trustees say. And weve known this for some time, and my colleague and myself, carl levin, who he is chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations and myself as ranking, spent a great deal of time oversighting Social Security disability and we issued a report that had some pretty remarkable findings in it and i thought id go through some of those findings today because i have two major concerns. Someone that those people with true disabilities are going to see in 18 months a 20 cut in what they get paid each month, and theyre barely surviving on the disability payments we give them today. The second thing is the failure of the Justice Department when handed an absolutely, totally perfect case of not prosecuting criminals that are taking advantage not only of people with disability but of people of this country. Social Security Disability insurance is an important safety net for large number of people, about 11 million in this country. In the past five years weve gone from 11 million to 14. 1 million applications for disability, some of that associated with our our recession but some with true injury. But one of the things we did, we started out very meticulous as we looked at this and i want to applaud some of the employees of the Social Security administration because they were the ones that highlighted this to me, people who worked in the Oklahoma CitySocial Security office about the lousy quality of what was happening as these were being processed. And so what we did is we went to the Social Security administration, we asked them to randomly select 300 case files, 100 each from three different geographical locations throughout the country. And that included Oklahoma County in my home state, and what we looked at was a large random number of cases, most of them drawn from decisions made by the judges the Social Security administrations 1,500 Administrative Law judges. And what we found using Social Securitys own criteria was that 25 of the cases were decided absolutely erroneously. According to their own rules and their own guidelines. But that didnt surprise the Social Security administration because theyd been looking at it all along and they knew according to their records 23 to 24 of all the cases had been being decided erroneously. So our second step was to look where we saw this abuse the highest and that was in the huntington, West VirginiaSocial Security disability hearing office. So senator levin and i set our investigators about being a total and comprehensive investigation of that office. The problems we found, they were similar to the problems we found in our prior investigation and these three other offices except much worse. The Huntington Office got our attention in part because it processed more disability cases than almost every other Social Security office in the nation. Much of that to just one attorney by the name of Eric Christopher kahn. Despite practicing in a town of only 500 people, mr. Pecan had become the third highest paid disability attorney in the entire United States. He helped thousands of people get onto the disability programs and in 2010 he received 4 million in payments from the Social Security disability program. The only other attorneys receiving more from s. S. A. Were Charles Binder of binder and binder who i noticed filed bankruptcy this week, and that was 22 million, and thomas gnash of nba nash of chicago who received 6. 33 million. What we found were reasons for serious concern. While some of what mr. Kahn did involved outright fraud which we documented and proven, at times he was simply able to exploit loopholes in Social Securitys systems. Both of those things should be a concern to congress. To ensure the cases were approved, and his attorneys attorneys fees kept flowing, mr. Khan colluded with an employee named david b. Dougherty. They had hundreds of billions in fraud leapt claims. This is a Administrative Law judge. First judge dougherty needed to ensure that mr. Kahns cases were assigned to him. Normally agency rules require cases assigned to the a. L. J. s on a row takingal bases with the oldest cases to a hearing date first. This way one no judge receives too many of one attorneys cases. Judge dougherty, however, would at times intercept mr. Kahns cases and assign them to himself. If cases would slip past him and get assigned to another attorney, another judge, judge dougherty would inappropriately go into the Computer System and move the case to his jurisdiction. The next step in the plan involved judge dougherty calling mr. Kahns office every month to let them know what kind of additional evidence he needed for each client to be able to award a disability. Judge dougherty started a monthly call by relaying the name of each person he was ready to approve. He would say whether he needed a new piece of evidence should relate to a physical or mental impairment. The list of claimants would be typed up in mr. Kahns law firm, mr. Kahns lists referred to them as the d. B. List, the dougherty list. We reviewed these list every up with of them from june 6 through 2010. Each contained as many as 52 names east timor month. In total the d. B. List contained the names of 1,823 claimants who were approved, all approved for disability benefits. After judge dougherty told mr. Kahn the kind of medical evidence he needed the next step shifted to mr. Kahn to ensure a doctor provided that evidence. Fortunately for mr. Kahn he had a crew of doctors in his pocket ready to provide what he needed. To find doctors willing to go along him he searched the internet with ones with checkered pasts. Doctors he used often had histories of malpractice, some had had multiple license revocations, in multiple states. In fact, his goto there dr. Was the subject of numerous malpractice lawsuits and even had had his medical license revoked and suspended in several states. Mr. Kahn scheduled the claimants to be seen by his doctors. The doctors spent as little as 15 minutes evaluating, quote, each claimant and sometimes saw 35 to 40 claimants a day. Mr. Kahn paid the doctors that he useed 500 for each patient they saw. The doctors would complete a form used by the agency to determine a claimants residual functional can capacity to work in any job available in the national economy. While the evis provided by the doctors were supposed to be specifically tailored to the physical or medical impairments of each client, all of mr. Kahns forms were the same. They were prefilled out. He had 15 versions of the physical form and five versions of the mental form that was just rotated among the clients. As a matter of fact, the committee determined that 97 of mr. Kahns claimants approved by judge doeherty had exactly the same functional residual functional capacity, a statistical impossibility. Could not happen. Mr. Kahn would then submit the r. F. C. s, the residual functional capacity forms, and a brief description of the claimant to judge doeherty. Judge doeherty would then approve the claim for benefits in an abbreviated determination providing that the evidence by mr. Kahn outweighed all the other evidence provided by mr. Kahn, it owtwayed all the other evidence. The evidence at times could be thousands of pages long. The plan made mr. Kahn millions. In 2010, s. S. A. Paid mr. Kahn 4 million in attorney fees, as i stated earlier, making him the third highestpaid attorney in the country. He paid out almost 2 million to the doctors that were giving inscrupulous and illadvised a and unscrupulous and illadvised and absolutely erroneous premanaged outcomes. And judge doeherty mysteriously under our subpoenas had received some 100,000 into his Bank Accounts from cash deposits during this time. But judge doeherty wasnt just approving mr. Kahns cases. In the last five years of working for the agency, judge doeherty awarded more than 2. 5 billion inspect disability benefits. He approved more cases than any other a. L. J. In the entire United States. There was another judge, judge Charlie Anders, who played a major role in approving the fraudulent claims. He allowed judge doeherty to decide to approve a high number of claims. He and judge anders enjoyed accolades and National Recognition for this. The huntington o rosfficeto have the second fastest processing time in the entire country. No wonder. They didnt actually process. It was a slam dunk. You get under judge anders, you get under judge doeherty and youve got eric kahn, you get approved, no matter whether its true or not. Mr. Anders, as the acting superior judge, did nothing to stop mr. Kahn and judge doeherty. He actually colluded with mr. Kahn to target a whistleblower from his own office. And i wont go into the details but i will submit it for the record. The second thing that i would note about judge anders is he was not truthful in his testimony before the committee under oath and that we have evidence of his lying to the committee under oath. When all of this was exposed, the agency put judge anders on paid administrative leave and filed a claim with the merit system protection board. That was in january of 2013. In 2014, mr. Anders voluntarily retired according to a decision from the merit systems protection board. The complaint the agency filed against mr. Anders charged him with conduct unbecoming an a. L. J. , engaging in an apparent conflict of interest, lack of candor and unauthorized disclosures. Despite these charges, as part of a settlement agreement, the agency agreed to refrain from pursuing any disciplinary action against anders and to provide a neutral reference to perspective employers. And he retired with his pension. So a crook retires with their pension. So no disciplinary action is taken against Charlie Anders even after he turned a blind eye for years, admitting to conspiring to retaliate against an employee, was untruthful and lied to a committee of congress under oath, nor has the department of justice attorney general, nor has the department of justice taken any action against mr. Kahn or judge doeherty. In fact, mr. Kahn continues to represent disability claimants before the Social Security administration. These two men who actively committed fraud on one of the most important Safety Net Program our government runs. We should not let the actions of these individuals go unpunished. But thats whats happening. I recently had a visit with the i. G. From the Social Security administration, mr. Ko ocarrol. At this point, the United States attorneys in West Virginia and kentucky have both recused themselves and declined to prosecute mr. Kahn. Now, i wonder what he has over them. I wonder what what it is when you have a closed case prosecutorial case that you have to do no work on and the u. S. Attorneys will not prosecute a thief of the highest order. Since both u. S. Attorneys recused themselves, mr. Ocarroll is now trying to convince the Criminal Division of the department of justice here in washington, d. C. , to take action. But to date, no charges have been filed against mr. Kahn, judge doeherty or judge anders. If they do not take action against mr. Kahn, the Justice Department is sending the message that disability fraud will go unpunished. We need to be sending the opposite message, that these types of fraudulent practices by attorneys like eric kahn must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Otherwise, the disability program, no matter how much oversight we do on it, will continue to be abused, leaving those americans that have no choice but to rely on it with less than what they expected. I would add one final statement. In working with a lot of the disaibilityof thedisability come introduced this week what we hope the congress will take up in future years is a reform to the disability program. It takes the fraud out of it, the opportunity for fraud. It takes the ability to actually hold people accountable and also gives back the dignity of those that can get back to work and uses that to help them accomplish that very goal. I yield the floor. Mr. Hatch mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from utah. Mr. Hatch i sure appreciate the distinguished senator from oklahoma and the service that hes given us over all these years. Hes one of the great senators of all time, as far as im concerned. Mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to give this statement, which shouldnt be much more than 15 minutes. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Hatch mr. President , as we wind down the final days of the 113th congress, it is a good time to both reflect on the past and look toward the future. Ive been very moved as ive listened to the farewell speeches of our departing senators and i wish that i had time right now to pay tribute to each one of them. They have all been wonderful colleagues and i have enjoyed working with and getting to know every one of them. I wish them all the very best in all their future endeavors. They will most certainly be missed. Turning to the future, there are a number of challenges before us, mr. President. We have an economy that despite recent upticks is still struggling. We have a National Debt that despite recent reductions in the deficit is headed toward astronomical levels. And we have a pending crisis with our entitlement programs that threatens to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. I believe we can fix these problems, mr. President , but its not going to be easy. Today id like to take a few minutes to talk about a particularly important effort that i believe will help us address some of these fundamental changes and challenges. Im talking, of course, about tax reform. Over the last few years, ive spoken numerous times, both here on the floor and elsewhere, about the need to fix our broken tax code. Id understand if there are some who tire of hearing me talk about tax reform but that doesnt mean im going to stop any time soon. Tax reform is no longer optional. It is essential. If were going to get our economy moving again, we need a tax code that will stop standing in the way and make no mistake, promoting job creation and Economic Growth is the first and the most important step we need to take in order to address our nations most pressing problems. This is no secret to anyone in this chamber. I dont think ive been blessed with unique insight into these matters. We all know what we have to do and that in and of itself is pretty remarkable. Indeed, even with all the partisanship and division weve seen over the past few years, there is bipartisan agreement on the need to reform our tax system. Sure, there are disagreements on the details that cannot at this time be overlooked, but on the basic question surrounding the need for reform, people in both parties have reached the same answer reform is necessary and it needs to happen sooner rather than later. My hope is that today i can say a few words that will help to set the stage for our Reform Efforts in the near future. Last week i released a report drafted by my staff on the Senate Finance committee titled comprehensive tax reform for 2015 and beyond. This report, ive been calling it a book as it is 340 pages long, outlines the major issues policymakers will have to confront as we undertake tax reform. It describes where we are with our current tax code, where weve been, and, most importantly, it gives some direction as to where we should go with our Reform Efforts in the future. I hope all of our colleagues will take time to read it read through it. I need to be clear, this is not a tax reform plan. It is a discussion of ideas and principles that i hope will be the first step in a renewed bipartisan effort to reform our nations tax code in the very near future more than anything, i hope my colleagues future. More than anything, i hope my colleagues will view this wouldk as an invitation to Work Together on this most important endeavor. As i outlined in the book, tax reform in my view should be undertaken with a set of simple principles in mind. The most important principles are the three set out by president Ronald Reagan the last Time Congress was able to pass a major tax overhaul nearly three decades ago. President reagans first principle and, in my view, the most important was Economic Growth. Tax reform should significantly reduce much of the economic distortions that are present under the current income tax system and promote growth in our economy. It should eliminate the anticompetitive nature of the current tax system, such as the high u. S. Corporate tax rate which stifles job growth. High marginal tax rates are present up and down the income scale and they act as disincentives for work, entrepreneurship and investment. These growth deterrents, which are embedded nearly everywhere in our tax code, should be eliminated. President reagans second principle was fairness. The income tax base, which has become riddled with exclusions, exemptions and deductions and credits, should be as broad as possible. Tax reform should reduce the number of tax expenditures, thereby broadening the tax base while simultaneously lowering tax rates. A Broader Tax Base coupled with significantly lower tax rates is the basis of what would be a much fairer tax system. The final principle outlined by president reagan was simplicity. Our tax code has grown to almost 4 million words. Today, approximately 59 of american households use paid preparers to do their individual income taxes and another 30 use tax software to assist them. Taxpayers and businesses spend over 6 billion a year complying with tax filing requirements, with Compliance Costs totaling over 168 billion annually. That, mr. President , is larger than the size of the entire economy of new zealand and an amount that would employ more than 3 million workers full time at an hourly wage of 25. A simpler tax code would greatly reduce these Compliance Costs, resulting in greater efficiency and compliance by american taxpayers. Lets unleash resources from o our from being devoted to figuring out or gaming our broken tax code and make the Resources Available for job creation. The three principles from president reagan will be vital to our tax Reform Efforts. But like i said, its been nearly 30 years since congress tried to put president reagans principles into action. Much has changed in that time. In order to address the needs of today, additional principles are necessary. One of those principles is permanence. The tax code needs certainty. The joint committee on taxation lists almost 100 tax provisions that will expire between 20132023. Individuals and businesses need to be able to rely on provisions in the tax law for planning purposes. The lack of certain in our tax laws hinders job creation and stifles Economic Growth. We need a tax system that no longer threatens to change from year to year. Another important principle, of course, is competitiveness. The combination of a high Corporate Tax rate, worldwide taxation, and the temporary nature of some tax incentives make u. S. Companies less competitive when compared to their foreign counterparts. In addition, u. S. Multinationals are discouraged from repatriating foreign earnings because of the u. S. Corporate tax that applies at the time of repatriation, the corporate rate that is the high nest our industrialized world. Tax reform should reduce the high tax rates on businesses and also achieve neutrality through a Competitive International tax system, thereby placing worldwide American Companies on a level Playing Field with their foreign competitors when conducting businesses in other countries. The result would be more worldwide American Companies establishing or retaining their Corporate Headquarters in the United States, more exports to global markets, and retention and reinvestment of money in the United States rather than abroad. Promoting savings and investment is another important principle. Many aspects of the u. S. Income tax system discourage savings and investments by individuals, thereby hindering longterm growth. Tax reform should result in a tax system that actually encourages people to save and invest. Last but certainly not least, there is the principle of revenue neutrality. I know this will be a sticking g point for some, though. For the life of me, i cant see why. If were scouring the tax code looking for ways to squeeze more revenue to fuel government spending, were not reforming the tax code; were raising taxes. Its as simple as that. Tax reform should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes on the American People or on u. S. Businesses. Any effort to use tax reform as a revenueraising exercise is a needless distraction. Anyone who believes that the American People are currently undertaxed should look at historical trends. According to the congressional budget office, federal revenues are set to exceed historical averages as early as next year and will remain that way. We can talk about shoring up deficits and paying for spending, but we should not be looking to the tax code as a resource for additional revenue. If you count up these principles, mr. President , including those established by president reagan and the ones added since, there are seven in total. In my view, these seven principles should serve as guideposts for our tax Reform Efforts. Any idea or proposal we consider should link back and be relevant to at least one of these principles. The best ideas and proposals should probably link back to all of them. Like i said, the book we released last week outlines these principles and also provides a wealth of Background Information about our tax code and the need for reform. In my view, this is it is a major step the first major step in a tax reformest that i hope will get tax reform effort that i hope will get under way next year. I plan to involve many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly those who will be joining me on the Senate Finance committee. My hope is that as this conversation continues, the path toward real bipartisan tax reform will begin to take shape. Of course, it will take more than just talk and discussion; itll take hard work, commitment, and, of course, compromise. Ive said this many times before and ill say it again today im willing to work with anyone, republican or democrat, to reform our nations tax code, and i look forward to continuing this effort in the 114th congress and, if necessary, beyond. Madam president , i yield the floor. The presiding officer for the information of the senate, as of 5 00 p. M. , the time until 6 00 p. M. Is equally divided in the usual form. Mr. Mccain madam president . The presiding officer the senator from arizona. Mr. Mccain madam president , i rise to discuss my opposition to the pending vote concerning mr. Anthony tony blinken, who is not only unqualified but, in fact, in my view, one of the worst selections that of a very bad lot that this president has chosen. I hope that many of my colleagues will understand that not often do i come to the floor to oppose a nomination of the president of the United States because i believe that elections have consequences. In this case, this individual has actually been dangerous to america and to the young men and women who are fighting and serving it. Mr. Blinken has been a Foreign Policy advisor to Vice President biden since his days in the senate, but as robert gates has note oddnoted, mr. Biden has beg on every National Security issue over the past decade. On may 6, 2013, mr. Blinken discussed a number of the administrations achievements achievements including, one, ending the war in iraq responsibleably, two, setting a Clear Strategy and date for the withdrawal from afghanistan, three, decimating al qaeda senior leadership, and, 401 k s repairing our alliances and restoring americas standing in the world. That i is as orwellian as any statement ive ever heard. The conditions are a far cry from the socalled achievements that mr. Blinken describes. In his capacity as an assistant to the president and deputy National Security advisor, mr. Blinken has been a functionary and an agent of a u. S. Foreign policy that has made the world much less safe today. Lets just review a couple some of the elements in particular and mr. Blinkens role in conceptualizing and furthering it. U. S. Foreign policy is in a shambles. Its, as best, a strategic and, at worst, antistrategic. It lacks any concept of how to obtain our Foreign Policy goals. This has led to countless Foreign Policy failures, including the continued slaughter of the Syrian People by president bashar alassad, a russia reset that culminated in president putins invation of ukraine, the betrayal of our key allies, especially in central europe, not to mention israel, failing to achieve a status of force agreement that would help to maintain Iraq Security and stability, following similarly unwise strategies in afghanistan. We will see the same movie in afghanistan that we saw in iraq if we have a datedriven withdrawal rather than a statusdriven, conditionsdriven situation. And our feckless position and negotiations with iran on Nuclear Weapons that has failed to produce any progress towards an agreement. I could go into many other failures such as the vaunted geneva negotiations that was supposed to arpg for the transition of power from bashar alassad. The failure of the israellypalestinian peace talks and what will be an imminent failure of the Nuclear Weapons agreement or an agreement thablg disastrous in the long run. There are two common sayings by the Administration Officials not me that have defined the president s approach to Foreign Policy leading from behind and quote dont do stupid stuff. These approaches have resulted in a failed Foreign Policy that has made america and americans less safe. Even president obamas most strident supporters have begun to question the president s Foreign Policy decisions. In an article titled damage to obamas Foreign Policy has been largely selfinflicted, the Washington Post david ignatius, a key supporter of the administrations Foreign Policy goals wrote that quote at key turning points in egypt and libya in ukraine and yes in benghazi the administration was driven by messaging priorities rather than sound interestbased policy. So what has mr. Blinken had to say about all of these issues, my friends . Let me give you a few. On iraq, at the center for American Progress on march 16, 2012 now im not making this one up mr. Blinken said quote whats beyond debate is that iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous and the United States more deeply engaged there had than at any time in recent history. Less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous. On march 16, 2012, mr. Blinken said and all of these are quotes president obama and Vice President biden come to office with this commitment to end the war iraq war responsibly. Both parts tha parts of that see critical. End the war responsibly. Und the leadership of president obama and Vice President biden, who the president asked to oversee on iraq policy, has made eight trips to iraq since being elected, well follow that path to the letter. And went on to say, at every step along the way, many predicted that the violence would return and iraq would slide backward towards sectarian war. Get this. He said, those predictions approved wrong. Oifer the past three years, he went ton say, violence has declined, and remains at historic lows, even after we completed the drawdown of u. S. Forces late last year. Quetion said this in late2012. Weekly security incidents fell from an nch of 1,600 in 2007 and 2008 to fewer than 100 today. And in december, after more than eight wrenching year, president obama kept his promise to end the war responsibly. While iran and iraq will be more entwined thank we and many of our neighbors would like, he went on to say, one thing we learned, over more than eight years in iraq, was that the vast majority of its leaders, including the Prime Minister, who at that time was Prime Minister mall key, our first and foremost iraqi nativities and resistance to outside influence from anywhere starting with iran. Everybody knows the iranians are probably the most influential nation in iraq certainly under malley camaliki. If we still had troops in iraq today, the numbers would have been very small. They would not have been engaged in combat. That would not have been their mission. So the idea that they could or would have done something about the violence thats going on now in iraq seems to me detached from the reality of what the mission would have been had they stayed in any small number. Now, you dont have to take my word for it. Take the word of secretary gates, secretary panetta, ambassador crocker, and any knowledgeable person about iraq and i will insert their quotes for the record, including ambassador crocker, who said, of course we could have left a residual force behind. Both panetta and gates said the same thing and at no time was there a Public Statement by the president of the United States or mr. Blinken that they wanted to very seriously. In fact, they trumpeted the fact when the last american troop at that time now we have many back, but when they left bragging about what a great day that it was. On fox news with Chris Wallace september 2 28, 2014, wallace finally, president obama spoke to the u. N. This week. But i want to ask you about his speech to the u. N. Saying General Assembly last year in which he said we were ending a decade of war. How could the president have been so wrong . Blinken the president was exactly right. The president was exactly right. What were doing is totally dimp than the last decade. Were not sending hundreds of thousands of american troops back into iraq or afghanistan or anywhere else. Were not going to be spending trillions of american dollars. Wallace mr. Blinken, he said all our troops have left iraq. He sent at least 1,600 troops back into iraq. Weve dismantled the core of al qaeda yet the correspondent a does on group is an outshoot of al qaeda and follows the direct orders of the leader of Al Qaeda Ayman alzawahiri. Chris they fled because we were so successful in afghanistan they fled because we decimated the core of al qaeda, they removed themselves. They went to syria. At the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on october 30, 2014, the white house sought to leave a limited residual force in iraq but the Iraqi Government simply refused to agree to Legal Protections for such troops, said thendeputy National Security advisor tony blinken, who argued the final decision to withdraw all u. S. Troops was not the result of a failure to negotiate. Its something we worked very harksd he said. But after a 10year occupation, the iraqi body politic did not want us to stay in iraq. Thats what happened. We were focused on acting on isil and the threat that it posed more than a year before the fall of mosul. But the problem began to outrun the solution fueled by the conflict in syria. Iraqi reluctance and renewed sectarianism in iraq in advance of elections with politicians on all sides playing to their bases. You know, this statement statements like these i mean, they are so divorced from reality, one can only draw one of two conclusions. One, that mr. Blinken is abysmally ignorant, or hes just simply not telling the truth for whatever motive there is. By the way, heres what ryan crocker said on iraq. Quote as a former ambassador to iraq 20072009, do you think it was a mistake not to push heart for the status of force agreement with iraq before the u. S. Pullout . I would remind my colleagues, ryan crocker, probably the most respected member of our diplomatic corps alive today. He said, i do. We could have gotten that agreement if we had been a little more persistent, flexible and creative. But what really cost us was the political withdrawal. We cut off highlevel Political Engagement with iraq when we withdrew our troops. There were no senior visits. Very few phone calls. Secretary of state john kerry made one visit prior to this Current Crisis mainly to lecture the iraqis on how bad they were being for facilitating iranian Weapons Systems to syrian Bashar Assad Bashar Assad and we left them to their own devices, knowing if left to their own devices it would not work out well. You have mr. Blinkens comments and juks to pose them with juxtapose them with crocker. Heres what leon panetta said, secretary of defense quote it was clear to me and many others that withdrawing our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding iraq together. Thats from secretary leon panettas book. Then he went on to say my fear is i voiced to the president and others is if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that appeared in the years immediately following the u. S. Invasion it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the u. S. Iraqs stability was not only in iraqs interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for residual force that could provide training and security for iraqs military. Then he went on to say, those on our side talking about the pentagon. Those on our side viewed the white house as so eager to rid itself of iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interest. That is a statement by leon panetta. On afghanistan ill move on to afghanistan. Mr. Blinken said quote weve been very clear. Weve been consistent. The war will be concluded by the end of 2014. We have a timetable, and that timetable will not change. This is why im so worried about him being in the position that hes in. Because if they stick to that timetable, i am telling my colleagues that we will see the replay of iraq all over again. We must leave a stabilizing force behind of a few thousand troops or we will see again what we saw in iraq. So lets move on to syria. An msnbc interview in 2014 responding to a question about president obamas comment in august 2014, calling it a fantasy to say that arming the Syrian Rebels three years ago would have helped the situation. Blinken fantasy was a notion that had we started to work with these guys talking about the Free Syrian Army six months earlier that somehow would have turned the tide. That that would have turned the tide. Blinken do you know assad has been a magnet for every extremism were fighting against and it is inconceivable with syria being stable with assad as its leader. He has forfeited its legitimacy. Isil is the wolf it the door but the answer to isil is the moderate opposition. They need to be built up so they can be counterweight to assad. Near term they need to be built up so they can help on the ground to help deal with isil. Candy crowley isil is the wolf at the door but assad sphrs the u. S. Is concerned as far as the u. S. Is concerned is the next wolf at the door . Mr. Blinken as long as assad is there it is hard syria being stable, you continue to be a magnet for extremists were fighting. Crowley a transition is not the same as we will actively help you bring this guy down. Blinken the best way to deal with assad is to transition him out so that the moderate opposition can fill the vacuum. Thats what weve been working on. The more you build them up, the more you make them a counterweight, the more possible that becomes. Let me just remind my colleagues of whats happened. Theres a guy named caesar who about a year and a half ago smuggled out thousands of pictures. These pictures are the most gripping and horrifying that i have ever seen, and they were pictures, actual pictures which have been authenticated of the atrocities committed by bashar assad. They are wrenching, they are heartbreaking and they are terrible. Now, 200,000 people have been butchered in syria. Three and a half million are refugees. 150,000 are still in Bashar Assads prison experiencing things like this. You know, these are little children here. These are little children. They have been massacred by bashar assad. What have we done . What have we done in response to this . First of all, amazingly these photographs have been authenticated by this guy caesar. He did testify before the House Foreign Affairs committee. It didnt seem to rise to the interest of the senate Foreign Affairs committee or the American People or this administration. I was in a refugee camp in jordan where at that time there was some, i think, 75,000 refugees. I was being taken around by a young woman, and she said, senator mccain it was a school teacher. She said senator mccain, see all these children . I said yes. She said those children believe that you have abandoned them, senator mccain, that you americans have abandoned them. When they grow up, theyre going to take revenge on you. So here we are, this incredible slaughter, massacre, torture taking place, and what is this administration doing . Trying to make a deal with the iranians and leaving bashar assad to wreak havoc on the Syrian People that are still able to fight, butchering thing with a thing called barrel bombs. Most of my colleagues know what a barrel bomb is. Its a huge cylinder and its packed with explosives and nuts and bolts and pieces of shrapnel. And bashar assad unimpeded flies over, theres helicopters and others, and they drop these barrel bombs. Then when they capture these people, this is the kind of thing that is done. So and today it is clear its whats happening, is that we are attacking isis in syria. We are not attacking bashar assad, this butcher. In fact, bashar assad has intensified his attacks on the Free Syrian Army. Intensified them. And not surprisingly, the morale of the Free Syrian Army is very low. So general allen and others have recently proposed a nofly zone or aircraft exclusion zone, something weve been arguing for for about three years. This president still refuses to do it. Its heartbreaking. Its heart it breaking and its tragic. And it will go down in American History as one of the most shameful chapters because of our failure and the president s personal decision not to arm the Free Syrian Army when all of his key National Security advisor his secretary of state, hillary clinton; head of the c. I. A. , general petraeus; and secretary of defense, secretary panetta all strongly recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army. In the case so ill move on. On ukraine, what putin has seen is the president mobilizing the International Community both in support of ukraine and to isolate russia for its actions in ukraine and russia is paying a clear cost for that, unquote from mr. Blinken. The notion that this is somehow the result of syria makes very little sense to me. Thats because its not about what we do or say in the first instance. Its about russia and its perceived instance. What mr. Blinken doesnt understand is that weakness in one place translates throughout the world. When i tell my colleagues, when i tell my fellow citizens that we will not supply the ukraine people with defensive weapons, they dont believe me. Theyve watched the country dismembered. Theyve watched crimea go, watched a shootdown nobody talks about anymore. And they continue to create unrest and killing in Eastern Ukraine and we wont even supply the ukrainians with weapons with which to defend themselves. I see that im nearly out of time. Id just like to say that i wish that mr. Blinkens words were matched by his deeds. At the Holocaust Museum october 6, 2014, he said a new notion is gaining currency, a responsibility to protect. It holds its state side responsibilities as well as interests, especially a responsibility to shield their own populations from the depraved and murderers. This approach is bold. Its important and the United States welcomes it and has included it as a core element of our National Security strategy along with our commitments to prevent genocide and hold those who organize atrocities accountable. No one can look at those pictures, the thousands, and believe that weve held bashar assad responsible. He ended up by saying endorsing the responsibility to protect is one thing. Acting on it is another. All of us in the International Community will have to muster the political will to act diplomatically, economically or in extreme cases militarily when governments prove unable or unwilling to prevent the slaughter of their citizens. That is a remarkable statement from an individual whose actions have clearly contradicted that at every turn in literally every corner of the earth. So, madam president , i know we will lose the vote probably, but i i believe that history will hold this administration accountable, and history will hold those individuals who were part of this administration who allowed these acts to go on, dismemberment of a country called ukraine, for the first time a european country has been partitioned since world war ii. The needless slaughter of thousands and thousands of ukrainian men, women and children. And the list goes on and on. Thousands and thousands of syrian children. The list goes on and on. And now we are going to promote this individual to replace probably the finest diplomat ive known, secretary burns, who is thought only is not only is mr. Blinken unqualified but he is i believe a threat to the traditional interests and values that embody the United States of america. Madam president , i yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call a senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senior senator from new jersey. Mr. Menendez i ask that the quorum call be waived, please. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Menendez madam president , i come to the floor in feafer of the confirmation of tony blinken who is no stranger to this institution and no stranger to the most significant National Security issues this nation has faced in a generation. As the former staff director of the Foreign Relations committee and a close confidant of thenchairman biden and now a member of the president s National Security team, he has earned a reputation as hard working, studious and keenly analytical. And he comes from a family of diplomats and has lived his life in and around the foreign service. His nomination as deputy secretary of state comes at a time when the United States is facing a range of critical challenges. From ebola in west africa to russian aggression in ukraine to the challenging of countering isil in syria and iraq to irans continuing quest for a Nuclear Weapons program. At the same time, we are forging new global alliances and partnerships with india, in the middle east and asia and looking for opportunities to expand american exports and business opportunities. There will be no shortage of Critical Issues that well face. Foremost on our National Security agenda is countering the barbarity of isil whose terrorist ambitions threaten our National Security as well as the stability of an entire region. We also face a continued crisis in ukraine where a ceasefire has collapsed and russian tanks, troops and weapons continue crossborder incursions into Eastern Ukraine. Clearly, the list of challenges is long, the diplomatic calculations are complicated, and all of these challenges will be part of the portfolio the deputy of the deputy secretary of secretary of state. Now, i know there will be times where we agree and times where we will disagree, and i look forward to working closely with mr. Blinken should he be confirmed, and i expect that he will be. Now, i know there is opposition by some of my colleagues to mr. Blinken. As we consider his nomination considered his nomination in the Foreign RelationsCommittee Last week, several of my colleagues raised concerns which id like to take a few minutes to address. First, there is an incredible notion that mr. Blinken is somehow unqualified. Madam president , anyone who has served as the Senate Foreign relation committees staff director, two president s, a Vice President and a deputy National Security advisor to the president of the United States and has chaired the National Security councils deputys committee is more than qualified, and my colleagues know it. They simply disagree with the politics and the policies of the president , which is the responsibility of the person who is serving that president to ultimately promote, and anyone he chooses to appoint to a key position, but they cannot disagree that mr. Blinken has served the nation admirably, with dignity, diplomacy and has honored every position he has held, that he has devoted his life to serving this nations National Security interests, and he has excelled at doing it. Now, frankly, if mr. Blinken is unqualified, then the bar my colleagues have set is so high for any human being to reach. So i ask those who object to the nominee what additional qualifications can there be . Outside of already occupying the position for which he is nominated, its hard to understand what additional qualifications my colleagues would expect mr. Blinken to have to demonstrate his worthiness. Perhaps they would prefer he be nominated by a different president whose policies they agree with, but thats not how it works. This is an eminently qualified candidate who has the full trust and confidence of this president , my colleagues policy concerns notwithstanding. They may disagree with specific policy decisions of this president dutifully carried out, i repeat, carried out by mr. Blinken, and even listening to my dear friend and colleague, senator mccain, a distinguished member of the committee who i regret we are going to lose in the next congress from the committee, you know, when he made the comment that the president s personal decision im referring to on syria when all his National Security advisors recommended providing arms to the Free Syrian Army, well, mr. Blinken is clearly one of those National Security advisors, but the president is the one who ultimately makes the decision on what policy will be pursued. Which leads us separately to the questions about mr. Blinkens participation and decisions involving iraq, afghanistan and other parts of the world, as certain members of this body have taken issue with. Mr. Blinken has had to defend those decisions no matter his personal views or advice. That is his job. You can disagree with the president s policies, but you cannot blame this nominee for doing his sworn constitutional duty to carry them out. Now, i want to be very clear, we cannot judge the qualifications of this nominee, or for that fact any nominee based on the policy decisions of this president or any president. He has been part of this administration, to be sure, but if the Senate Starts to hold every nominee to account for every decision made by every president that they serve, i think that we will find that there is no one who will pass muster, no one who will be confirmed. I happen to think that president bushs decision to evade iraq invade iraq was a geostrategic blunder of the highest order. I opposed it at the time, and history tragically has proven that judgment right. The brave sacrifice of our young men and women and the squandering of hundreds of billions of our children and grandchildrens inheritance have compounded this magnitude of this error. Would my colleagues suggest that i should oppose all future republican nominees who served in the Bush Administration because no matter how qualified they are, somehow they must be held accountable for what i believe history will show in evaluating the bush presidency as a historic blunder that led to the civil and secular wars that are changing the shape of the middle east. I dont believe that that is what my colleagues would suggest, but that appears to be how they are judging mr. Blinken. But none of that is a reason to oppose mr. Blinken or any nominee. I hear these references to iraq. Well, Prime Minister malaki at the time opposed signing a status agreement, and without such an agreement, it was impossible to have our forces continued to be in iraq subject to the possibilities of any issues being pursued illegally under iraqi law versus our own law. Or in afghanistan, the question of what the force of the size should be in 2014. The president has made the statement of what it is to be. And maybe we can even have disagreements with what the size of those forces should be in 2014 as we see things evolve, but it is not for someone in an appointed position who is supposed to carry out the president s policies to say no, were not going to have that size, were going to have a bigger size. I fully expect that if confirmed, there will be a number of issues where mr. Blinken and i probably wont see eye to eye, or rather that the administration he will represent and i may not see eye to eye. When those issues arise, i fully intend to let mr. Blinken know exactly how i feel and to engage in a debate to influence the policy, and i will avail myself of all the tools that a senator can use to do so, and frankly, given his experience working for this body and given his professionalism and experience with the Senate Foreign relations committee, i would rather it be mr. Blinken who will be across the table from me rather than someone else who doesnt have any of the understanding of this institution and the prerogatives of senators. Im confident that he will understand where i am coming from, even when we disagree, and i am confident that he will approach these discussions with an open mind, that he will seek to persuade, but he also will be open to persuasion. Madam president , i dont think any of us here in this body would like to be held to a standard of perfection in our judgments, one that holds no space for Loyal Service to this nation, no space for qualified nominees who have honorably and faithfully implemented the policies of their president. Lets be clear. We are not judging the president s policies. We are judging the qualifications for a man who has loyally and professionally carried out those policies. I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues in this body, even when i may disagree. I do not doubt that they are seeking what they believe is the best for the nation. In times at times, i think theyre right. At other times, i think theyre wrong. And today, as it relates to mr. Blinken, theyre wrong. Tony blinken is a tireless and able Public Servant who serve the nation well, and i urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee. He is a man of the senate, a qualified and distinguished Public Servant and an accomplished National Security and Foreign Policy expert. And with that, madam president , i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Levin madam president . The presiding officer the senator from michigan. Mr. Levin madam president , i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Levin madam president , last month the senates permanent subcommittee on investigations concluded a twoyear bipartisan investigation into wall street Bank Involvement with physical commodities. Our investigation which focused on Goldman Sachs, more began stanley and j. P. Morgan chase by the way, i ask unanimous consent i be permitted to proceed as if in morning business for five minutes. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Levin is the subcommittees investigation found these banks involved in a breathtaking array of physical commodities activities. They own coal mines and oil pipelines, power plants, massive amounts of copper and aluminum and even uranium. We asked multiple aspects of Financial HoldingCompany Involvement with physical commodities including the nature and extent of those activities with the attendant risks such as the threat to banks safety and soundness from a catastrophe along the lines of the b. P. Oil spill in the gulf of mexico. We also examined the impact of those activities on consumers, manufacturers, and markets. One key area of concern relates to possible price manipulation and unfair trading. What we found is that involvement in physical commodities gave these banks access to important nonpublic information that they could use to profit in their trading of Financial Products tied to those same commodities. In the stock market the use of such nonpublic information is prohibited, but no such clear prohibition exists in commodities markets. That gives the biggest wall street banks an enormous incentive to pursue physical commodities activities, often to the detriment of consumers and manufacturers in order to profit in financial trades by dint of the nonpublic information that they gain from their physical commodity activities. And it provides the opportunity in some cases to engage in market manipulation. Ive introduced, madam president , with senator mccain a bill intended to prevent such abuses. The ending Insider Trading in commodities act senate bill 1013 which we just introduced would prevent a Large Financial Institution from trading in physical commodities and commodityrelated Financial Instruments while at the same time in possession of material nonpublic information arising from its ownership or interest in a business or facility used to store, ship, or use the same commodity. A Large Financial Institution should not be able to control, for instance, a huge number of warehouses and then use the nonpublic information that it gains and sometimes creates from the operation of those warehouses to trade on the same kinds of commodities stored in those warehouses. As we learned from our investigation, a Financial Institution that owns warehouses may manipulate warehouse operations in ways that move the prices of the very Financial Instruments and commodities that the Financial Institution is trading. In the case of alum number we saw that Goldman Sachs owned dozens of warehouseness the detroit area which it useed to build a near monopoly on the storage of aluminum in the United States that is used to settle trades on the London Metal Exchange which sets the benchmark price for aluminum around the world. Using that dominant position, goldman approved warehouse deals and practices that lengthened the lines, the queues for metal owners to get their metal out of the warehouses to nearly two years. By lengthening the queues, gold man raised the premium that includes such cost as storage and transportation and which along with the London Metal Exchanges benchmark price, makes up the total price consumers pay for aluminum. Goldman manipulated these warehouse practices in ways that made metal owners wait to get their metal and influenced prices paid to buy aluminum and hedge aluminum costs. All the while, goldman was trading in aluminum and aluminum related Financial Instruments. Its a rigged game and it needs to be stopped. And thats what this bill is intended to do. I thank senator mccain for joining me in this important effort, and we hope that our colleagues will take up this bill and carry on this effort in the next congress. And if i have one additional minute, madam president the presiding officer without objection. Mr. Levin on a different matter, when the war powers resolution was passed over a president ial veto in 1973, its supporters expected that the war powers resolution would ensure that a National Dialogue takes place before the employment of the u. S. Armed forces in hostilities. The president , then, president nixon, was concerned that the war powers termination of authorities after 60 days unless extended by congress would create unpredictability in u. S. Foreign policy and the war powers resolution is a practical matter has not been effective. Every subsequent president to president nixon has viewed the war powers resolution as an unconstitutional impingement on the president s powers as commander in chief. Its never been used to terminate hostilities and the dialogue envisioned by the authors of the resolution has failed to come about. I have a proposal to amend the war powers act in those instances where nonstate actors are the target, were the target of them and they must become and should become the target for us to try to deter and respond to them when they attack us and try to terrorize us. And, madam president , i have introduced a bill today with a suggested amendment to the war powers act. I would ask that a copy of the bill be inserted in the record at this time. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Levin madam president , i would ask that the balance of my statement be inserted in the record at this time as well. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Levin i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum and thank the presiding officer. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call the presiding officer the senator from montana. Without objection. 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, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of Anthony Blinken of new york to be deputy secretary of state, signed by 17 senators. The presiding officer the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of Anthony Blinken of inspector to be deputy secretary of state shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote the presiding officer any senator wishing to vote or wishing to change a vote . If not, the yeas are any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change a vote . If not, the yeas are 53, the nays are 40. The motion to invoke cloture is agreed to. Cloture having been invoked under the previous order, all time is yielded back and the question occurs on the confirmation of the blinken nomination. All in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. Is there a sufficient second . Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be a sufficient second. Yes, there is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. Vote