[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 103 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5771-S5776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Obamacare

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, just a few moments ago I heard the 
President speaking from the White House regarding ObamaCare. He was 
lamenting, saying: Why are we still litigating old news around here? 
Let's move on to other things. This issue has been finished.
  The reason this issue is still being talked about is because 
ObamaCare is a disaster. I think it is important to remember when we 
talk about health insurance that most Americans do have health 
insurance they are happy with. But no one would dispute that we have a 
health insurance problem in this country.
  For many who have insurance the cost of their insurance is getting 
unaffordable, and many others have no access to insurance at all. They 
have a job, perhaps, that doesn't provide it or they are chronically 
ill so insurance is impossible for them to find or they are young and 
healthy and they never go to a doctor, so they figure, why do they need 
it? Yes, for millions of people the cost and availability of insurance 
is a real problem, and we should do something about that.
  The problem is ObamaCare, as a solution, is a massive government 
takeover of health insurance in America, and it does not fix the 
problem. It only makes it worse, and that is why we are still talking 
about it. It makes it worse for a number of reasons.
  Tomorrow I am going to visit a business in Florida where the reality 
is growing every single day. Tomorrow I will visit Gatorland. Gatorland 
is in central Florida. It is a tourist destination where many 
Floridians and tourists have taken their kids to see alligators and to 
enjoy Florida's unique wildlife.
  For 135 Orlando area residents, however, Gatorland is their 
workplace. It is their livelihood. It is how they feed their families. 
It is how they pay their mortgages. It is how they get ahead in life. 
The reason we are still litigating this, Mr. President, is because like 
hundreds of thousands of other businesses around the country, ObamaCare 
is threatening to unravel it all. It is threatening to unravel the 
livelihood of 135 Floridians who work at Gatorland, to shatter their 
financial security for them and their families.
  Let me describe the problem. Gatorland has 135 full-time employees. 
Gatorland is currently paying 80 percent of the insurance cost for 
these employees. But now, under ObamaCare, evidently what they are 
doing is not going to be enough. ObamaCare, first of all, requires them 
not to just provide insurance but to provide for them a certain type of 
insurance, a type of insurance the government decided is enough.
  Second, because of ObamaCare, the cost of the insurance that 
Gatorland wants to provide for its employees is going to go up; that 
is, if they want to continue to pay 80 percent of the insurance costs 
for the 135 Floridians who work there, it is going to cost them a lot 
more money. Those are the two problems.
  No. 1 is they have to offer a certain type of insurance; the one they 
have potentially may not be enough according to the government. No. 2, 
because of all these changes, it is going to cost Gatorland more money 
to provide 80 percent of the cost of the insurance.
  What does this mean in the real world? Here is what it means. It 
means that as Gatorland looks to next year and into the future, they 
now have a new cost on their books. As they look at their business plan 
for the coming year, all of a sudden they see on the cost side it has 
gotten more expensive. So if they want to stay in business, they are 
going to have to figure out a way to come up with that extra money.
  What are their options to come up with this extra money? Option No. 1 
is they can raise their prices. Option No.

[[Page S5772]]

2 is they can cut back on expenses, such as the number of employees and 
benefits and hours. Option No. 3 is just not to comply at all with 
ObamaCare and pay a fine. Basically, don't offer insurance to these 
employees; let them go off and find it in the so-called exchanges and 
pay a fine to the IRS.
  I ask you, Mr. President, and I ask the people of this country, and I 
ask my colleagues, which one of these three options is good for our 
country? Which one of these three options is good for America, and 
which one of these three options is good for the 135 people who feed 
their families by working at Gatorland?
  If they raise their prices, that means the cost of going to Gatorland 
will go up. I understand our economy is not doing very well these days. 
Millions of people are underemployed and unemployed. They are working 
twice as hard and making half as much, and you are going to make it 
more expensive for them to go on vacation. I would argue that raising 
their prices is probably not an option available to them anyway. 
Gatorland is not Disneyland and not Universal, and it is not one these 
big tourist destinations. It is a small place that has to compete, and 
if you raise prices there comes a point where people just will not go.
  Not only is raising prices bad for our economy and people who want to 
visit Florida and take their families there, it might not even be 
feasible. So that certainly is not a good option. It may not even be an 
option at all.
  The second option is they would have to cut down on their expenses 
with their employees. That means they can lay off some people; find the 
money by instead of having 135 employees, try to get by with 125 
employees. That could mean not laying off people but as people retire 
or quit just not replacing them. That could also mean moving some of 
these people who are working full time to part time so they can get 
around the ObamaCare mandates, and so they can lower their costs. How 
is that good for our economy? How is that good for 135 people who work 
at Gatorland? How is that good for Florida? How is that good for us?
  The third option is they could pay the fine, but it is going to cost 
at least 135 people in my State the insurance they are happy with. I 
want you, Mr. President, to remember what you said--in fact what you 
repeated today in your statements a moment ago at the White House. You 
said if you are happy with your insurance, you can keep it. For 135 
people working in Gatorland in central Florida, that may not be true. 
They could lose their insurance that is working well for them, that 
they are happy with, because of this experiment. That is why we keep 
revisiting this issue.
  Interestingly enough, by the way, that is not just me saying that. 
This week some prominent labor unions, labor unions who are actually in 
favor of this law--lead among them was the Teamsters head, Jimmy 
Hoffa--wrote a letter to the President attacking this very point. They 
said the new law is breaking the promise that was made that if you are 
happy with your coverage, you are not going to lose it.
  I single out Gatorland because that is the real world. That is where 
I am going tomorrow, and that happens to be in my State. There are 
thousands of businesses like this that are facing these decisions. 
There is not one, there are hundreds of thousands of businesses that 
are facing this dilemma, that have these same concerns.
  By the way, this is not the only problem with ObamaCare. There are 
many others. The President keeps saying: There are people in town who 
want this plan to fail. They keep bringing up ObamaCare because they 
want it to fail.
  The plan is already failing. It is failing by your own admission. You 
just had to cancel, had to suspend one of the critical components of 
this bill because it is not doable. This plan is already failing on its 
own.
  By the way, if you are going to accuse us of wanting ObamaCare to 
fail, you better accuse the Teamsters of it because they have the same 
criticisms on this point that I have raised today.
  I think we have reached a point where no matter how you voted on 
ObamaCare--I was not here, but no matter how you may have voted on 
ObamaCare if you were here, no matter who you voted for for President, 
no matter if you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, it is 
bigger than politics--this is really about people. Today I highlighted 
the plight that 135 people in Florida are facing, but hundreds of 
thousands if not millions of others will soon face this plight as well. 
As Americans, we have to come to grips with the fact that this law is a 
terrible mistake, and we cannot go forward with it because it is going 
to hurt millions of middle-class Americans in the ways I have just 
described.

  We are going to have an opportunity to get this right in September 
because we are going to have to vote on a short-term budget to fund the 
government. I implore my colleagues to use that as an opportunity to 
put the brakes on this terrible mistake before more people lose their 
insurance, put the brakes on this before more people lose their jobs, 
put the brakes on this before more people lose their businesses. In 
that short-term funding bill, we should not pay for the implementation 
of ObamaCare. Let me be clear. Anyone who votes for the short-term 
budget that funds ObamaCare is voting to move forward with ObamaCare. 
Don't come here and say ``I am against ObamaCare'' if you are willing 
to vote for a budget that funds it. If you pay for it, you own it.
  I want to make myself clear to the employees of Gatorland, the 
working people of Florida, and anyone in America who is watching that 
I, for one, will not vote for any bill or any budget that funds the 
implementation of this disaster. Does that mean we shouldn't do 
anything about health insurance in America? Of course it doesn't mean 
that. We should do something--something that protects what is good 
about the current system and fixes what is bad with it. ObamaCare 
throws out what is good about the current system in order to try to fix 
what is bad with it, and in the end it messes up everything.
  We should repeal ObamaCare and replace it. We should replace it with 
ideas that allow uninsured and underinsured Americans to find 
affordable insurance without taking away other people's insurance and 
other people's jobs.
  For example, we should expand flexible savings accounts. These are 
accounts like the ones to which every Member of Congress has access. 
That allows us to take money out of our paycheck every month tax free 
and put it in a savings account for health purposes. We don't have to 
pay taxes on that money. A deposit is made every month, and it starts 
adding up. That money can be used to buy medicine or to pay for a 
copayment or any other medical expense. It is our money, and we control 
it. It has to be used on health care, but it is tax free. If Members of 
Congress get this, why shouldn't every American have a chance to have 
something like that?
  I used that account last year to pay for my daughter's braces. 
Millions of Americans should have the chance to do that. Why don't 
they? Because ObamaCare undermines it instead of encouraging it. It 
lowered the amount we can save every year from $5,000 to $2,500. 
Ridiculously enough, it says that in order for me to pay for children's 
Advil for my kids with my flex savings account, I have to get a 
prescription from a doctor. Think about that. If you buy children's 
Advil because your child has a fever, you now have to go to a doctor 
and get a prescription if you want to use your money to pay for it. 
Instead of encouraging the flex savings account, ObamaCare undermines 
it.
  Another good idea would be to allow people to buy insurance with 
their own tax-free money. Let's use the example of Gatorland. Let's say 
that the monthly premium is $1,000 and Gatorland pays $800 of it. They 
don't pay taxes on that $800. But let's say that tomorrow a business 
like that decides it is going to give you the $800 so you can go out 
and buy insurance from any company. If it does that, you have to pay 
taxes on the $800. If the employer buys the insurance for you, they 
don't pay taxes on the money. If you buy insurance for yourself, you 
pay taxes on the money. That is ridiculous. That is something we should 
be for.
  Here is another one. Why can't we Americans buy insurance from any 
company that will sell it to us? I live in Florida. If there is a 
company in Georgia that will sell me health insurance, why can't I buy 
it? I can't buy it

[[Page S5773]]

because they are not licensed by the State of Florida. This ignores the 
fact that every American needs a different type of health insurance.
  If you are like me, with four children, you need a family plan that 
will cover a lot of things, and that will cost more.
  What if you are a 25-year-old healthy single person who hardly ever 
gets sick? What you probably want is a hospitalization and catastrophic 
insurance account and a health savings account. The health savings 
account can be used if you get the flu, so you can take out $50 or $100 
with the tax-free money you have saved and pay for the doctor's visit. 
If, God forbid, you get hit by a car, your insurance steps up and pays 
for it. A plan such as that is a lot more affordable, but right now you 
can't buy it. Most States have rules, and most of the rules say: You 
either have to sell them a Cadillac or nothing at all. What if you 
don't want a Cadillac? What if you want a Geo? The same is true with 
health insurance, and it is wrong. We should encourage those things.
  It is not too late to change all of this. It would be a terrible 
mistake to move forward. This is not about defeating a President's 
agenda or wanting or rooting for it to fail. We do have a health 
insurance problem, and we should address it. What we are doing now is 
going to hurt an economy that is already struggling. There are people 
who will lose their jobs, lose hours at their jobs, paychecks will be 
cut, and they will lose the health insurance they are happy with. There 
are businesses in America that are going to be forced to absorb these 
costs by laying people off or raising prices or both. There are people 
who will lose coverage now and be thrown into exchanges that don't 
exist yet. This is a disaster. We should take the time to slow this 
down, and we will have a chance to do that in September.
  I will repeat it. I, for one, will not vote for any budget that funds 
the implementation of this disaster and hurts people in this way. I 
hope my colleagues will put partisanship and pride aside and come 
together. The fact is that if ObamaCare goes through and begins to be 
implemented, it is going to hurt us in ways that are potentially 
irreversible. It is not too late to stop.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am pleased we are finally at the point 
where we can vote on the nomination of Thomas Perez to serve as 
Secretary of Labor. Indeed, it seems as though the most important 
question before us today has gotten lost in all of the debate. Will Tom 
Perez be a good Secretary of Labor? The answer is unequivocally yes. 
There is no question that he has the knowledge and experience needed to 
guide this critically important agency.
  His outstanding work in Maryland as their secretary of labor has won 
him the support of the business community and workers alike. Here is a 
quote from the endorsement letter from the Maryland Chamber of 
Commerce:

       Mr. Perez proved himself to be a pragmatic public official 
     who is willing to bring differing voices together. The 
     Maryland Chamber had the opportunity to work with Mr. Perez 
     on an array of issues of importance to employers in Maryland, 
     from unemployment and workforce development to the housing 
     and foreclosure crisis. Despite differences of opinion, Mr. 
     Perez was always willing to allow all parties to be heard and 
     we found him to be fair and collaborative. I believe that our 
     experiences with him here in Maryland bode well for the 
     nation.

  That is a pretty strong endorsement by a chamber of commerce for a 
nominee whom the minority leader this morning characterized as a 
``leftwing ideologue . . . willing to bend the law to achieve his 
ideological ends.'' That is what the minority leader said this morning. 
That grossly unfair characterization is manifestly inconsistent with 
the experiences of the Republican leaders and business leaders who have 
actually worked with Tom Perez. These people clearly disagree with the 
minority leader's assessment of Mr. Perez's qualifications and 
character. I am informed that the minority leader never met with Mr. 
Perez. Mr. Perez offered to meet with him, but the minority leader said 
no. Yet the minority leader comes down here and makes these kinds of 
judgments as to his character and his integrity?
  We have heard a lot of discussion about the controversy surrounding 
Mr. Perez's nomination over the last couple of days on the Senate 
floor. His integrity and character have been viciously and unfairly 
attacked.
  I take particular issue with the minority leader's suggestion this 
morning that Mr. Perez doesn't follow the law or believe it applies to 
him. I respectfully suggest that the minority leader needs to check his 
facts. Those allegations couldn't be more to the contrary. Tom Perez 
believes deeply in the law. He believes that all the laws on the books, 
especially those that protect our most important rights--the right to 
vote, the right to be free from discrimination in the workplace, the 
right of people with disabilities to live in their own communities--Tom 
Perez believes strongly that these rights should be respected and 
enforced. These are the same laws that I sometimes think some on the 
Republican side would like to forget are on the books, but these laws 
matter. Voting rights matter. Fair housing rights matter. The rights of 
people with disabilities matter. And Tom Perez has fought for that.
  We shouldn't shy away from using every tool in our arsenal to 
strengthen our enforcement of civil rights laws. These laws are part of 
what makes our country great. I am incredibly proud of the work Mr. 
Perez has done at the Department of Justice to make these rights a 
reality again after years of neglect. He should be applauded, not 
vilified, for the service he has provided to this country.
  He is a leader whose career has involved passionate and visionary 
work for justice. Yes, he has had to make difficult decisions. He has 
faced management challenges. As we now know, he has been the target of 
accusations, mudslinging, and character assassination. I have looked 
carefully into Mr. Perez's background and record of service, as the 
chair of the authorizing and oversight committee. I can assure Senators 
that Tom Perez has the strongest possible record of professional 
integrity and that any allegations to the contrary are unfounded. They 
are simply unfounded allegations. There is absolutely nothing that 
calls into question his ability to fairly enforce the law as it is 
written. There is absolutely nothing that calls into question his 
professional integrity, moral character, or his ability to lead the 
Department of Labor.
  I am particularly disappointed that Republicans continue to raise 
concerns regarding Mr. Perez's involvement in the global resolution of 
two cases involving St. Paul, MN--the cases called Magner and Newell. I 
spoke about that at length, and Republicans have talked about it. This 
has been debated exhaustively. Quite frankly, there is nothing there.
  This is an issue the HELP Committee and the Judiciary Committee have 
thoroughly examined and found no cause for concern. The House Oversight 
and Judiciary Committees have also thoroughly explored the underlying 
facts. In fact, both the majority and minority staff on the House 
Oversight Committee have released reports on the matter. What the 
reports revealed is that the evidence is clear--Mr. Perez acted 
ethically and appropriately at all times. Indeed, he had clearance to 
proceed as he did from the appropriate ethics officers at the 
Department of Justice. Noted experts in legal ethics have confirmed 
this.
  There is no foundation for any allegation of wrongdoing by Mr. Perez 
in these cases involving St. Paul, MN. Yet they keep being drummed up. 
But they are just allegations. Anybody can make an allegation--
especially here on the Senate floor. Members can make all kinds of 
allegations. I simply ask for proof. Back up those allegations. There 
is no proof. There is nothing to back up those allegations that somehow 
Mr. Perez acted unethically or in violation of law.
  I am also deeply disappointed that my Republican friends are 
suggesting that Mr. Perez has been unresponsive to requests for 
information by Members of this body. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. Mr. Perez has been as open and aboveboard as he possibly can be 
with both my committee and Members of the Senate. He has met with any 
Member personally who requested a meeting. He requested a meeting with 
the minority leader, and the minority leader said no. He appeared 
before our committee in a public hearing. He answered more than 200

[[Page S5774]]

written questions. He bent over backward to respond to any and all 
concerns raised about his work at the Department of Justice.
  This administration has also been extraordinarily accommodating to my 
Republican colleagues--especially to their concerns about Mr. Perez's 
handling of the Magner and Newell cases while at the Department of 
Justice.
  The administration has produced thousands of documents. They have 
arranged for the interview of government employees and access to 
transcripts of inspector general interviews. They have provided access 
to Mr. Perez's personal e-mails. They have facilitated almost 
unprecedented levels of disclosure to alleviate any concerns. They have 
responded to every request for information, including the letter by 
Chairman Issa that Senator Isakson submitted for the Record this 
morning.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the response to 
Chairman Issa's letter from the Department of Justice at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Assistant 
           Attorney General,
                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2013.
     Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Issa: This is in response to your letter, 
     dated July 8, 2013, to Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. 
     Perez, regarding your request for emails that existed both in 
     Mr. Perez's personal email account and in the Department's 
     email system.
       As we explained in our letters of June 21, May 10, May 3, 
     and April 17, 2013, we have gone to great lengths to 
     accommodate the Committee's stated oversight interest in the 
     Federal Records Act and the availability of emails for other 
     records requests. The mails in question that were in Mr. 
     Perez's personal account had also, before your inquiry, 
     already been sent to or from a Department email address and 
     thus were captured by the Department's system pursuant to the 
     Federal Records Act (FRA). Nonetheless, we invited Committee 
     staff to view the date, sender, and recipient fields of these 
     emails so that they could confirm this fact. Indeed, 
     following Mr. Cummings' staff's review of the emails, he 
     wrote to the Department to state that the review had allowed 
     him to ``verify that [all the emails] were, in fact, sent 
     from or received by official government e-mail accounts,'' 
     which addressed his concerns. The substantive content of 
     these emails is not pertinent to an inquiry into FRA 
     compliance.
       Only 5 communications initiated by Mr. Perez--and just 30 
     initiated by others--had not already been captured in the 
     Department's email system prior to your inquiry. When he 
     located these communications, Mr. Perez immediately forwarded 
     them to a Department email address, ensuring that they are 
     now in the Department's system. These 35 communications were 
     made available for review by your staff.
       As a result, as we explained in our letter to you on June 
     21, 2013, we believe that we have addressed your stated 
     oversight interest.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter J. Kadzik,
                      Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the nomination of Thomas Perez to be Secretary of Labor.
  Given our relentlessly high rate of unemployment over the past 55 
months and stagnant economic growth, we simply must do more to foster 
lasting economic prosperity. After analyzing Mr. Perez's role at the 
Department of Justice, I do not believe he is the proper candidate to 
help our Nation return to full employment or reach our economic 
potential. I have great concerns regarding some of the decisions he has 
made, the professionalism and ethics of those decisions, and his 
overall management abilities. The Department of Labor has, 
unfortunately, pursued guidance and rulemakings that are daunting to 
large and small businesses alike, and I believe Mr. Perez would only 
exacerbate these problems.
  Mr. Perez accrued an alarming record of mismanagement and utter 
politicization of the law during his tenure at the Department of 
Justice, DOJ. The DOJ's inspector general 2013 report gave a highly 
critical review of the Voting Section under Mr. Perez, citing the 
``politically charged atmosphere and polarization within the Voting 
Section'' and the ``dysfunctional management chain'' under Mr. Perez. 
Furthermore, the report indicated that the handling of the New Black 
Panther Party case under his leadership ``risked undermining confidence 
in the non-ideological enforcement of the voting rights laws.''
  When I look at the nonpartisan inspector general report and the way 
in which Mr. Perez has pursued policies singling out certain 
conservative States and industries, I simply cannot support his 
nomination. The Voting Section's decision to override career DOJ staff 
to block the implementation of my home State of South Carolina's voter 
ID law is a prime example of this trend. Only after South Carolina 
spent more than $3.5 million suing the DOJ in Federal court did our law 
take effect. Yet, even on the heels of defeat in Federal court, Mr. 
Perez was still dissatisfied and decided to send DOJ officials down to 
monitor a special municipal election in Branchville, SC--a town with a 
voting population of 800 and where fewer than 200 people voted in the 
special municipal election.
  Finally, I believe it is irresponsible and an abdication of 
congressional authority to move a nominee who has repeatedly failed to 
comply with an outstanding congressional subpoena. The House Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee issued a bipartisan subpoena on April 
10, 2013, regarding 1,200 e-mails sent from Mr. Perez's nonofficial e-
mail account that referred to official business of the Department of 
Justice. Mr. Perez's failure to comply with this obligation casts 
considerable doubt on the deference he would give to Congress as 
Secretary.
  What we need at the Department of Labor is simple: a Secretary who 
will put politics aside and a strong management structure in place to 
help get our economy back on track. States, businesses, and employees 
cannot afford to have a Secretary of Labor who seeks to micromanage and 
politicize the most mundane aspects of everyday life. For these 
reasons, I oppose Mr. Perez's nomination.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, once again I wish to reiterate my 
strong support for Tom Perez, a man eminently qualified to serve our 
country as the next Secretary of Labor.
  Tom Perez was cleared by the HELP Committee over 2 months ago and 
should have been confirmed soon after, but we know that wasn't the 
case.
  I am glad that Leader Reid was able to break the nominations logjam 
this week so that we could begin confirming some very deserving 
nominees, including Tom Perez.
  Tom Perez is the quintessential public servant. He is a consensus 
builder. As Secretary of Labor in Maryland, he brought together the 
chamber of commerce and Maryland labor unions to make sure workers 
received the level of wages and benefits they deserved and business had 
the skilled workforce they needed.
  Most recently, he has served as Assistant Attorney General for the 
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, where he increased 
prosecution of human trafficking by 40 percent, won $50 million for 
servicemembers whose homes were improperly foreclosed on while they 
served, and settled the three largest fair lending cases in the history 
of the Fair Housing Act, recovering more money for victims in 2012 than 
in the previous 23 years combined.
  He has spent his entire career in public service.
  He is a Brown University graduate with a master's in public policy 
from the Kennedy School and a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law.
  He is an advocate for people with disabilities and won the largest 
ever disability-based housing discrimination settlement.
  Tom Perez is a civil rights champion. He obtained the first 
convictions under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act, and has always supported ending discrimination on the 
basis of sexual orientation.
  Tom Perez is a good man and a good nominee. So let's do what we 
should have done a long time ago.
  He is a qualified, competent, professional public servant, nominated 
by the President, and already confirmed by the Senate to the post he 
holds today.
  As I said when I first endorsed Tom Perez, and I will say again 
today; he is an outstanding public servant, and I applaud President 
Obama for selecting him to be our Nation's next Secretary of Labor.
  I have no doubt that he will continue the administration's efforts to 
create

[[Page S5775]]

jobs and get people back to work. Mr. Perez has dedicated his career to 
championing the rights of workers and all Americans, and I am confident 
that he will continue to do the same if confirmed.
  As former Secretary of Labor in Maryland, Mr. Perez prioritized 
matching community colleges, labor unions, and the private sector to 
help get people jobs that are in demand today and in the future--an 
initiative that is much needed on a national scale, and something I 
have proposed in legislation that would close the skills gap by 
training workers with the skills needed to fill such jobs.
  This is a remarkable nominee who brings a compelling personal story 
and a wealth of knowledge and leadership to the Department of Labor.
  I am very pleased the time has finally come for good people like Tom 
Perez to get the up-or-down vote they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm this qualified nominee who 
has waited too long.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise in support of one of Maryland's 
favorite sons, Mr. Tom Perez, the President's nominee to lead the 
Department of Labor. Mr. Perez has been the Assistant Attorney General 
for the United States and has also been Maryland's Secretary of Labor 
and Licensing and also was a member of the Montgomery County Council. 
All three of these jobs show his expertise and his ability to navigate 
some very complex situations. I believe he is the right man for the 
job.
  I support his nomination, not only because he is one of Maryland's 
favorite sons, but because I believe he brings integrity, competency, 
and commitment to the mission of the Department of Labor.
  His resume is outstanding. A Harvard Law School graduate. He has 
served in public service at the Federal, State, and county levels and 
he has a commitment to the mission of each agency.
  In terms of personal background, it is really the story of America. 
His father came to this country under very difficult circumstances. His 
grandfather was one of the leaders of the voices of freedom in the 
Dominican Republic--punished for that and declared a persona non grata. 
But his father was able to stay in this country as a legal immigrant, 
go on to military service, and become a physician. And to show his 
gratitude to this country, he worked only for the Veterans 
Administration serving the country that saved him and his family.
  Tom grew up with public service in his DNA. His father died when he 
was a young boy and he will tell that compelling narrative, but through 
the dint of hard work, a loving mother, and a nation that offered 
opportunity--he was able to work his way through school, get the 
scholarships, worked even as a trash collector during summer break to 
be able to advance himself.
  He knows what the American dream is, but he also knows what hard work 
is, and he knows what an opportunity ladder we need to have in this 
country.
  But in addition to that, he brings a great deal of skill--we know Tom 
at the Montgomery County Council level where government is closest to 
the people had to really govern best. And it is a complex, growing 
county where you had to work with public-private partnerships.
  I admire Tom so much for his work as head of the Maryland Department 
of Labor. They now have a letter in the Record recommending Tom to be 
the Secretary of Labor. Why? Because he listens, he learns, and he 
brings everybody to the table for a pragmatic, fair, and collaborative 
work.
  That is how he earned support from worker advocates and many of the 
Maryland's largest employers, the Maryland University System, the 
Maryland Association of Community Colleges, the Maryland Minority 
Contractors Association, and the Greater Baltimore Committee.
  I am confident Tom Perez will be an excellent Secretary of Labor. I 
know he will be a strong voice for the working class and for keeping 
the government on the side of the people who need it. I urge my 
colleagues to support his nomination.
  Mr. LEAHEY. Madam President, today the Senate will finally proceed to 
a confirmation vote on the nomination of Tom Perez to serve as 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor. This vote continues the 
progress we made on executive nominees this week following our 
bipartisan caucus on Monday night. I am pleased that six Republican 
Senators joined with Democratic Senators to invoke cloture on this 
nomination on Wednesday, and now we can proceed to getting this well-
qualified nominee confirmed to lead the Department of Labor.
  Tom Perez is a dedicated public servant, and since 2009, he has 
worked hard to restore the reputation of the Civil Rights Division at 
the Justice Department. This was no small task after the prior 
administration had amassed one of the worst civil rights enforcement 
records in modern American history. Under the leadership of Attorney 
General Holder, Tom Perez has guided the Civil Rights Division back to 
its core mission of vigorous civil rights enforcement. He has many 
accomplishments to be proud of under his stewardship of the Division. 
Among them is his successful implementation of legislation I offered in 
the Senate, the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was 
signed into law by President Obama just after Tom Perez was confirmed 
as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in 
October 2009. Under Tom Perez's leadership, the Division implemented 
this important law and brought several important hate crimes 
prosecutions. Under his leadership, the Division has also been vigilant 
in protecting American homeowners against discriminatory predatory 
lending, and in protecting our men and women in uniform from 
foreclosure by lenders while overseas on active duty. He also led the 
Division to expand the number of human trafficking prosecutions by 40 
percent during the past 4 years, including a record number of cases in 
2012.
  I have no doubt that Tom Perez will bring to the Labor Department the 
same leadership and commitment that he brought to the Civil Rights 
Division, and our Nation will be better for it. As a former Secretary 
of Labor in Maryland, and a fierce defender of workers' rights and 
civil rights, he is uniquely suited to serve in this important post at 
a critical time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more 
minute to conclude my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. In short, the Department of Justice has made all e-mails 
available for review. It is true Congressman Issa has continued to 
repeat his requests, but that doesn't mean Mr. Perez and the 
administration have not been responsive, because they have.
  The fact is this nominee has been more than thoroughly vetted. He has 
the character and the integrity and the expertise to lead the 
Department of Labor. The President has chosen Mr. Perez to join his 
Cabinet, and there is absolutely no reason why the Senate should not 
consent to this choice.
  I am proud to support Mr. Perez's nomination. He will be an asset to 
the Department of Labor and to our entire country. I look forward to 
the opportunity to work with him in his new position to help all 
working Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. RISCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor?


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S5775, July 18, 2013, the Record reads: . . . to the 
nomination of Edward Perez, of Maryland . . .
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . to the 
nomination of Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland . . .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer

[[Page S5776]]


     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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.
  The Senator from California.

                          ____________________