[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.
____________________