[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 55 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2229-S2234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 178, which the clerk will report by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 178) to provide justice for the victims of
trafficking.
Pending:
McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 1120, to strengthen
the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act by incorporating
additional bipartisan amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Texas
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote at 11 a.m. this
morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
100th Day of the New Congress
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am an optimistic person. As a matter of
fact, I think everybody from Texas is an optimist. Can you imagine the
challenges the people who founded our State had--Indians, wide-open
hostile territory, tough weather. But they persevered because they were
optimists. They thought the fight was worth the struggle. They thought
the goal and the accomplishment--the hope for accomplishment--was worth
the struggle.
I still remain optimistic--despite the last few weeks that have
challenged that optimism--that we will actually break through here and
get to consider and vote on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act
and get help to the people whom the majority leader, Senator McConnell,
described, the children who cannot help themselves. I mean, for
heaven's sake, if we cannot help the most vulnerable people in our
country--children who cannot help themselves, who are the victims of
modern-day slavery--what in the world can we do?
So we have marked 100 days here in the Senate with the new Republican
majority. As I look back, I do not think anybody can deny that under
the majority leader's stewardship we have had some significant
accomplishments in a relatively short period of time. Sure, it has been
bumpy along the way. The Keystone XL Pipeline was a significant bump in
the road. But we had a strong bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the
President decided to veto that legislation.
After years of this Chamber being used solely for the purpose of
messaging and conducting political show votes, we are actually starting
to get
[[Page S2230]]
some things done. It is pretty exciting. As somebody who has been here
since 2002, it is hard to believe, when I say that, that I have
actually been here during different phases and cycles of the Senate
operating. I have to tell you that the last 4 years or so has been a
dark period, a stain on the reputation of the Senate in terms of
actually getting things done in the interests of the American people.
I understand the he said-she said and the blame game. The blame game
is a world-class sport here in Washington, DC. But most of our
constituents couldn't care less about the blame game; they actually
want to see government function in their interest. Consistent with our
principles, we are going to have some disagreements, there is no doubt
about it. But they hate the dysfunction. They hate the political
posturing. You know what. I do, too. I dare say that the vast majority
of Senators hate the dysfunction the Senate has experienced.
So there is a new spirit of optimism and, yes, hope, not that the Age
of Aquarius has suddenly broken out--peace, love and understanding and
we are all going to hold hands and sing ``Kumbaya.'' That is not going
to happen. But can we work together as Americans, as people who love
our country, who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution and laws of the United States, who owe a fiduciary duty to
the people we represent? I represent 26.9 million people. That just
staggers my imagination when I think about it, when I think about the
responsibility associated with it. But I am encouraged when we have the
chance to help people, especially those who cannot help themselves.
Well, one reason for my optimism about the new Congress is that we
have held a lot of votes. We had 15 votes last year, 15 rollcall votes
in the Congress last year. We have had about 100 in the 100 days we
have been here. As a matter of fact, I have heard some of our
colleagues say: I am a little tired of voting quite as much as we have,
particularly on the budget vote-arama which lasted until 4 in the
morning. I understand that. But, you know, we have passed a balanced
budget in the Senate without raising taxes. The Congress has not passed
a budget since 2009. What more fundamental, basic function of
government is there than to pass a budget?
The distinguished Presiding Officer was Governor of his great State.
I am absolutely confident he viewed that as one of the fundamental
responsibilities of his State government and of his office in
particular--to get the fiscal house in order. The way you do that is by
passing a budget and determining what your priorities are--things you
absolutely have to do, things you perhaps want to do but maybe have to
delay, and things you simply cannot afford.
Every State, every local government, and, yes, the Federal Government
should pass a budget. We will in short order. The Senate has, and now
we need to reconcile our differences with the House, which we will
shortly. But it is not just government; every family and every business
has to work on a budget. So that is progress. I am happy about that.
On Tuesday night, we actually fixed a problem that had been nagging
the Congress since 1997. Back in 1997, we, the Congress--we were not
here; the Presiding Officer and I were not here. The Congress had this
bright idea: We are going to save money on health care by whacking the
payments we make to providers and hospitals. Well, after a while we
found out that if we do not pay doctors and hospitals for treating
Medicare patients, they will not see them.
So our seniors, to whom we had made a sacred promise--we will
continue to make sure Medicare provides quality service and is
accessible--all of a sudden, it was not quite so accessible because
people could not find a doctor who would take a new Medicare patient.
That is still a problem, so we came back over the intervening years
and 17 times out of the 18 times those cuts would have been imposed,
Congress reversed them. We had an expression around here that
unfortunately we had to use a lot; we called it the doc fix. That is an
inelegant way, perhaps, of describing what we were doing, but basically
what we were trying to do was preserve Medicare and access to doctors
and hospitals for our seniors who are the beneficiaries of the Medicare
system. That, to me, represents some progress, that we have fixed that
once and for all.
Then, imagine my surprise that, after the contentious issue of
congressional approval of the anticipated Iranian-U.S.--along with our
allies--nuclear negotiations, this deal that could be forthcoming this
summer, imagine my surprise, after the President said he would veto it,
when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed a bill
out of the committee. All Democrats voted for it. All Republicans voted
for it. Oh, by the way, when the President began to count the numbers
and the support in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, he said: You know
what. I think I will sign that piece of legislation when it comes to my
desk. I think that represents progress.
One other item that has made me somewhat optimistic on this 100th day
of the new Congress is that we are very close to working out a trade
deal that the President supports and I would say Republicans by and
large support. Honestly, there is probably more controversy on the
Democratic side than there is on the Republican side. But in a world
where 80 percent of the purchasing power and 95 percent of the
population exists beyond our shores, why in the world would we not want
to open new markets to the stuff we grow--our farmers, our ranchers--
the livestock we raise, and the things we make? I think it makes good
sense.
So you can see why I, perhaps, am optimistic about this new Congress
and what we have been able to do together on a bipartisan basis to make
progress in the interests of the American people.
The one thing that has me completely bamboozled and befuddled is the
objections over this antitrafficking legislation that had 30
cosponsors--roughly an equal number of Democrats and Republicans--and
passed--sailed out of the Judiciary Committee.
My friend the Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, knows that
the Judiciary Committee is no place for the faint of heart. We have a
lot of disagreements. Maybe that is because we have a lot of lawyers on
the Judiciary Committee. We fight a lot about things we believe in
strongly. But this antitrafficking legislation sailed out of the
Judiciary Committee on a unanimous basis.
I hope we can work out these differences, and I have made multiple
suggestions and compromises in an effort to try to get everybody to
yes.
I agree with the majority leader's description of the sordid,
unspeakable, evil of human trafficking and the compelling reason we
ought to do something to address it.
I know that is where the hearts of all of our colleagues are, but
somehow we have just gotten stuck. We need to get unstuck, and I hope
today will be that day. Of course, human trafficking is a plague in all
50 States, and my State, unfortunately, has way too much of its share.
I, like all of our colleagues, have had the chance to meet many of
the brave victims of human trafficking. One victim I met last week in
Austin is Brooke Axtell.
Our friends at Google convened a meeting in Austin. The technology
community understands that a lot of the solicitation of underage girls
and victims of human trafficking occurs online. So they have come
together to try to work with law enforcement, work with victims' rights
groups to try to come up with a comprehensive way to combat it.
At Google last week in Austin, I met Brooke Axtell, who was
introduced to America when she gave a moving speech at this year's
GRAMMY Awards. In Texas, she is better known for her work with a number
of nonprofits that are focused on ending domestic violence and human
trafficking. I can't begin to tell you how inspiring she is and her
words were, particularly when you comprehend the horror, the absolute
horror of what she had been through as a victim of human trafficking
herself.
Starting at the age of 7--7 years old--Brooke was sexually abused.
She was literally put in chains and a cage--treated like an animal--in
a basement. She was repeatedly sold to men who raped and abused her.
[[Page S2231]]
Out of this horror that she experienced as a young child, Brooke has
brought life to her pain, and I think her leadership in the
antitrafficking effort has actually helped her heal. She is one brave,
courageous, young woman. She founded a group called Survivor Healing
and Empowerment, which is a healing community for the survivors of
rape, abuse, and sex trafficking.
That is why, today, at 11 o'clock, I hope all of our colleagues
listen not only to Brooke's voice and her experience, but each one of
us on the floor could tell a similar story about somebody in their
State, somebody they know, they have met, who would be helped by this
legislation.
I hope we don't tell them no. I hope we don't shut another door in
their faces.
I see some of our colleagues on the floor. I want to briefly give
them a chance to speak before we vote at 11 o'clock, just to say that
the underlying legislation is not partisan. It would strengthen law
enforcement tools and authorities to rescue victims, while taking down
the human traffickers and the criminal networks that support them. The
goal is to provide at least $30 million through fines and penalties
paid into the public Treasury that would then go to help heal and
rescue the victims of human trafficking.
Now, this is not tax money, so it is deficit neutral. We are not
raising taxes to do it. We are making the people who purchased these
services, who were convicted and have to pay fines and penalties, pay
to help rescue and heal the victims.
Shortly, we will vote on another compromise I have offered. I have
tried to listen to the objections of our friends across the aisle--and
I don't want to relitigate those because, frankly, that is not
particularly productive. They seem to be locked in. I am sure they
would say we are locked in, and so we are trying to find a way forward.
First, and most important, this amendment would completely replace a
provision that Members on the other side have objected to regarding the
application of the Hyde amendment. The amendment would replace the
language or the provision negotiated by Leader Pelosi from the doc fix
bill I mentioned earlier that passed the House with 392 votes; 180
House Democrats voted for this bill, including Leader Pelosi. So we
have substituted that language for the original language.
Of course, in the Senate we had 92 Senators vote for that same
language, and our colleagues across the aisle have repeatedly voted for
similar language.
So the Pelosi language from this bill that my amendment includes
would simply say any funds used to provide services for victims of
human trafficking would be subject to the same requirements as funds of
the Public Health and Services Act.
The majority leader has said it well: If this language is good enough
to help the doctors and the hospitals, surely it is good enough to help
young 7-year-old victims of human trafficking, such as Brooke Axtell.
To further clarify, to address the stated concerns of our friends
across the aisle, this amendment would also clarify that all money--all
the money in the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund--must be derived
from the General Treasury. This is an objection I don't personally
understand, but we want to make it clear--just perhaps to help our
colleagues get to yes--that all of the money would be derived from the
General Treasury, which, of course, is where all Federal funding comes
from, and we would make clear that all of the money would be public
dollars.
I don't get this because tax dollars are private dollars until you
give them to the government, and then they are no longer public-
private, they are public. Private penalties are private until you pay
it to the government, and then it is public.
But we want to make clear, to eliminate any rationale for any
objection, and say that explicitly these would be public dollars. The
requirements placed on funds under the bill would not be placed on the
fees and penalties. That seemed to be a matter of concern, and we tried
to address that.
As I explained, the pending amendment would do what I have tried my
dead-level best to do, to try to address the concerns our Democratic
colleagues, who have blocked the bill so far, have continually
expressed.
So the language is just the same as the doc fix, and we have made
clear that none of the fines and penalties themselves--but rather funds
derived from the General Treasury--would be used to pay for these
services in an equivalent amount to the fines and penalties.
I would add, parenthetically, when I was talking to one of our
colleagues about it, they said: Well, that is money laundering. You are
taking fines and penalties and you are transferring it, you are
substituting it into a general fund.
I mean, give me a break. What we are trying to do is find a solution.
I think we have given our colleagues every opportunity to get to yes.
I know, because I have talked to a lot of them--including the Senator
from Illinois--people want to get to yes. I hope we have found a way to
do that. So I hope we will not let the political gamesmanship continue
to get in the way of a bill that would bring relief and healing to
victims of human trafficking.
I hope we will have that vote at 11 o'clock, and there will be broad,
bipartisan support to proceed to the bill and to pass the legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I see my
colleague from Connecticut on the floor.
Let me say at the outset, in the most positive way, I thank Senator
Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota for their bipartisan effort
to bring this issue to the floor and to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
We had a hearing in a subcommittee on this subject, and it was
heartbreaking to hear about the exploitation of these young women at
such a tender age. Unspeakable things were happening to them.
Sadly, in many States, when they finally came into the custody of law
enforcement, some of them--some of the children--these young girls,
were being charged as criminals until it was clear they had been
enslaved and they had been exploited for so many years. So thinking on
this subject is moving in the right direction. The suggestions of
Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar are also in the right direction.
So why don't we pass this bill? We have all of this bipartisan
support. One provision in this bill turns out to be fraught with
controversy.
Thirty-nine years ago, a Congressman from Illinois named Henry Hyde
offered compromise language on the issue of abortion. It was just a few
years after Roe v. Wade. It was still very controversial. He said: We
will prohibit the expenditure of taxpayer funds for abortion except in
cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
For 39 years, that has been the standard. There has been an uneasy
truce between those who see this issue in many different ways. They
have come to the conclusion this will be the standard that would be
applied to the expenditure of taxpayer funds, and it is renewed year
after year.
Senator Cornyn, perhaps by accident or perhaps by design, crossed the
line and started talking about not taxpayer funds but funds collected
in fines from those guilty of human trafficking to create a victims'
fund.
That has brought all of the debate and controversy--in fairness to
Senator Cornyn and to Senator Murray, who has joined with others in
this battle, there has been an active exchange of compromise language.
We have counted, I think, 12 different versions we have sent over to
Senator Cornyn. He sent probably as many our way.
So it isn't as if both sides have hunkered down and are just staring
one another down. There is an honest effort to find a solution. The
solution would not be embodied in the vote that had been scheduled for
11 o'clock; it is the old language. But they are still working on new
language, and I hope we reach a point soon where we achieve that. We
all agree human trafficking should stop and victims should be
compensated.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Connecticut.
[[Page S2232]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise with regret because,
unfortunately, we remain divided. There is so much common ground, so
many good ideas in this bill, and so much that unites us. We have so
much more in common than in conflict on this bill.
The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act has involved so much work
by great colleagues--Senator Cornyn, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murray,
Senator Feinstein, and my colleague who has just finished speaking.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. We are divided on one
paragraph that is simply unacceptable, and it is fundamental to the
goals of this bill, which is to restore human dignity and freedom to
victims and survivors of human trafficking. Restoring freedom involves
giving those survivors choices over whether they will bear children as
a result of that trafficking. Trafficking is, fundamentally, modern-day
slavery. It is sex slavery and sex exploitation, which results, all too
often, in pregnancy. At its core, the human trafficking bill before us
today is about restoring human dignity to those victims and survivors
and enabling them to avoid the long-lasting and enduring consequences
of that slavery.
This legislation is an acknowledgment of our common commitment to
these survivors and to providing them the services and support they
need so much. One of them is abortion. Where we are divided is on
guaranteeing that reproductive right--the essence of freedom, dignity,
and choice. So it is well beyond a technicality here. It is about the
fundamental goals of this bill, which are contradicted by this
provision in the law.
Senator Cornyn's proposed amendment changes the words of this
paragraph that we find objectionable, but it doesn't change the basic
substance or its practical effect. We are told the provision in
question doesn't matter because it includes a rape exception, but it
requires the survivor to request, to ask, to entreaty and supplicate to
the State whether the rape was really rape, whether it is a pretense or
they must bear a rapist's child.
We are told the provision in question is essentially the same as the
Hyde amendment, but that is flatly untrue because the Hyde amendment
applies to taxpayer funds. I would say to my colleague from Texas, a
good friend, who is determined to address this problem of human
trafficking, there are no taxpayer funds in that $30 million that is
taken from criminal fines and penalties. It is an entirely different
source of funds.
As a former prosecutor, I view those moneys as restitution. They come
from criminals and they are used to try to support and serve the
victims of that criminal activity. There is nothing more fundamental
than using funds taken from criminals for the benefit of their victims.
Congress has never before privileged the concerns of criminals over the
rights of women, and we should not start now.
I respect my colleague from Texas and other colleagues who may differ
with me on this issue. He has stated, in heartbreaking and eloquent
terms, the practical human impact of trafficking, sex slavery. I ask my
colleagues now to give these women the real freedom from that sex
slavery. Liberate them, truly, from this heinous and horrific violation
of basic human rights by guaranteeing them one of the basic human
rights, which is the right to make choices about their own bodies,
about their futures, about their hopes and dreams as they are liberated
from this slavery. Let this Chamber and my colleagues recognize the
rights they have to truly be free from those who enslave them. I urge
this body to strike the Hyde language from S. 178 and to make good on
its promise.
As cochair of the bipartisan Senate caucus to end human trafficking,
I agree completely this cause ought to be bipartisan. It ought not to
divide us along any partisan or party lines. I am proud to have worked
with Members on both sides of the aisle, and I hope we can come to
agreement now with my good friend and my excellent colleague Senator
Cornyn and others who have worked so hard and who are so genuinely
determined to solve this problem and to take a step--it is only a first
step--in the direction of combating human trafficking.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my friend and colleague Senator Cornyn
has been involved in discussions with the minority about a path forward
on the trafficking bill, and I would like to ask him if he is
optimistic that we may be able to reach an agreement at some point in
the near future about a way to go forward.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished majority
leader that I am more optimistic than I have been at any time in the
last few weeks. I just talked to the Democratic leader who told me
there are active discussions taking place by all of the key people who
can help us break this deadlock, and so I am more optimistic. We are
not there yet, but we are in a much better place than I think we have
been certainly in the last 3 weeks. So I am hopeful and somewhat more
optimistic.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we would like to be able to process
this important bill and move on to a vote on the President's nominee
for Attorney General. Based upon the progress that is being made by my
friend and colleague from Texas, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the cloture motion on the Cornyn amendment No. 1120.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Wasteful Spending
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as I have done for the last several weeks,
I am back again for this week's ``Waste of the Week,'' a series of
weekly speeches which points out how we can save taxpayer dollars by
looking at waste, inefficiency, duplication, and other factors that are
simply a waste of taxpayer money.
Because this is April and because it is just a day after that fateful
day in April, April 15--and we all know what that means--our waste of
the week.
Clearly, there is a growing consensus that our Tax Code is hopelessly
complex, hopelessly burdensome, hopelessly anticompetitive, and needs
comprehensive reform. That is not what we are here to talk about today,
but I am a strong proponent of moving forward on that issue. It has
been almost 30 years now--1986 was the last time a comprehensive reform
was enacted by Congress. It turned out to be a tremendous stimulus to
our economy. It created a boost in growth and boosted the economy in a
way that provided us with the necessary funding without having to raise
taxes, and, in fact, it lowered taxes because of its dynamic effect.
That is an issue for another day. We will continue to try to pursue
that. As a member of the Finance Committee, I know that is one of our
major goals this year, as it is in the House of Representatives.
Whether or not we are able to achieve our goal, we need to keep working
on that.
Today, I want to talk about the waste of the week by looking at the
Tax Code and doing something I think would be a relatively easy and
simple way to save the taxpayer some money. It involves a refundable
child tax credit. The tax laws allow a refund which is not an offset of
taxes owed but an actual direct payment that occurs if you have
children. The refundable child tax credit is pretty straightforward. It
qualifies a taxpayer for a credit of up to $1,000 per child depending
on their income level.
I am not here today to talk about the merits of that tax credit. I
have supported it in the past, and I think it is something that ought
to be given serious consideration in any kind of tax reform. Rather, I
am here to discuss the cost to the American taxpayer due to
[[Page S2233]]
the improper use of payments that are made to recipients who don't
legally qualify for this refundable payment.
According to the inspector general at the IRS, the Internal Revenue
Service sent out at least $5.9 billion in improper payments in 2013--
payments that went to people who did not legally qualify for the
benefit.
Listen to what Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration, said:
The IRS has continually rated the risk of improper
Additional Child Tax Credit payments as low. However, [our]
assessment of the potential for improper payments in this
program indicates that its improper payment rate is similar
to that of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
What is that rate? Nearly $6 billion and even more than that over a
period of time.
He goes on to say:
It is imperative that the IRS take action to identify and
address all of its programs that are at high risk for
improper payments.
Today, we are talking about one of those programs that Russell
George, the Treasury Inspector General, defined and suggested we look
at, and we will be looking at some others later.
We are proposing a pretty easy fix, and I am supporting legislation
that will require the submission of a valid Social Security number in
order to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit.
Requiring the submission of a valid Social Security number does not
take the credit away from anyone who legally qualifies for this credit,
but it does help ensure that only those who are truly legally qualified
will benefit from the credit and will receive the payment.
According to the most recent estimate by the Joint Committee on
Taxation, this simple fix--simply requiring a valid Social Security
number before a payment is given so we can weed out those improper
payments--could save taxpayers $20 billion over a 10-year period.
Compared to our multitrillion-dollar budget, $20 billion is a fairly
small percentage, but compared to the way the taxpayer looks at this,
$20 billion is a lot of change. It is a lot of money, and the savings
from that can be used in any number of ways. Hopefully, it will be used
to lower rates people have to pay in terms of the tax revenues they
send to Washington, but if it is needed for essential programs, such as
national defense or homeland security, and we can prove a need for
that--we are constantly looking for ways to pay for things that are
essential and need to be done--this is a perfect pay-for. So one way or
another, it is a benefit to the American taxpayer.
As we mark tax day this week, I wish we could say we are getting
close to major tax reform, but since we are not, it is important that
we continue to look at the Tax Code as well as other functions of
government to determine how we can continue to save taxpayers money and
how we can continue to identify unfair and complicated areas of our Tax
Code.
So with that we add to the gauge, which is growing every week that we
identify a program. We started off at zero. Now we are approaching $50
billion worth of savings for the taxpayer. Our goal is $100 billion. We
are going to keep doing this week after week, and we are going to keep
adding money that is identified by our politically neutral accounting
efforts. We are going to keep adding to this gauge until we reach our
goal and hopefully go well beyond it.
Mr. President, $20 billion is no small amount of change. It is being
used improperly, and we can save that money.
Stay tuned for next week's ``Waste of the Week.''
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. FLAKE assumed the Chair.)
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Deyo Nomination
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I come to the floor today to recommend
to the Senate the confirmation of a very qualified individual, Mr.
Russell C. Deyo, to become Under Secretary for Management at the
Department of Homeland Security.
We are very fortunate to have an individual of Mr. Deyo's
qualifications and integrity willing to serve our government working
with Secretary Jeh Johnson and trying to help him succeed in his
mission of keeping this Nation safe.
Mr. Deyo has a long and successful career and background. After law
school, he clerked for Judge John Hannum of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then spent 2 years at a
private law firm.
In 1978, Mr. Deyo joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District
of New Jersey as an assistant U.S. attorney.
In 1983, he was promoted to chief of the special prosecutions unit
for public corruption.
In 1985, he came to Johnson & Johnson as a litigation attorney and
became associate general counsel in 1999. He ultimately became vice
president and general counsel later in 2009 and was responsible for
human resources.
After retiring from Johnson & Johnson in 2012, Mr. Deyo served as
both a standing member of a panel for potential product liability
arbitration for Eli Lilly and as chairman of the Corporate Board of
Advisers of the National Counsel of LaRaza.
He obtained his education at both Dartmouth College, with an
associate bachelor's degree, and at Georgetown University with a J.D.
in June of 1975.
Again, I wish to thank Mr. Deyo for being willing to serve his Nation
in this crucial capacity.
I would also like to thank the members of our conference for clearing
his name. I have worked very closely with our ranking member, the
Senator from Delaware, in trying to develop not only a mission
statement but also a commitment to enhance the economic and national
security of our Nation. We listed a bunch of priorities. The Presiding
Officer is on our committee, and she is also committed to those exact
same goals. One of the priorities we listed was our commitment to do
everything we can to help the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary
Jeh Johnson, succeed in his mission of keeping this Nation safe. Our
committee worked hard over a number of obstacles to make sure Mr. Deyo
has his vote now for confirmation.
I certainly thank my ranking member, the Senator from Delaware. I
thank my Republican colleagues for clearing the way for this vote.
I urge all of our colleagues here in the Senate--I would love to see
a unanimous vote to approve Mr. Russell Deyo as the Under Secretary for
Management at the Department of Homeland Security.
Thank you, Madam President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, today I wish to express my gratitude to
the chairman for his work with his conference to clear the path to this
discussion today of the nomination of Russ Deyo and to bring his name
forward for hopefully confirmation this afternoon.
When I first met Russ Deyo, I asked him: How do you pronounce your
name?
He said: ``Dio'' as in Rio.
I said: I think you mispronounce your own name.
He said: No, no. It is ``Dio'' as in Rio.
So I try to do that, but he has been called a lot of things. Some of
the things he ought to be called are talented and dedicated, and we
should call ourselves lucky that a guy or gal with his credentials from
the private sector is willing to come and go to work for the people of
America and to serve all of us.
The Department of Homeland Security is a Department that, as we know,
does enormously important work to protect us. People all over this
Nation--in the air, on the ground, on the borders, in our cities, and
all over our countryside--have my gratitude and I know the gratitude of
all of us.
Every organization of any consequence needs good management, and the
idea of bringing in Russ Deyo is--this is a fellow who will offer real
strength to the management team at the Department of Homeland Security.
We need him. We are glad he is ready to go into the lineup, and I hope
we will put him in there later this afternoon.
The position for which he has been nominated, the Under Secretary of
[[Page S2234]]
Management, is the third highest position in the Department of Homeland
Security.
While this vote is long overdue, he has been approved by our
committee now not once, I think, but twice. Unfortunately, we failed in
the Senate to act on his nomination before the end of the last
Congress, so we had to start over again. I am just glad he is willing
to serve in this role.
As of this week, more than a year will have passed since the last
Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Management--a fellow named Rafael
Borras, a very good leader--stepped down from this post. I again thank
Chairman Johnson for his efforts and our joint efforts to move this
nomination forward.
Everything I have learned about Russ Deyo over the past several
months has led me to conclude that he is an exceptional candidate to be
the next Under Secretary for Management at DHS. Chairman Johnson has
already walked through his impressive career.
Russ Deyo is also no stranger to public service. We tend to emphasize
his very significant responsibilities at Johnson & Johnson and as a
partner in a major law firm, but he has also worked with law
enforcement organizations. He was an assistant U.S. attorney in New
Jersey for 8 years--something we don't always note--including a period
as chief of the public corruption unit. His perspective from the
private and public sectors is going to be a great asset to Secretary
Jeh Johnson and to Alejandro Mayorkas, the Deputy Secretary at the
Department, as they work together to get the Department operating in a
more unified and cohesive manner, in creating one DHS.
If confirmed, Mr. Deyo is going to face plenty of challenges. For
example, the Government Accountability Office continues to remind us
that the overall management of the Department remains on GAO's high-
risk list of government operations that need urgent attention. Of
course, if confirmed, Mr. Deyo will inherit the challenge of improving
morale across the Department. I believe Mr. Deyo has the leadership,
the experience, and the skills necessary to tackle these and other
challenges at the Department and that he really will make a difference.
I would just say in closing that all of the organizations I have ever
been a part of or observed, whether they happen to be a school or a
university, a sports team, a military unit, a business, a church, the
House or the Senate--here or at the local level--the most important
element in the success of those organizations is almost always
leadership. What we have endeavored to do over the last year, or
actually a little more than a year, is to take the Department of
Homeland Security--which was largely bereft at the senior levels of
Senate-confirmed leadership--and with the addition of Russ Deyo in this
No. 3 position to be in charge of the management shop at DHS, they will
have a full slate. They will have a full slate for not the C team or
the D team or the B team but I think in many respects the A team. We
expect them to rise to the challenge--there are plenty of challenges
they face today--and Russ will help make that possible.
I wish to say to Russ Deyo, if he is listening: Thanks for your
willingness to hang in there with us until we could get to
confirmation.
To the Deyo family: We appreciate very much your willingness to share
your spouse and in this case your dad with the people of this Nation.
We need him. We will put him to good work, and after a while we will
send him back to you safe and sound.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________