[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11678-11687]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF THOMAS EDWARD PEREZ TO BE SECRETARY OF LABOR--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Thomas Edward Perez, of 
Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to 
the nomination of Thomas E. Perez to be the Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Labor. Simply put, there is no shortage of reasons why 
Mr. Perez should not be confirmed as our next Labor Secretary.
  Several of my colleagues have come to the floor to discuss a number 
of troubling facts about Mr. Perez's professional history, each one of 
them reason enough to disqualify him for this nomination. I would like 
to discuss a few that are of significant concern to me. Without 
question, Mr. Perez has abused his position as Assistant Attorney 
General of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Rather than seek out and expose instances of racial injustice, Mr. 
Perez has turned the office into his own personal tool of political 
activism, something that office was never meant to accomplish.
  For example, a report issued by the Department of Justice Office of 
Inspector General found during Perez's tenure at the Civil Rights 
Division employees harassed colleagues for their religious and 
political beliefs. Despite having little if any evidence of racial 
discrimination, Mr. Perez has repeatedly opposed efforts by States to 
ensure the integrity of elections.
  Under his direction, the Civil Rights Division has pursued frivolous 
lawsuits against State voter ID laws, has ignored statutes that require 
States to purge ineligible voters from their voter registration rolls, 
and has slow-walked attempts to protect the voting rights of our 
military members, our brave men and women serving in uniform for the 
United States.
  While head of the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Perez's unit used 
spurious and misleading claims to allege racial discrimination and 
selectively enforced laws to target certain groups.
  Most troubling, perhaps, was the fact that Mr. Perez has woefully 
disregarded a lawful subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform to produce certain documents relating to the use of 
his nonofficial e-mail account for official purposes. According to the 
chairman of that committee, ``Mr. Perez has not produced a single 
document responsive to the committee's subpoena'' and ``remains 
noncompliant.''
  At a minimum this is a basic violation of the rule of law. It impedes 
a fundamental function of the legislative branch to provide oversight 
of the administration. Anyone showing this type of willful disregard 
for the law and ambivalence toward America's essential principles of 
representative government should not be considered for a top post in 
any administration.
  I therefore strongly advise my colleagues not to support this nominee 
and to raise similar objections whenever someone comes up and is 
nominated by this President or any President who possesses and displays 
these characterizes that are so troubling.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Military Spending

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to speak on behalf of my 
good friend Gina McCarthy and her nomination to head the Environmental 
Protection Agency. But before I do so, I would like to raise an issue I 
raised during a hearing of the Armed Services Committee. I have come 
directly from that hearing.
  I am here to express my deep dissatisfaction, in fact my outrage, at 
a form of military assistance that will literally waste a total of more 
than $1 billion in taxpayer money. In fact, we have just contracted and 
announced that contract in June for about 30 Russian Mi-17 helicopters 
that will cost American taxpayers $550 million to buy from 
Rosoboronexport, the Russian export agency, controlled by the Russian

[[Page 11679]]

Government, those helicopters for the Afghan national forces that lack 
pilots and maintenance personnel to fly and repair and operate these 
helicopters. They will be sitting on the runways of Afghan airfields 
without any use, rusting, literally wasting American taxpayer funds.
  Don't believe me when I make these statements. Those facts come from 
the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan who completed a report 
recently, stating succinctly, clearly, irrefutably, that we are wasting 
$1 billion in taxpayer money buying Russian helicopters for Afghan 
national forces that, very simply, cannot use them.
  In fact, we committed to that contract before we even have a status 
of forces agreement with the Afghan Government for the period after 
2014 when we will be leaving that country, fortunately. If we can leave 
sooner, all the better. But in the meantime, we are buying equipment 
from the Russian export agency that is at the same time selling arms to 
Assad in Syria for the murder and slaughter of his own people, making 
money from those sales to Assad in Syria, and from the government that 
is harboring and providing refuge to Edward Snowden, who has 
illegally--I guess I should use the words allegedly illegally--but 
clearly violated American law in disclosing secrets from our 
government.
  Last week I visited a National Guard helicopter repair facility in 
Groton, CT, where over 100 technicians--to be precise, 137 
technicians--civilian employees at this facility alone have been 
furloughed. They are furloughed 11 days. It was originally 22, but it 
has been reduced to 11. Our helicopter repair function in that region, 
and similarly across the country, has been hampered and impeded because 
of the sequester and the impact in requiring furloughs. Our military 
readiness is suffering because of lack of funds on the part of the U.S. 
Government, when we are at the same time buying Russian helicopters 
that will have no use for the Afghan Government. In fact, they have no 
pilots to fly them or people to make repairs and maintain them. 
Something is wrong with this picture.
  Yet in the hearing I have just left, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, General Dempsey, maintained to me his view that a waiver 
should be exercised under the National Defense Authorization Act 
providing for the purchase of these Russian helicopters.
  I respectfully disagree. I strongly disagree. I think the American 
taxpayers, certainly my fellow residents of Connecticut, ought to be 
equally outraged. We should be outraged in this body that we are 
wasting this money when precious funds have been forgone that can be 
used for military readiness of our Armed Forces.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in saying to our U.S. military leaders 
that our national security is imperiled, not by refusing to acquire 
those helicopters but in fact by wasting taxpayer money on those 
purchases for an Afghan army that cannot use them, and for purchasing 
from a country that certainly means us no good and, in fact, an export 
agency that is selling arms to a murderous government and harboring an 
individual who has violated our laws and endangered our national 
security.
  I will not let this matter rest. I will not let this issue go. I 
intend to pursue it. I ask my colleagues to join me in making sure we 
stop these purchases. In fact, Senator Ayotte and I have a bill, which 
is called No Contracting with the Enemy, to expand very useful 
contracting tools that now apply in Afghanistan, where we have found 
our aid and assistance finding its way to enemy hands. I can't think of 
a more blatant example of contracting with the enemy than handing over 
our taxpayer money to a company that is at the very same time selling 
S-300 air defense systems to the Syrian Government for use against its 
own people and violating international sanctions by helping Iran with 
that missile equipment.


                          McCarthy Nomination

  I wish to turn to the reason I came to the floor, having just left 
that Armed Services Committee meeting, to speak on behalf of my very 
good friend Gina McCarthy.
  I worked with Gina McCarthy over a number of years when she was, in 
fact, not only a fellow State official--I was then State attorney 
general--but also a client because I was her lawyer. I came to know her 
in a way that I think is very rare for any public official to know 
another, seeing her in times of crisis and public policy opportunity, 
the ups and the downs of public service.
  I came to know her as a pragmatic person of consummate intelligence, 
integrity, an environmental protector for all seasons. She is not a 
partisan by any stretch of the imagination. There may be individuals 
who are more aggressive in the enforcement of environmental laws. There 
may be people who are more solicitous of economic progress and job 
creation, but I don't know. I certainly know no one who strikes the 
balance and seeks both goals of job creation, along with economic 
growth, and environmental protection with such zeal, passion, and great 
good humor.
  I said before on this floor and I will say it again, Gina McCarthy 
knows how to bring people together. She knows how to work for a common 
goal.
  We should seize this moment as a body to expand and enhance the 
bipartisan spirit of this past week and approve Gina McCarthy 
overwhelmingly because she epitomizes the kind of bipartisan spirit we 
should seek to grow and attract in our Federal Government, in fact, in 
all levels of government.
  Let me give a few examples. My colleague Senator Murphy spoke last 
night about a number of her specific accomplishments, but there are 
many more--maybe most important, which I don't think has been given 
enough attention on the floor, is her work in designing, building, and 
implementing the Northeast's pioneering cap-and-trade program, known as 
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. Nine States currently 
participate in RGGI: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It 
is a highly innovative program. It is a model for the Nation and the 
world.
  A 2012 report issued in 2012 estimates that RGGI investments will 
offset the need for more than 27 million megawatt hours of electricity 
generation and 26.7 British thermal units of energy generation. These 
savings will help avoid the emission of 12 million short tons of carbon 
dioxide pollution, an amount equivalent to taking 2 million passenger 
vehicles off the road for 1 year.
  The numbers not only fail to tell the whole story about the 
environmental impact but also fail to tell about Gina McCarthy's role 
in bringing together Republican and Democratic Governors for a common 
good, what she will do in this country for environmental protection and 
what she has already done in her role at the EPA.
  Under her guidance, the State of Connecticut settled a Clean Air Act 
suit against Ohio Edison on July 11, 2005, again requiring pollution 
reduction consistent with business needs and goals.
  She settled a citizen suit against American Electric Power on 
December 13, 2007, a dramatic reduction in nitrogen oxide and tons of 
sulfur dioxide. These Clean Air Act suits, which I assisted her in 
bringing to conclusion, I think embody her goal of reducing air 
contamination and pollution consistent with the business community's 
concern for its bottom line. She is sensitive to both.
  She is remarkable for her professionalism, for her zeal and passion 
as an environmental protector, and also for her willingness to listen, 
her willingness to hear and truly listen to people sitting across the 
table who may come into the room with different and sometimes 
conflicting views and come to a common conclusion. She knows how to get 
to yes, and she does it as a tough, fair, balanced environmental law 
enforcer.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in my enthusiasm because the 
President couldn't have picked a more qualified person. Gina McCarthy 
is as good as it gets in public service. She is as good as it gets for 
integrity, intellect, and dedication to the public good.

[[Page 11680]]

  It is my wish that we will move forward as united as possible, 
carrying forward the great bipartisan spirit that has characterized 
these last few days in our consideration of the President's nominees, 
which I hope will be enhanced and continue as we move forward today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. CORNYN. In a few minutes, President Obama is scheduled to give a 
major speech highlighting what he believes are the achievements of his 
signature health care law, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as 
ObamaCare.
  I could understand why he is feeling a little defensive and why he 
feels he needs to frame the discussion because, after all, ObamaCare 
has disappointed some of its most ardent former supporters.
  For example, back in 2009 and 2010, American labor unions were among 
the biggest supporters of the President's health care plan. Along with 
many of my friends across the aisle, they are having second thoughts 
and, in some cases, buyer's remorse.
  Last week, three of the country's most prominent labor leaders, James 
Hoffa, Joseph Hansen, and Donald Taylor, sent a very concerned letter 
to Senator Reid and former Speaker Pelosi. Here is part of what they 
wrote:

       When you and the President sought our support for the 
     Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health 
     plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is 
     under threat.

  Picking up on this chart, they went on to say:

       Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an 
     equitable fix, the ACA [Affordable Care Act] will shatter not 
     only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the 
     foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of 
     the American middle class.

  They went on to say:

       The unintended consequences of the ACA [Affordable Care 
     Act] are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating 
     nightmare scenarios. . . . The law, as it stands, will hurt 
     millions of Americans.

  ObamaCare has been controversial since its passage in 2010. Some 
Members of Congress voted for it. Obviously, the Democratic majority 
voted for it. Some people voted against it, people such as myself in 
the Republican minority.
  But whether you supported the law with the hopes and aspirations that 
it would somehow be the panacea or answer to our health care needs in 
this country or whether you were a skeptic such as I, who believed that 
this could not possibly work, the fact seems to be--as these labor 
leaders have said--it has not met expectations and certainly it has 
created many problems that need to be addressed.
  This same letter went on to detail some of the nightmare scenarios 
these labor leaders have concerns about. They pointed out that many 
businesses are cutting full-time employment back to part-time in order 
to avoid the employer mandate.
  As I mentioned yesterday, the number of people working part-time for 
economic reasons has jumped from 7.6 million to 8.2 million, just 
between March and June. In fact, last month alone that number increased 
322,000.
  A new survey reports that in response to ObamaCare, nearly three out 
of every four small businesses are going to reduce hiring, reduce 
worker hours or replace full-time employees with part-time employees.
  We know the President has unilaterally decided to delay the 
imposition of the employer mandate until 2015, but that doesn't change 
a lot. These businesses have to plan for the future and small 
businesses still have the same perverse incentives to limit the hiring 
of full-time workers, as these labor leaders point out.
  The employer mandate is one reason why ObamaCare needs to be repealed 
entirely and replaced with something better. As these leaders say in 
their letter, the law, as it stands, will hurt millions of Americans.
  We have already seen its effect on job creation, not only with the 
employer mandate but also with the medical device tax that has prompted 
many companies, including those in Texas, to simply grow their 
businesses in places such as Costa Rica, where they can avoid that 
medical device tax, rather than in my State or in other States that 
have medical device companies. It has also caused these companies to 
close factories and cancel plans for new ones in the United States.
  We have also seen, as these leaders point out, that ObamaCare will 
disrupt Americans' existing health care arrangements. As they point out 
in their letter, one of the promises the President made was that if you 
liked what you have, you can keep it, but, in fact, that has not proven 
to be true.
  Indeed, my constituents are already getting their letters from health 
care providers informing them that their current policies are no longer 
going to be available because of the implementation of ObamaCare. 
Millions of people will eventually have that same experience, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Why have we made this huge shift in one-sixth of our economy? What 
was the goal of the proponents of this piece of legislation? What we 
were told is that it was universal coverage. There were too many people 
who didn't have health care coverage. But as for this promise of 
universal coverage, I am afraid that is another broken promise as well.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, even if ObamaCare is 
fully implemented on schedule, there will still be 31 million people in 
America without health insurance by the year 2023. Even though the 
proponents of ObamaCare said we need to do this, as expensive as it is, 
as disruptive as it is to the existing health care arrangements, we 
need to do this because everybody will be covered, that promise is not 
going to be kept either.
  Let me repeat, 13 years after the passage of ObamaCare, America will 
still have 31 million uninsured. Meanwhile, many of the newly insured 
under ObamaCare will be covered by Medicaid, a dysfunctional program 
that is already failing its intended beneficiaries.
  I, perhaps unwisely, decided during the markup of the Affordable Care 
Act in the Senate Finance Committee to offer an amendment that said 
Members of Congress will henceforth be put on Medicaid. I told my 
colleagues that I knew if Congress was covered by Medicaid we would do 
our dead-level best to fix it because, as it exists now, it is a 
dysfunctional program. It is dysfunctional for this reason: Giving 
people coverage is not the same thing as access. Many Medicaid 
recipients have a very hard time finding doctors who will accept 
Medicaid coverage because the program reimburses providers at such low 
rates. In my State, it is about 50 cents on the dollar as compared to 
private coverage. In my State of Texas, fewer than one-third of 
physicians will accept a new Medicaid patient, and many of them are 
accepting no new Medicaid patients.
  Most Texas physicians believe Medicaid is broken and should not be 
used as a mechanism to expand coverage, certainly if it is not fixed 
and reformed, which it needs to be. By relying on Medicaid as one of 
the primary vehicles for reducing the number of uninsured in America, 
the Affordable Care Act will make the program even more fragile and 
weaker and less effective at securing dependable health care for the 
poor and the disabled, the very people it is designed to protect.
  We also have good reason to fear ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion will 
reduce labor force participation. A new National Bureau of Economic 
Research paper argues ObamaCare ``may cause substantial declines in 
aggregate employment.'' Rather than expand and damage an already broken 
system, the Federal Government should give each State more flexibility 
to manage the Medicare dollars that come from Washington so they can 
provide better value for recipients and taxpayers.
  Right now, State policymakers can't manage Medicaid without first 
going through a complicated waiver process and obtaining Federal 
approval--too many strings attached. Ideally, Washington would give 
each State a lump

[[Page 11681]]

sum--a block grant, if you will--as well as the freedom to devise 
programs that work best in their States and for the population covered.
  Meanwhile, we should adopt health care reforms that would make health 
care more affordable and accessible to everyone--for example, 
equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance for employers and 
individuals; expanding access to tax-free health savings accounts so 
people can save their money, and if they don't use it for health care, 
they can use it for other purposes, such as retirement. We should let 
people and businesses form risk pools in the individual market, 
including across State lines. We should improve price and quality 
transparency.
  One of the most amazing forces in economics is consumer choice and 
transparency and competition. It is called the free enterprise system, 
and we see it at play in the Medicare Part D Program, for example, one 
of the most successful government health care programs devised. We made 
a mistake when we passed Medicare Part D because it was not paid for--
it should have been--but it has actually come in 40 percent under 
projected cost and it enjoys great satisfaction among its 
beneficiaries, seniors who have access to prescription drugs, some of 
them for the first time. But the reason why it has come in 40 percent 
under cost is because companies have to compete for that business, and 
they compete--as they always do in the marketplace--on price and 
quality of service, and we get the benefit of that market discipline.
  We also need to address frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits--
something my State has done at the State level, which has made medical 
malpractice insurance more affordable and which has caused many doctors 
to move to Texas who otherwise might not have gone there, providing 
greater access to health care.
  As I have said, we also need to allow the interstate sale of health 
insurance policies. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to buy a 
health insurance policy in Virginia if it suits my needs better than 
one available in Texas. Why would we not allow that? Again, why would 
we not want the benefit of that competition and the benefits to the 
consumer in terms of service and price?
  We also need to boost support for State high-risk pools to protect 
Americans with preexisting conditions. This is one of the reasons why 
the President and other proponents of ObamaCare said we have to have 
ObamaCare, because we need to deal with preexisting conditions, and we 
do. But we can do it a lot cheaper and a lot more efficiently by using 
Federal support for existing State preexisting condition high-risk 
pools. We don't have to take the whole 2,700-page piece of legislation 
that cost us several trillion dollars. We can do it much cheaper and 
more efficiently.
  Finally, we need to save Medicare by expanding patient choice and 
provider competition. These policies would allow us to expand quality 
insurance coverage and improve access to quality health care without 
disrupting people's existing health care arrangements, without 
discouraging work and job creation, without raising taxes on medical 
innovation, and without weakening Medicaid and Medicare.
  The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of the principal 
Senate architects for the Affordable Care Act, famously described the 
implementation of ObamaCare as a train wreck. These three leaders of 
American labor would agree, and they have also warned us that unless we 
fix it, it could destroy the very health and well-being of millions of 
hard-working Americans.
  It is time for us to acknowledge the reality that whether you were a 
proponent and voted for ObamaCare or whether you were an opponent and a 
skeptic that it would actually work, we need to deal with the harsh 
reality and the facts that exist. It is time for Democrats, including 
the President, to work with us to replace ObamaCare with better 
alternatives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend from Virginia will yield to me 
for the purpose of doing a unanimous consent request, we have an 
agreement as to when we will proceed with votes.
  Mr. KAINE. I have no objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
confirmation of the Perez nomination as Secretary of Labor occur at 
12:15 p.m. today; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that 
any related statements be printed in the Record; and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, that following 
disposition of the Perez nomination, the time until 2:30 p.m. be 
equally divided in the usual form prior to the cloture vote on the 
McCarthy nomination.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I want the Record to 
reflect how fortunate the State of Virginia is for the work done by 
this good man. We have a good situation with our delegation from 
Virginia--two former Governors, and they are both such outstanding 
human beings and wonderful Senators.
  As I have told my friend personally, the person whom I just 
interrupted--and I spread this in the Record here--there is no one I 
know in the Senate who is able to deliver the substance of what he says 
as well as the Senator from Virginia. He does such a good job of 
explaining things. We all have an idea of what we want to say, but 
sometimes we don't explain it very well. He does an excellent job.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. I thank the majority leader for his kind words.


                     War Powers Resolution of 1973

  Mr. President, I rise in order to note an important anniversary. 
Forty years ago this week the Senate passed the War Powers Resolution 
of 1973. The resolution was passed in a time of great controversy--
during the waning days of the Vietnam war. The purpose of the 
resolution was to formalize a regular consultative process between 
Congress and the President on the most momentous decision made by our 
Nation's Government--whether to engage in military action.
  The question of executive and legislative powers regarding war dates 
back to the Constitution of 1787. Article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution provides that ``Congress shall have the power . . . to 
declare war.'' Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides that 
the President is the ``Commander in Chief'' of the Nation's Armed 
Forces. In the 226 years since the Constitution was adopted, the powers 
of the respective branches in matters of war have been hotly debated. 
In a letter between two Virginians in 1798, James Madison explained the 
following to Thomas Jefferson:

       The Constitution supposes, what the History of all 
     Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch 
     most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has 
     accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in 
     the legislature.

  Madison's definitive statement notwithstanding, the intervening 
history has been anything but definitive. Academics and public 
officials have advanced differing interpretations of the constitutional 
division of power. There is no clear historical precedent in which all 
agree the legislative and executive branches have exercised those 
powers in a consistent and accepted way. And the courts have not 
provided clear guidance to settle war powers questions.
  Some facts, however, are very clear. The Congress has only formally 
declared war five times. In many other instances, Congress has taken 
steps to authorize, fund, or support military action. In well over 100 
cases, Presidents have initiated military action without prior approval 
from Congress.
  Congress supposed 40 years ago that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 
would resolve many of these questions and establish a formal process of 
consultation on the decision to initiate military action. But this was 
not the

[[Page 11682]]

case. President Nixon vetoed the resolution, and while Congress 
overrode the veto, no administration since has accepted the 
constitutionality of the resolution. Most recently, President Obama 
initiated American involvement in a civil war in Libya without 
congressional approval. The House of Representatives rebuked the 
President for that action in 2011. But the censure rang somewhat hollow 
because most legal scholars today accept the 1973 resolution is an 
unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
  So why does this matter? We are in the 12th year of war. The attack 
on our country by terrorists on September 11, 2001, was followed 1 week 
later by the passage of an authorization for use of military force that 
is still in force today. The authorization is broadly worded and both 
the Bush and Obama administrations have given it an even broader 
interpretation.
  In recent hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
administration officials expressed the opinion the authorization of 
September 18, 2001, might justify military action for another 25 to 30 
years in regions spread across the globe against individuals not yet 
born or organizations not yet formed on 9/11. This was likely not 
contemplated by Congress or the American public in 2001.
  Congress is currently grappling with the status of the authorization 
and whether it should be continued, repealed, or revised. We face 
immediate decisions about the reduction of American troops in 
Afghanistan and the size of a residual presence we will leave in that 
country to support the Afghan National Security Forces. We are 
wrestling with the scope of national security programs that were 
adopted in furtherance of the authorization, and we are engaged in 
serious discussion about new challenges--from the rebellion in Syria to 
growing nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea.
  All of these issues are very hard. I recently returned from a trip to 
the Middle East--a codel sponsored by Senator Cornyn. Accompanying us 
were Senators Cochran, Sessions, Boozman, Fischer, and in Afghanistan, 
Senators McCain and Graham.
  In Turkey and Jordan we heard about the atrocities committed by the 
Asad regime in Syria and the flood of refugees pouring into those 
neighboring countries. In Afghanistan we met with our troops and heard 
about the slow transition from NATO forces to Afghan security. In the 
United Arab Emirates we discussed the growing threat of Iran throughout 
the region, and we made a meaningful stop at Landstuhl Regional Medical 
Center in Germany to visit recently wounded Americans--and NATO 
partners--who have sacrificed so much in this long war against 
terrorism. In the voices of our troops, our diplomats, our allies, and 
our wounded warriors, we heard over and over again a basic question: 
What will America do?
  Answering this question isn't easy, but I believe finding answers is 
made more difficult because we do not have any agreed-upon consultative 
process between the President and Congress. The American public needs 
to hear a clear dialogue between the two branches justifying decisions 
about the war. When Congress and the President communicate openly and 
reach consensus, the American public is informed and more likely to 
support decisions about military action. But when there is no clear 
process for reaching decision, public opinion with respect to military 
action may be divided, to the detriment of the troops who fight and 
making it less likely that government will responsibly budget for the 
cost of war.
  I believe many more lawmakers, for example, would have thought twice 
about letting sequestration cuts take effect if there had been a clear 
consensus between the President and Congress about our current military 
posture and mission.
  So at this 40th anniversary, I think it is time to admit that the 
1973 resolution is a failure, and we need to begin work to create a 
practical process for consultation between the President and Congress 
regarding military action.
  In 2007 the Miller Center at the University of Virginia impaneled the 
bipartisan National War Powers Commission under the leadership of 
former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher. The 
Commission included legislative, administrative, diplomatic, military, 
and academic leadership. The Commission issued a unanimous report to 
the President and Congress urging the repeal of the War Powers 
Resolution and its replacement by a new provision designed to promote 
transparent dialog and decisionmaking. The Commission even proposed a 
draft statute, preserving the constitutional powers of each branch 
while establishing a straightforward consultative process to reach 
decision in a way that would gain support from the American public. The 
House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees held hearings on the 
report in 2008, but the time was not yet right for change.
  I believe the time for change is upon us. We struggle today with 
urgent military decisions that demand better communication between the 
President, Congress, and our citizens. President Obama has discussed 
this very need during his 2013 State of the Union Address and also 
during his recent speech at the National Defense University.
  As we reach the 40th anniversary of the failed War Powers Resolution, 
Senator John McCain has agreed to work with me to form a group of 
Senators committed to finding a better way. Senator McCain and I serve 
together on both the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. I 
have profound admiration for his service to this country, both as a 
military veteran and a veteran Senator. I am a newcomer, but veterans 
and newcomers alike have an interest in finding a more effective 
process for making the most important decision that our government ever 
makes--whether to initiate military action. We can craft a process that 
is practical, constitutional, and effective in protecting our Nation. 
We owe this to those who fight, and we owe this to the American public.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak for up to 12 minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               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

[[Page 11683]]

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. 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

[[Page 11684]]

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 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

[[Page 11685]]

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 
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.

[[Page 11686]]

  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 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. LEAHY. 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

[[Page 11687]]

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 Edward Perez, of Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor?
  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
     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.

                          ____________________