[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11738-11745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF SHAUN L.S. DONOVAN TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF 
                         MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF DOUGLAS ALAN SILLIMAN TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
 PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE STATE OF KUWAIT

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF DANA SHELL SMITH TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
 PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE STATE OF QATAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Shaun L.S. Donovan, of 
New York, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
Douglas Alan Silliman, of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of 
Kuwait; and Dana Shell Smith, of Virginia, a Career Member of the 
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
of the United States to the State of Qatar.

[[Page 11739]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2 
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Childcare Tax Credit

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
discuss legislation that I introduced this week with our colleagues, 
Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Kirsten Gillibrand. Our legislation 
responds to the rising cost of childcare in the United States and the 
impact it is having on millions of working families.
  Our bill, called the Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act, 
would help these working parents. It would help them afford childcare 
so they can go to work and support their families. What it does is 
update the child and dependent care tax credit that was passed in 1976 
and has only been updated once since that time.
  Access to affordable childcare is a necessity for working parents. I 
raised three daughters and I have seven grandchildren, so I appreciate 
just how important it is for working parents to know their children are 
being supervised by quality caregivers.
  Sadly, I struggled with childcare from the time my first child was 
born in 1974 until the year my last child finally went off to college 
in 2004. Unfortunately, I am watching my daughters deal with that same 
struggle of how to find quality childcare for their kids.
  A working parent can be productive in the workforce only when they 
know their children are safe. That is why the rising cost of childcare 
is a real burden for millions of families--especially for working 
mothers. Childcare costs are taking up an increasingly larger share of 
a typical family's take-home pay.
  I visited a great NAEYC accredited childcare center in Nashua, NH, 
earlier this week, and I saw their infant room--where they care for 
infants. The average cost for full-time care for an infant in New 
Hampshire in a childcare center was almost $12,000 in 2012, the last 
year for which we have data. It costs $12,000. For a family trying to 
make ends meet, this is a huge cost.
  In fact, in the Northeast the cost of full-time, center-based care 
for children now represents the highest single expense for a typical 
household. It costs more than housing, more than college tuition, more 
than transportation, food, utilities or health care.
  Unfortunately, as the cost of childcare has grown, one critical tax 
credit that helps defray childcare costs has failed to keep pace. The 
child and dependent care tax credit was first enacted in 1976 with 
strong bipartisan. It was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. 
This credit provides a tax credit to working parents for a portion of 
their childcare expenses. However, the limits on the credit are not 
indexed to inflation, and so their value has actually decreased over 
time. In fact, the limits have been increased just once in the past 25 
years. The tax credit simply is not keeping pace with the growing cost 
of childcare.
  The Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act would update and 
improve this tax credit so it responds to the increasing burden of 
childcare costs. First, the bill would increase the amount of childcare 
expenses that are eligible for the credit. Right now families can only 
claim expenses up to $3,000 for one child and $6,000 for two or more 
children. That just doesn't make sense in New Hampshire or anywhere 
else in the country. In New Hampshire the average cost of childcare can 
exceed $12,000 for a single child.
  This bill increases the tax credit starting in 2015 and indexes the 
cost to inflation so they will continue to keep pace with rising 
childcare costs. The bill also makes the tax credit fully refundable 
and phases out the credit for families making over $200,000 a year. It 
better targets how the money is spent.
  Right now the tax credit is poorly targeted. It provides zero benefit 
for too many families who need it the most. By making the credit 
refundable, the bill better targets the tax credit to families who are 
most in need of childcare assistance.
  I have been working on early childcare and education for most of my 
public career, especially during my years as Governor of New Hampshire. 
One of the lessons I have learned is that providing access to early and 
affordable childcare and education is not just about helping families 
make ends meet--although that is an important piece of it--it is also a 
short-term and long-term issue for our businesses and our economy.
  As Governor I worked with the New Hampshire business community and 
established the Governor's Business Commission on Child Care and Early 
Childhood Education to engage business leaders in addressing the 
State's childcare and early education needs. We did a study that looked 
at the impact of the shortage of quality childcare in New Hampshire 
back in the 1990s. We found that businesses were losing up to $24 
million a year as a result of childcare-related absenteeism, and nearly 
one in four employees was forced to change jobs or switch to part time 
as a result of their inability to find satisfactory childcare.
  We have many national studies that show that quality, dependable 
childcare for employees is vital to a company's productivity. In fact, 
researchers estimate that childcare breakdowns leading to employee 
absences cost businesses $3 billion a year because parents are 
concerned about where their kids are.
  In addition, a majority of companies report that employee absenteeism 
is reduced when quality childcare services are offered. Employee 
turnover is also reduced, and we know how important employee retention 
is to a business's bottom line.
  The long-term benefits to our workforce are also clear. Research 
shows that quality childcare and early childhood development are 
critical to preparing our children for tomorrow's jobs. We know that 
the first 5 years are the most critical in the development of a child's 
brain. During these years children develop their cognitive, social, 
emotional, and language skills that form a solid foundation for their 
lives.
  Research shows that children who received quality childcare do much 
better in school; they are less likely to drop out; they are more 
likely to read at grade level; they are less likely to repeat grades; 
they are less likely to need special education; and they are less 
likely to get into trouble. The experiences children have in their 
first few years will affect them, their families, and our society for 
the rest of their lives. I think it makes more sense for us to invest 
in early childhood care and education because we can either spend the 
money then or we can spend a whole lot more money later. When kids 
don't get a good start in life, they wind up getting into trouble and 
can end up in prison.
  I used to talk about the cost of early care and education being about 
$1 for $7 that gets spent at the other end if we don't pay for these 
costs. It is a whole lot cheaper to pay for childcare than it is to pay 
for prison. That is why we have to respond to the rising cost of 
childcare. We have to ensure that working families can afford quality 
childcare.
  The legislation we introduced this week will help working families in 
the short term, and it will especially help working mothers as they go 
to work. It will support the early development of our children, which 
is so critical to our future, our economy, and our workforce.
  I am hopeful we can get a lot of sponsors for this legislation and 
get bipartisan support just as the credit had when it passed in 1976 so 
we can provide the help that working families need.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I first wish to say to the 
distinguished majority leader that the recent filibuster was supported 
by a number of Democratic Members, but most importantly it was 
supported by Members who did, in fact, favor the legislation. The 
reason they refused to go forward

[[Page 11740]]

with the bill is because Senator Reid--in a dictatorial manner--has 
announced that he intends to control amendments. You don't get an 
amendment unless you grovel to the majority leader.
  There is no reference to the majority leader in the Constitution of 
the United States. He doesn't get to tell an individual Senator they 
can't have an amendment on a bill. He has been doing that consistently, 
and it is not right. We have been on this bill long enough to cast 10 
or 15 votes. It is not a question of time as to why he will not allow 
amendments.
  The reason the majority leader will not allow amendments is because 
he wants to protect his Members from actually being held accountable by 
the voters of the United States of America by having to cast votes and 
choose sides. That is what it is all about. It has gone on way too 
long. It is demeaning to this Senate, and he demeans the loyal 
opposition who are doing the only thing they have as a tool, which is 
refusing to move forward with a bill because the majority leader is 
going to use parliamentary maneuvers to block anybody's amendment. I 
wish it were not true.
  I will not go quietly and allow him to come down and blame others for 
the problem he has caused. We could have already had this bill up for 
final passage. It is not a question of time. It is a question of 
control and domination of the Senate, and the majority leader is not 
entitled to do that. He is not entitled to do that, and it is not going 
to continue. This will be broken sooner or later.
  If the majority leader wants to move important legislation, he is 
going to have to agree to a process that allows duly elected 
representatives of various States in America to be able to at least 
offer an amendment.
  My remarks today are to discuss the nomination of Shaun Donovan to be 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This is a very 
important office.
  I voted against Mr. Donovan in the Budget Committee, and I wish to 
take this opportunity to share with my colleagues my concerns. My 
concerns are not related to his character or personality or decency but 
his experience and qualifications to serve as the Nation's chief 
financial manager--the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 76 why the Senate was 
assigned a role in the confirmation process:

       It would be an excellent check upon the spirit of 
     favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to 
     prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State 
     prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, 
     or from a view to popularity.

  The President has the right to nominate, and his nominations should 
be given deference, but as Hamilton made clear, when the President's 
nominee does not have the fitness necessary for a critical position, 
the Senate should not provide its consent.
  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is one of the 
most important positions in the entire government, entrusted to oversee 
our massive Federal bureaucracy and budget process during a time when 
the Nation is facing tremendous financial danger.
  Only weeks ago the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
reaffirmed in testimony before Congress that the debt of this country 
is on an ``unsustainable path,'' and he meant exactly that. He went on 
to say that America faces the ``risk of a fiscal crisis.'' He means 
Greece when he says ``a fiscal crisis.''
  Whoever holds the job of budget director must be one of the toughest, 
strongest, most able, and disciplined managers in America. We ought to 
be looking for the very best. We need someone who already understands 
this massive Federal Government, the financial stresses we are under, 
where the problems arise, and how to manage it.
  We need somebody with the capability and credibility to deal with 
strong-willed cabinet people who, as history shows, always want to 
spend more and need to be told no by the Office of Management and 
Budget.
  Sadly, what has become clear is that the President did not choose Mr. 
Donovan because he met those criteria. That was not what he was looking 
for. Mr. Donovan does not come close to meeting those qualifications. 
He just does not. I enjoyed meeting with him, but I asked him questions 
that deal with fundamental issues everybody in Congress understands but 
he doesn't understand because he hasn't had experience with them. 
Instead, it would seem Mr. Donovan, as with the President's past Budget 
Directors, was chosen because he has good people skills and personality 
and is politically loyal and would defend the administration's goals 
and priorities even when the result might be unfavorable to the 
public's fiscal health.
  We have seen this time and again in the President's Budget Office. 
His past Budget Directors have done more to conceal financial problems 
the Congressional Budget Office has told us we face than to illuminate 
those problems. They have steadfastly sought to avoid serious 
discussions about the unsustainable debt course we are on and to lay 
out any credible policies to fix that problem. They have been 
unresponsive to congressional inquiry. They make false statements about 
what their budget would actually do. Indeed, they have repeated--Mr. 
Lew did when he was Director--that our budget would pay down the debt 
when, in fact, there was not a single year in his 10-year budget that 
the deficit was less than $500 billion. They have tried to break 
spending caps that are agreed to by the President and are in law, and 
they refused to comply with legal requirements to submit a plan to 
prevent Medicare's insolvency--an edict the law requires him to do, and 
President Bush did.
  The Office of Management and Budget should be one of the least 
political departments in government. Instead, the President has made it 
one of the most political. Shouldn't the American people be able to 
look to their Budget Director with confidence, knowing their tax 
dollars have been entrusted to someone with great wisdom and experience 
and independence? Shouldn't they be able to know their Budget Director 
will look the American people in the eye and tell them squarely what 
the true facts are we are facing today, and is someone who could lay 
out a plan that would actually work to fix the debt course we are on?
  The President had the ability to scour the country for the most 
skilled, talented, disciplined, and gifted manager he could find for 
this office. Very few people of prominence would turn down a request 
from the President to fulfill that duty. A renowned manager of great 
financial acumen and recognized independence is what we are looking 
for--someone with a track record, a proven record of saving taxpayers' 
dollars, developing new efficiencies, taking on entrenched interest in 
the service of the public good, not the special interest good. They 
have to be capable of meeting with someone such as Paul Ryan, chairman 
of the House Budget Committee, to meet with members of the Budget 
Committee such as Senator Rob Portman who was also a former OMB 
Director; Senator Pat Toomey, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Ron 
Johnson, a businessman and an accountant. They know about these 
matters. They have been working on them. They have been negotiating and 
producing plans. Mr. Donovan has no knowledge of them. He cannot 
discuss it with them intelligently. He has no background in that. He 
has shown no interest in it. I suspect Mr. Donovan was stunned when he 
was offered this job. He certainly has not prepared himself for it. I 
am not criticizing him specifically as a person; I am saying this is 
not the kind of person we need today. There is nothing in his 
background to suggest he is up to the task this urgent hour requires.
  More troublingly, Mr. Donovan himself has a poor record of financial 
management at HUD. He is the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development. During his tenure HUD has received repeated and stark 
criticism from his own agency's inspector general. They appoint, within 
these Cabinet positions, an inspector general who analyzes and acts 
independently to advise

[[Page 11741]]

the Secretary and the Congress if something is wrong. Well, I would 
suggest what I am going to say evidences that Mr. Donovan's skill is in 
spending money and making investments rather than saving dollars and 
managing money.
  His record at HUD shows he spent money illegally, violating the 
Antideficiency Act--a very important act. On the great financial issue 
of our time--our Nation's crippling debt burden--I asked Mr. Donovan at 
the hearing in the Budget Committee about what he would propose to fix 
the unsustainable debt course. Shouldn't he do that? He offered no 
serious ideas to get our debt under control. Clearly, he has no 
intention of providing the leadership needed to reverse our disastrous 
current debt course.
  For instance, the President's most recent 10-year budget plan he 
submitted would break the in-law spending limits he agreed to and 
increase our Nation's total debt by an average of $800 billion a year. 
Over the next 10 years, under his budget plan, we could be expected to 
average deficits of $800 billion a year, almost $1 trillion. Indeed, in 
the 10th year, it is virtually $1 trillion.
  I asked Mr. Donovan about this and he replied:

       The President's . . . budget includes fully-paid for, 
     fiscally responsible investments that will create jobs, grow 
     the economy, and expand opportunity for all Americans.

  That is the answer we got. I submit that is not responsible. That is 
not serious. He is not in touch with reality.
  When Mr. Donovan was forced to admit in follow-up written questions 
that the President's budget plan would add $6 trillion to the public 
debt over the next 10 years, he called the increase ``nominal.'' It is 
precisely this cavalier attitude from government elites that is leading 
our Nation to financial catastrophe. CBO says these deficits put us on 
a path to a fiscal crisis. Last year we paid $220 billion in interest 
on our $17 billion debt. But the Congressional Budget Office projects 
that interest rates are going to return to more normal levels in a few 
years and we continue to add more deficits every year. They project 
that in 10 years, interest on the debt will be $800 billion. It will 
pass the defense budget--interest in 1 year will pass the size of the 
defense budget by 2019. This is dangerous. We cannot continue on this 
course.
  I would also share that in talking to my colleagues about their 
discussions with Mr. Donovan, they expressed concern that when he met 
with them individually, he lacked basic knowledge about the 
fundamentals of the Federal budget. Consider the written testimony he 
later provided to the committee about his specific plans for 
entitlement reform--mandatory spending reform. He said:

       I have not . . . written any papers or given any talks or 
     lectures that specifically lay out a comprehensive plan for 
     Medicare or Social Security.

  So this is the person who is supposed to coordinate the effort to 
rein in spending and put us on a sound path. I would say not only has 
he not written any papers or given any lectures, I am not aware he has 
given any thought at all to fixing Medicare and Social Security, two of 
the biggest challenges this Nation faces. I don't think he has ever 
expressed a serious thought about these issues.
  In response to one question about Medicare data, Mr. Donovan told me 
the data did not exist. But the data does, in fact, exist. And his 
response cited the very report from which the data was found. At his 
hearing, Mr. Donovan could not answer fundamental questions from 
Senator Johnson about the Social Security trust fund. That is very 
important. With only 2 years left in the President's Administration, 
the Nation needs to have someone at OMB who can hit the ground running, 
who knows these issues.
  I asked him about defense. I am a senior member of the Armed Services 
Committee. He didn't understand the F-35 program. He is not able to 
converse intelligently about the troop levels we are talking about 
having to reduce. He couldn't talk about aircraft carriers--something 
he has never had any experience with whatsoever. That is why he 
couldn't talk about it, and he has never given any thought to it.
  This lack of basic knowledge and professionalism is evidenced in the 
inspector general reports about his tenure at Housing and Urban 
Development. Here, for instance, is a representative example from an IG 
report issued on February 19 of this year about his multifamily project 
refinances program. They came up with a plan that supposedly refinanced 
housing loans and saved money. This is what the inspector general said:

       HUD did not have adequate controls to ensure that all 
     Section 202 refinancing resulted in economical and efficient 
     outcomes.

  They went on to say:

       Specifically, (1) HUD did not ensure that at least half the 
     debt service savings that resulted from refinancing were used 
     to benefit tenants or reduce housing assistance payments, (2) 
     consistent accountability for the debt service savings was 
     not always maintained, and (3) some refinancing were 
     processed for projects that had negative debt service 
     savings--

  In other words, instead of saving money, the refinancings cost money.

     --which resulted in higher debt service costs than before the 
     refinancing.

  It goes on to say:

       These deficiencies were due to HUD's lack of adequate 
     oversight and inconsistent nationwide policy implementation 
     regarding debt service savings realized from Section 202 
     refinancing activities. As a result, millions of dollars in 
     debt service savings were not properly accounted for and 
     available, the savings may not have been used to benefit 
     tenants or for the reduction of housing assistance payments, 
     and some refinanced projects ended up costing HUD additional 
     housing assistance payments because of the additional cost 
     for debt service.

  That is not the kind of glowing review one would hope to accompany a 
nominee to an office who would oversee the entire Government of the 
United States of America.
  But the problems get worse. Every year, the HUD inspector general 
conducts an audit to determine if HUD's financial statements are in 
order. When an agency's financial statements are in order, that agency 
is awarded an unqualified or clean audit, meaning there are no material 
defects in the way the agency is managing its books. For the years 2012 
and 2013, under Secretary Donovan's leadership, HUD received failing 
grades or a qualified audit, which means material problems were found 
with HUD's financial statements. Twenty-four agencies undergo the audit 
process every year. Only two failed in 2013: HUD and DOD. And we all 
know DOD has never yet reached the kind of accounting the government 
requires in that massive agency. So HUD is the only non-DOD agency that 
failed last year.
  Whereas DOD has historically had problems with financial statements, 
HUD had, prior to Mr. Donovan, received clean reports. The inspector 
general, in failing Mr. Donovan, noted that HUD had improper budgetary 
accounting and lacked proper accounting for cash management. HUD, under 
Mr. Donovan's watch, was also recently charged with an Antideficiency 
Act violation by the inspector general--a big problem, in my opinion. 
It is serious.
  The Antideficiency Act essentially prohibits government employees or 
agencies from spending money that has not been appropriated by 
Congress. No President, no Cabinet Secretary can spend money under the 
Constitution that has not been appropriated for that purpose by 
Congress.
  So according to information received from the HUD inspector general, 
HUD, under Mr. Donovan's watch, has at least seven instances of 
violating the Antideficiency Act. These violations include 
overobligation of personnel or payroll funds, making student loan 
payments in excess of the funds allowed for that purpose, and 
obligating funds that were no longer available, and some of these were 
done after clear warnings to stop it.
  In one of the most recent violations, HUD paid more than $620,000 to 
a senior adviser to Secretary Donovan--personally his adviser, his 
staff--but they paid for it not from Mr. Donovan's budget for that 
purpose--to hire staff with--they paid for it out of the Office of 
Public and Indian Housing funds even though Mr. Donovan's adviser in

[[Page 11742]]

his office was not employed in the Office of Public and Indian Housing 
section. This adviser's pay was required to come from the funds in the 
secretary's office, his budget.
  The inspector general found that HUD had ignored the advice of its 
own legal counsel and disregarded concerns that had been previously 
expressed by the House Appropriations Committee on antideficiency 
matters at HUD.
  I do not see how he could not be aware of this. This is his own 
adviser. His own lawyer said: You should not pay for it out of the 
Office of Public and Indian Housing funds. But he did it anyway.
  Congress had specifically addressed HUD's salary funding for the 
Secretary's senior advisers--it had been a subject of House discussion, 
which is unusual--and previous ADA violations. According to a July 26, 
2010, House of Representatives report, ``all senior advisors to the 
Secretary should be funded directly through the Office of the 
Secretary.'' Of course. In addition, a HUD appropriations attorney in 
the HUD staff wrote in a January 13, 2011, email that a special adviser 
to the Office of the Secretary would need to be paid by that office--
the Secretary's office--and not another office within HUD. Despite the 
direction in the House report and guidance from his own appropriations 
attorney, HUD paid this adviser for his services from the Office of 
Public and Indian Housing program.
  Subsequently, in June 2012, Congress again admonished HUD for the 
lack of staffing data it provided and had available internally. 
Congress wrote:

       This lack of essential information led to multiple Anti-
     Deficiency Act violations in fiscal year 2011, in which HUD 
     hired more people than it had resources to pay. To date, HUD 
     has not even tried to address these problems and thus the 
     Committee has no faith in HUD's ability to appropriately 
     staff its operations.

  It is a very serious criticism of the management ability of the man 
now put in charge of managing an entire government. It is not the kind 
of activity that warrants a promotion.
  Finally, I have to say this. I have to mention this little matter: 
Mr. Donovan's membership in the Owl Club at Harvard--an item many of 
our Democratic colleagues found most reprehensible when Justice Alito 
came up for confirmation for the Supreme Court. This is a club the late 
Senator Ted Kennedy, resigned from because it did not admit female 
members. Indeed, Harvard kicked the club off campus in 1984, but that 
was the very year Mr. Donovan became a member and remained so until 
1987. I have heard no complaints from my colleagues about Mr. Donovan's 
membership in the Owl Club even after it was kicked off campus, but 
they howled mightily when Justice Alito was found to be a member of a 
similar club at Princeton.
  So I would ask my colleagues, in conclusion, does this sound like the 
background of someone who really is the right man for the job at this 
time? That is my fundamental concern. I do not believe his background, 
skills, and record indicate he is ready for one of the toughest jobs in 
government.
  This President, even more than most Presidents in their second term--
and they all tend to do this--is surrounding himself closer and closer 
with a small group of political loyalists--Secretary Lew, Secretary 
Johnson, Secretary Perez. So do we need another loyalist who protects 
him better? Wouldn't the American people and the President himself be 
better off with a strong, capable manager who can see through all the 
fog and the political falderal and make good decisions, preserving the 
taxpayers' resources?
  We need someone who will act independently on behalf of the President 
and the American people, who will respect the jurisdiction of Congress 
and legitimate congressional powers, who will follow the law and submit 
a Medicare plan, as the law requires, because it is going into default. 
The law says if it goes into default and the Medicare trustees send a 
notice--and they have--the President is supposed to submit a plan to 
fix it. OMB is the place that has always come from. It has come from 
there previously. And shouldn't he tell the White House no if he is 
asked to do something that is improper for the financial future of 
America?
  Well, I do not like having to oppose Mr. Donovan. He seems like a 
nice person. But he is the wrong man for this important job. I think he 
has been chosen for the wrong reasons, not for the right reasons. I 
will oppose his nomination. The President himself, I truly believe, and 
the Nation would benefit from the most capable, strong, and competent 
nominee the country can produce at this critical time. That's not Mr. 
Donovan.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kaine and Mr. Portman pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2584 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, the committee which I am privileged to 
chair, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and on 
which Senator Portman serves is responsible for working with the 
administration and others to help make sure that Federal agencies work 
better and more efficiently with the resources we entrust to them.
  During my years of public service, I have learned that an essential 
ingredient in enabling organizations of any type to work well is 
leadership. It is what they say about integrity: If you have it, 
nothing else matters; if you don't have it, nothing else matters. In an 
organization, if you have great leadership, that is most important.
  That is the case both in government and the private sector and in 
organizations large and small. Part of our responsibility here is 
ensuring that we have effective leaders in place across our Federal 
Government.
  It is every Senator's constitutional role to provide advice and 
consent on the President's nominations in a thorough and timely manner 
as part of the Senate's confirmation process.
  Today we have an important nomination before us. It is the nomination 
of Shaun Donovan to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 
I wish to express my sincere gratitude, not just to Secretary Donovan 
for his willingness to take on this critical role, but also I wish to 
thank his wife. I would like to thank his two boys who joined him at a 
hearing, and I want to say if my son were that age, there is no way he 
could sit through that: attentive, listening, thoughtful. What a 
tribute to their dad. It is all well and good what the rest of us 
think, but to have that kind of show of support from teenagers is 
pretty amazing these days.
  While Shaun has very large shoes to fill left by Sylvia Mathews 
Burwell, I believe he is up to the task and, maybe more importantly, 
she believes he is up to the task. Sylvia is somebody who we admire 
deeply around here. She did a great job as OMB Director. She is now the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  She has known Shaun Donovan since they were undergraduates together 
at Harvard. She knows what he is made of, she knows his values, she 
knows just how smart, how bright, and also just how hard-working he is, 
and she has known him for a long, long time.
  Secretary Donovan's nomination was successfully reported out of both 
the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee. I am hopeful that we will be able to do 
our part today and vote to fill this key vacancy.
  We know that Secretary Donovan is a strong leader who can take on and 
solve tough problems. As Secretary of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development for the past 5 years, he has guided our Nation 
through one of the worst housing crises in our lifetime.
  We also know that Secretary Donovan is someone who can cut through 
red tape and work together with agencies more effectively. That is 
precisely why the President asked him to chair the Hurricane Sandy 
Rebuilding Task Force--and boy did he do a job.
  He has also had high-level experience in local government, as 
commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation 
and Development, and has worked in the private

[[Page 11743]]

sector and the nonprofit sector. He knows this job. He knows his 
governing responsibilities from all angles. He knows how the Federal 
budget is impacted not only by Federal agencies but communities, 
businesses, and individual Americans and their families.
  I believe he has the diverse experience, strong work ethic, and 
leadership skills to get the job done and successfully continue his 
public service as Director of OMB.
  As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary Donovan 
will be faced with helping to lead our country back to a more fiscally 
sustainable path. Let me just say, 5 years ago when this administration 
took office, they inherited a deficit that was $1 trillion. After the 
stimulus package, it was $1.4 trillion. This year we expect it to have 
been reduced by two-thirds. Is that good enough? Should we be satisfied 
and pat ourselves on the back? No, but we are headed in the right 
direction. Under Shaun's stewardship we will continue to do just that.
  I believe that the grand budget compromise that we need, though, must 
have three essential ingredients:
  No. 1, we need entitlement reform that saves money, saves those 
programs for our children and grandchildren, and does not savage old 
people or poor people.
  No. 2, we need tax reform, and not only to lower--in my view--the 
corporate rates to be competitive with the rest of the world. We can 
forget all this inversions mess--the nonsense that is going on. We need 
to do that but also do tax reform and do it in a way that actually 
generates some additional revenues, and then we use those revenues for 
deficit reduction.
  No. 3, we need to look at everything we do in government and ask this 
question: How do we get a better result for less money--everything we 
do from A to Z--and act accordingly.
  OMB is critically involved in all three of those approaches, whether 
it is entitlement reform that is consistent with the values for the 
least of these in our society or tax reform that generates some 
additional revenues and lowers corporate rates. We are actually getting 
more for our money in everything we do.
  OMB is essential and critical, and the OMB Director is going to be 
the point person for making sure we continue to make progress in each 
of those three areas.
  I know from my own conversations with Shaun Donovan--which now 
stretch over 5 years--he will be a strong voice for fiscal 
responsibility and effective government management. As Senator Collins 
and I pointed out in introducing Secretary Donovan before our committee 
just a couple of weeks ago, he is known for using rigorous data 
analysis to demand better results from government programs and to save 
taxpayer money. She also pointed out he will be a leader of integrity 
and intelligence in a critical job.
  I mentioned the word ``integrity'' before, and I will say it again: 
Integrity, if you have it, nothing else matters; if you don't have it, 
nothing else matters.
  He has integrity. He is a bright guy, a very smart guy, hard-working, 
a wonderful family, and a great track record--not just in government 
but in the private sector, nonprofits, local, State, and Federal 
governments.
  He has demonstrated what he can do leading a big agency such as 
Housing and Urban Development and how he can lead in a cross-agency way 
when we were suffering under Superstorm Sandy, which came right through 
our part of the country.
  I think he is well qualified for the position for which he is 
nominated. I am pleased the President nominated him, and I am pleased 
Sylvia Mathews Burwell is still around over at HHS.
  Sean has done a wonderful job at HUD, and he will do a great job at 
OMB. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I hope all my 
colleagues will as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote on confirmation of the Donovan 
nomination occur at 2:05 p.m. and that Senator Murray be in control of 
the final 2 minutes prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                     Unaccompanied Border Children

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing 
crisis of unaccompanied alien children streaming across our southern 
border. It has been called a mounting crisis, including the security 
crisis it is. There are some 52,000 who have come across in the last 
several months, according to recent reports--up from just a few 
thousand 1 year ago--and the threat is that will grow significantly. It 
is continuing to grow.
  This has been called a humanitarian crisis, and it is. These are, in 
most cases, vulnerable children who were taken through by human 
smugglers, by drug cartels, by other folks who do not--absolutely do 
not--have their best interests in mind. These children are often 
mistreated in all sorts of despicable ways through that journey.
  How do we address this crisis? It seems to me we need to get our core 
response right, and the only way to stop this increasing flow is to 
make clear this activity will not be successful.
  The only way to do that is to detain these illegal aliens in our 
country and keep them under our supervision until we quickly deport 
them to their countries of origin.
  That is the only response, the only message, the only visual that 
will stop this mounting flow from continuing to grow. That is the most 
humanitarian response that will stop more and more of these Central and 
South American children from being put in this illegal trade and being 
victimized along the way.
  Now, unfortunately, so far, that is not the response President Obama 
has made.
  After speaking for weeks about the 2008 change in immigration law as 
a factor in this scenario, when President Obama presented a request to 
Congress on this issue, he did not request any change in that law. He 
talked about it. He pointed to that law for weeks saying this was the 
root cause of the problem. Yet in his request to Congress he is not 
proposing we change that law.
  Instead, all he is proposing is more money--a lot more money--$3.7 
billion. Now, some more response and some more resources are 
undoubtedly necessary, but the lion's share of that, again, doesn't go 
to enforcement, doesn't go to deportation, doesn't go to sending these 
illegals back to their home country quickly, humanely, and efficiently. 
It goes to feeding them and housing them in this country for an 
extended, indefinite period of time.
  That is not what we need again.
  What we need, instead, is whatever changes to the law are necessary 
to allow us to detain these folks in a proper, humane way and quickly 
move them back to their home countries. We need the will and the 
resources to get that done in a quick, efficient way. That is what I 
will be proposing with many others in both the House and the Senate.
  For this to work we also need the will and the cooperation of the 
administration, and I am concerned that there isn't that real focus, 
real determination, and real will. It is great to have the right law 
written down on a piece of paper, the right words on a page, but it is 
equally as important--perhaps more important--to have the right 
administration, the right spirit, the right execution, the right 
follow-through on those words on a page.
  Unfortunately, we haven't had that in the Obama administration 
either.
  The Los Angeles Times, not exactly a right-leaning publication, has 
noted that deportations of illegals has plummeted from the high in 
2008, plummeted every year since then, to an absolute low in 2013 of 
about 1,669--from a high of 8,100, down each and every year to 1,600.
  This first drop probably had a lot to do with the change in the law 
to which President Obama has alluded. We need to fix that. But these 
other drops have to do with the spirit, the focus, and the 
determination--or lack thereof--of the present administration.
  Similarly, about 600 minors--all illegals--were ordered deported each 
year from nonborder States a decade ago--a decade ago 600 and last year

[[Page 11744]]

only 95. Again, this is the same plummeting trend, the same absolutely 
plummeting trend. That is what we need to fundamentally reverse.
  To reverse that I have joined with other Members, as I suggested, to 
get the right solution in Congress, both changes in the law we need to 
make and the resources we need to hold these illegal aliens and quickly 
turn around the flow and send them back to their home countries. That 
is why I have joined already with Senator Flake in his amendment, which 
he was trying to propose on the Senate floor this week, to repeal the 
troublesome part of the 2008 law.
  That is why I am going further and drafting additional legislation to 
give this administration the mandate, the ability, the directive it 
clearly needs to change that practice and to change that policy--not to 
allow these illegals to be released into the country simply on the 
honor system that they might show up for a court date--we know that 
well over 90 percent never show up--and not simply send more money to 
HHS to properly care for these illegal aliens with no end in sight.
  Of course, they need to be properly treated and cared for when they 
are in this country and beyond, but we should not just write a blank 
check to keep them here forever but change the law and have the 
procedure in place to detain them--not to release them--and to quickly, 
effectively, bring them back to their home country.
  That is what happens in a much more routine way for illegal aliens 
from border countries such as Mexico and Canada. That is what happens 
effectively in those situations. We need to mirror that. We need to 
copy that and make sure that happens effectively when the illegal alien 
is from a border State.
  I wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Johnson back in January of this 
year regarding this very issue, before it became the current crisis, 
regarding reports detailing actual DHS assistance in the completion of 
smuggling illegal alien minors.
  In that case, a smuggled child in many cases was transferred to 
illegal alien parents actually by DHS--by HHS's Office of Refugee 
Resettlement. So actually, in those cases, the Federal Government was 
not completing the object of the criminal conspiracy--was not stopping 
the smuggling, not punishing the smugglers, but completing the 
operation. Again, it is another classic case of sending the wrong 
message--a message that will increase the flow and increase the 
problem, not decrease it.
  Ultimately, that goes back to the humanitarian issue too, because 
encouraging human smuggling enriches drug cartels, allows them to 
continue using violence as a means to an end, and wages war on Mexican 
and American citizens alike as well as the folks involved from Central 
and South American countries.
  We need to change that basic message. We need to turn around those 
basic incentives. The only way to do that is to have a law and the 
execution of the law that is reversing that flow, that is apprehending 
these folks, that is treating them humanely, that is not releasing them 
out into American society, and that is quickly and effectively 
returning them to their home countries.
  That is the only message, that is the only visual, that will stop 
this mounting wave and will address the horrible humanitarian problems 
that flow directly from it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor for the last minute 
of this debate to support Sean Donovan's nomination to be Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget.
  I have worked very closely with Secretary Donovan over the last 5 
years, and I know he has the skills and experience to work with 
Congress on creating jobs and tackling our long-term budget challenges 
fairly and responsibly.
  In his role as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary 
Donovan has proven time and again that he is focused first and foremost 
on strengthening our middle class by expanding opportunities for 
families and communities.
  From his work on stabilizing the housing market following the 
financial crisis, to reinforcing the agency's role in providing access 
to affordable housing and building strong, sustainable neighborhoods, 
to ensuring communities hit hard by natural disasters have the 
resources they need to get back on their feet, Secretary Donovan has 
been a highly effective and responsive leader and a great partner to us 
in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike.
  Secretary Donovan's nomination passed through the Budget Committee 
with bipartisan support. I am confident he will bring these strengths 
and many more to the OMB. His leadership will be critical, because 
while we have made progress on our budget challenges, there is a lot of 
work yet to be done.
  I look forward to working with Secretary Donovan to strengthen our 
fiscal outlook over the long term and ensure we can make critical 
investments in jobs and opportunities to support our families, workers, 
and the economy. I know Secretary Donovan will be a great partner in 
addressing these challenges, and I urge my colleagues to support his 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Shaun L.S. Donovan, of New York, to be 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget?
  Ms. COLLINS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Ex.]

                                YEAS--75

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Thune
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
  The nomination was confirmed.


                      Vote on Silliman Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a 
vote on the Silliman nomination.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask that we yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Douglas Alan Silliman, of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior 
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to 
the State of Kuwait?
  The nomination was confirmed.

[[Page 11745]]




                        Vote on Smith Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to the 
vote on the Smith nomination.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask that we yield back all remaining 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Dana Shell Smith, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of 
Qatar?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________