[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5150-5155]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 178, which the clerk will report by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 178) to provide justice for the victims of 
     trafficking.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 1120, to strengthen 
     the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act by incorporating 
     additional bipartisan amendments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11 
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote at 11 a.m. this 
morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     100th Day of the New Congress

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am an optimistic person. As a matter of 
fact, I think everybody from Texas is an optimist. Can you imagine the 
challenges the people who founded our State had--Indians, wide-open 
hostile territory, tough weather. But they persevered because they were 
optimists. They thought the fight was worth the struggle. They thought 
the goal and the accomplishment--the hope for accomplishment--was worth 
the struggle.
  I still remain optimistic--despite the last few weeks that have 
challenged that optimism--that we will actually break through here and 
get to consider and vote on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act 
and get help to the people whom the majority leader, Senator McConnell, 
described, the children who cannot help themselves. I mean, for 
heaven's sake, if we cannot help the most vulnerable people in our 
country--children who cannot help themselves, who are the victims of 
modern-day slavery--what in the world can we do?
  So we have marked 100 days here in the Senate with the new Republican 
majority. As I look back, I do not think anybody can deny that under 
the majority leader's stewardship we have had some significant 
accomplishments in a relatively short period of time. Sure, it has been 
bumpy along the way. The Keystone XL Pipeline was a significant bump in 
the road. But we had a strong bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the 
President decided to veto that legislation.
  After years of this Chamber being used solely for the purpose of 
messaging and conducting political show votes, we are actually starting 
to get some things done. It is pretty exciting. As somebody who has 
been here since 2002, it is hard to believe, when I say that, that I 
have actually been here during different phases and cycles of the 
Senate operating. I have to tell you that the last 4 years or so has 
been a dark period, a stain on the reputation of the Senate in terms of 
actually getting things done in the interests of the American people.
  I understand the he said-she said and the blame game. The blame game 
is a world-class sport here in Washington, DC. But most of our 
constituents couldn't care less about the blame game; they actually 
want to see government function in their interest. Consistent with our 
principles, we are going to have some disagreements, there is no doubt 
about it. But they hate the dysfunction. They hate the political 
posturing. You know what. I do, too. I dare say that the vast majority 
of Senators hate the dysfunction the Senate has experienced.

[[Page 5151]]

  So there is a new spirit of optimism and, yes, hope, not that the Age 
of Aquarius has suddenly broken out--peace, love and understanding and 
we are all going to hold hands and sing ``Kumbaya.'' That is not going 
to happen. But can we work together as Americans, as people who love 
our country, who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the 
Constitution and laws of the United States, who owe a fiduciary duty to 
the people we represent? I represent 26.9 million people. That just 
staggers my imagination when I think about it, when I think about the 
responsibility associated with it. But I am encouraged when we have the 
chance to help people, especially those who cannot help themselves.
  Well, one reason for my optimism about the new Congress is that we 
have held a lot of votes. We had 15 votes last year, 15 rollcall votes 
in the Congress last year. We have had about 100 in the 100 days we 
have been here. As a matter of fact, I have heard some of our 
colleagues say: I am a little tired of voting quite as much as we have, 
particularly on the budget vote-arama which lasted until 4 in the 
morning. I understand that. But, you know, we have passed a balanced 
budget in the Senate without raising taxes. The Congress has not passed 
a budget since 2009. What more fundamental, basic function of 
government is there than to pass a budget?
  The distinguished Presiding Officer was Governor of his great State. 
I am absolutely confident he viewed that as one of the fundamental 
responsibilities of his State government and of his office in 
particular--to get the fiscal house in order. The way you do that is by 
passing a budget and determining what your priorities are--things you 
absolutely have to do, things you perhaps want to do but maybe have to 
delay, and things you simply cannot afford.
  Every State, every local government, and, yes, the Federal Government 
should pass a budget. We will in short order. The Senate has, and now 
we need to reconcile our differences with the House, which we will 
shortly. But it is not just government; every family and every business 
has to work on a budget. So that is progress. I am happy about that.
  On Tuesday night, we actually fixed a problem that had been nagging 
the Congress since 1997. Back in 1997, we, the Congress--we were not 
here; the Presiding Officer and I were not here. The Congress had this 
bright idea: We are going to save money on health care by whacking the 
payments we make to providers and hospitals. Well, after a while we 
found out that if we do not pay doctors and hospitals for treating 
Medicare patients, they will not see them.
  So our seniors, to whom we had made a sacred promise--we will 
continue to make sure Medicare provides quality service and is 
accessible--all of a sudden, it was not quite so accessible because 
people could not find a doctor who would take a new Medicare patient.
  That is still a problem, so we came back over the intervening years 
and 17 times out of the 18 times those cuts would have been imposed, 
Congress reversed them. We had an expression around here that 
unfortunately we had to use a lot; we called it the doc fix. That is an 
inelegant way, perhaps, of describing what we were doing, but basically 
what we were trying to do was preserve Medicare and access to doctors 
and hospitals for our seniors who are the beneficiaries of the Medicare 
system. That, to me, represents some progress, that we have fixed that 
once and for all.
  Then, imagine my surprise that, after the contentious issue of 
congressional approval of the anticipated Iranian-U.S.--along with our 
allies--nuclear negotiations, this deal that could be forthcoming this 
summer, imagine my surprise, after the President said he would veto it, 
when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed a bill 
out of the committee. All Democrats voted for it. All Republicans voted 
for it. Oh, by the way, when the President began to count the numbers 
and the support in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, he said: You know 
what. I think I will sign that piece of legislation when it comes to my 
desk. I think that represents progress.
  One other item that has made me somewhat optimistic on this 100th day 
of the new Congress is that we are very close to working out a trade 
deal that the President supports and I would say Republicans by and 
large support. Honestly, there is probably more controversy on the 
Democratic side than there is on the Republican side. But in a world 
where 80 percent of the purchasing power and 95 percent of the 
population exists beyond our shores, why in the world would we not want 
to open new markets to the stuff we grow--our farmers, our ranchers--
the livestock we raise, and the things we make? I think it makes good 
sense.
  So you can see why I, perhaps, am optimistic about this new Congress 
and what we have been able to do together on a bipartisan basis to make 
progress in the interests of the American people.
  The one thing that has me completely bamboozled and befuddled is the 
objections over this antitrafficking legislation that had 30 
cosponsors--roughly an equal number of Democrats and Republicans--and 
passed--sailed out of the Judiciary Committee.
  My friend the Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, knows that 
the Judiciary Committee is no place for the faint of heart. We have a 
lot of disagreements. Maybe that is because we have a lot of lawyers on 
the Judiciary Committee. We fight a lot about things we believe in 
strongly. But this antitrafficking legislation sailed out of the 
Judiciary Committee on a unanimous basis.
  I hope we can work out these differences, and I have made multiple 
suggestions and compromises in an effort to try to get everybody to 
yes.
  I agree with the majority leader's description of the sordid, 
unspeakable, evil of human trafficking and the compelling reason we 
ought to do something to address it.
  I know that is where the hearts of all of our colleagues are, but 
somehow we have just gotten stuck. We need to get unstuck, and I hope 
today will be that day. Of course, human trafficking is a plague in all 
50 States, and my State, unfortunately, has way too much of its share.
  I, like all of our colleagues, have had the chance to meet many of 
the brave victims of human trafficking. One victim I met last week in 
Austin is Brooke Axtell.
  Our friends at Google convened a meeting in Austin. The technology 
community understands that a lot of the solicitation of underage girls 
and victims of human trafficking occurs online. So they have come 
together to try to work with law enforcement, work with victims' rights 
groups to try to come up with a comprehensive way to combat it.
  At Google last week in Austin, I met Brooke Axtell, who was 
introduced to America when she gave a moving speech at this year's 
GRAMMY Awards. In Texas, she is better known for her work with a number 
of nonprofits that are focused on ending domestic violence and human 
trafficking. I can't begin to tell you how inspiring she is and her 
words were, particularly when you comprehend the horror, the absolute 
horror of what she had been through as a victim of human trafficking 
herself.
  Starting at the age of 7--7 years old--Brooke was sexually abused. 
She was literally put in chains and a cage--treated like an animal--in 
a basement. She was repeatedly sold to men who raped and abused her.
  Out of this horror that she experienced as a young child, Brooke has 
brought life to her pain, and I think her leadership in the 
antitrafficking effort has actually helped her heal. She is one brave, 
courageous, young woman. She founded a group called Survivor Healing 
and Empowerment, which is a healing community for the survivors of 
rape, abuse, and sex trafficking.
  That is why, today, at 11 o'clock, I hope all of our colleagues 
listen not only to Brooke's voice and her experience, but each one of 
us on the floor could tell a similar story about somebody in their 
State, somebody they

[[Page 5152]]

know, they have met, who would be helped by this legislation.
  I hope we don't tell them no. I hope we don't shut another door in 
their faces.
  I see some of our colleagues on the floor. I want to briefly give 
them a chance to speak before we vote at 11 o'clock, just to say that 
the underlying legislation is not partisan. It would strengthen law 
enforcement tools and authorities to rescue victims, while taking down 
the human traffickers and the criminal networks that support them. The 
goal is to provide at least $30 million through fines and penalties 
paid into the public Treasury that would then go to help heal and 
rescue the victims of human trafficking.
  Now, this is not tax money, so it is deficit neutral. We are not 
raising taxes to do it. We are making the people who purchased these 
services, who were convicted and have to pay fines and penalties, pay 
to help rescue and heal the victims.
  Shortly, we will vote on another compromise I have offered. I have 
tried to listen to the objections of our friends across the aisle--and 
I don't want to relitigate those because, frankly, that is not 
particularly productive. They seem to be locked in. I am sure they 
would say we are locked in, and so we are trying to find a way forward.
  First, and most important, this amendment would completely replace a 
provision that Members on the other side have objected to regarding the 
application of the Hyde amendment. The amendment would replace the 
language or the provision negotiated by Leader Pelosi from the doc fix 
bill I mentioned earlier that passed the House with 392 votes; 180 
House Democrats voted for this bill, including Leader Pelosi. So we 
have substituted that language for the original language.
  Of course, in the Senate we had 92 Senators vote for that same 
language, and our colleagues across the aisle have repeatedly voted for 
similar language.
  So the Pelosi language from this bill that my amendment includes 
would simply say any funds used to provide services for victims of 
human trafficking would be subject to the same requirements as funds of 
the Public Health and Services Act.
  The majority leader has said it well: If this language is good enough 
to help the doctors and the hospitals, surely it is good enough to help 
young 7-year-old victims of human trafficking, such as Brooke Axtell.
  To further clarify, to address the stated concerns of our friends 
across the aisle, this amendment would also clarify that all money--all 
the money in the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund--must be derived 
from the General Treasury. This is an objection I don't personally 
understand, but we want to make it clear--just perhaps to help our 
colleagues get to yes--that all of the money would be derived from the 
General Treasury, which, of course, is where all Federal funding comes 
from, and we would make clear that all of the money would be public 
dollars.
  I don't get this because tax dollars are private dollars until you 
give them to the government, and then they are no longer public-
private, they are public. Private penalties are private until you pay 
it to the government, and then it is public.
  But we want to make clear, to eliminate any rationale for any 
objection, and say that explicitly these would be public dollars. The 
requirements placed on funds under the bill would not be placed on the 
fees and penalties. That seemed to be a matter of concern, and we tried 
to address that.
  As I explained, the pending amendment would do what I have tried my 
dead-level best to do, to try to address the concerns our Democratic 
colleagues, who have blocked the bill so far, have continually 
expressed.
  So the language is just the same as the doc fix, and we have made 
clear that none of the fines and penalties themselves--but rather funds 
derived from the General Treasury--would be used to pay for these 
services in an equivalent amount to the fines and penalties.
  I would add, parenthetically, when I was talking to one of our 
colleagues about it, they said: Well, that is money laundering. You are 
taking fines and penalties and you are transferring it, you are 
substituting it into a general fund.
  I mean, give me a break. What we are trying to do is find a solution. 
I think we have given our colleagues every opportunity to get to yes.
  I know, because I have talked to a lot of them--including the Senator 
from Illinois--people want to get to yes. I hope we have found a way to 
do that. So I hope we will not let the political gamesmanship continue 
to get in the way of a bill that would bring relief and healing to 
victims of human trafficking.
  I hope we will have that vote at 11 o'clock, and there will be broad, 
bipartisan support to proceed to the bill and to pass the legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I see my 
colleague from Connecticut on the floor.
  Let me say at the outset, in the most positive way, I thank Senator 
Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota for their bipartisan effort 
to bring this issue to the floor and to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  We had a hearing in a subcommittee on this subject, and it was 
heartbreaking to hear about the exploitation of these young women at 
such a tender age. Unspeakable things were happening to them.
  Sadly, in many States, when they finally came into the custody of law 
enforcement, some of them--some of the children--these young girls, 
were being charged as criminals until it was clear they had been 
enslaved and they had been exploited for so many years. So thinking on 
this subject is moving in the right direction. The suggestions of 
Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar are also in the right direction.
  So why don't we pass this bill? We have all of this bipartisan 
support. One provision in this bill turns out to be fraught with 
controversy.
  Thirty-nine years ago, a Congressman from Illinois named Henry Hyde 
offered compromise language on the issue of abortion. It was just a few 
years after Roe v. Wade. It was still very controversial. He said: We 
will prohibit the expenditure of taxpayer funds for abortion except in 
cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
  For 39 years, that has been the standard. There has been an uneasy 
truce between those who see this issue in many different ways. They 
have come to the conclusion this will be the standard that would be 
applied to the expenditure of taxpayer funds, and it is renewed year 
after year.
  Senator Cornyn, perhaps by accident or perhaps by design, crossed the 
line and started talking about not taxpayer funds but funds collected 
in fines from those guilty of human trafficking to create a victims' 
fund.
  That has brought all of the debate and controversy--in fairness to 
Senator Cornyn and to Senator Murray, who has joined with others in 
this battle, there has been an active exchange of compromise language. 
We have counted, I think, 12 different versions we have sent over to 
Senator Cornyn. He sent probably as many our way.
  So it isn't as if both sides have hunkered down and are just staring 
one another down. There is an honest effort to find a solution. The 
solution would not be embodied in the vote that had been scheduled for 
11 o'clock; it is the old language. But they are still working on new 
language, and I hope we reach a point soon where we achieve that. We 
all agree human trafficking should stop and victims should be 
compensated.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise with regret because, 
unfortunately, we remain divided. There is so much common ground, so 
many good ideas in this bill, and so much that unites us. We have so 
much more in common than in conflict on this bill.

[[Page 5153]]

  The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act has involved so much work 
by great colleagues--Senator Cornyn, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murray, 
Senator Feinstein, and my colleague who has just finished speaking.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. We are divided on one 
paragraph that is simply unacceptable, and it is fundamental to the 
goals of this bill, which is to restore human dignity and freedom to 
victims and survivors of human trafficking. Restoring freedom involves 
giving those survivors choices over whether they will bear children as 
a result of that trafficking. Trafficking is, fundamentally, modern-day 
slavery. It is sex slavery and sex exploitation, which results, all too 
often, in pregnancy. At its core, the human trafficking bill before us 
today is about restoring human dignity to those victims and survivors 
and enabling them to avoid the long-lasting and enduring consequences 
of that slavery.
  This legislation is an acknowledgment of our common commitment to 
these survivors and to providing them the services and support they 
need so much. One of them is abortion. Where we are divided is on 
guaranteeing that reproductive right--the essence of freedom, dignity, 
and choice. So it is well beyond a technicality here. It is about the 
fundamental goals of this bill, which are contradicted by this 
provision in the law.
  Senator Cornyn's proposed amendment changes the words of this 
paragraph that we find objectionable, but it doesn't change the basic 
substance or its practical effect. We are told the provision in 
question doesn't matter because it includes a rape exception, but it 
requires the survivor to request, to ask, to entreaty and supplicate to 
the State whether the rape was really rape, whether it is a pretense or 
they must bear a rapist's child.
  We are told the provision in question is essentially the same as the 
Hyde amendment, but that is flatly untrue because the Hyde amendment 
applies to taxpayer funds. I would say to my colleague from Texas, a 
good friend, who is determined to address this problem of human 
trafficking, there are no taxpayer funds in that $30 million that is 
taken from criminal fines and penalties. It is an entirely different 
source of funds.
  As a former prosecutor, I view those moneys as restitution. They come 
from criminals and they are used to try to support and serve the 
victims of that criminal activity. There is nothing more fundamental 
than using funds taken from criminals for the benefit of their victims. 
Congress has never before privileged the concerns of criminals over the 
rights of women, and we should not start now.
  I respect my colleague from Texas and other colleagues who may differ 
with me on this issue. He has stated, in heartbreaking and eloquent 
terms, the practical human impact of trafficking, sex slavery. I ask my 
colleagues now to give these women the real freedom from that sex 
slavery. Liberate them, truly, from this heinous and horrific violation 
of basic human rights by guaranteeing them one of the basic human 
rights, which is the right to make choices about their own bodies, 
about their futures, about their hopes and dreams as they are liberated 
from this slavery. Let this Chamber and my colleagues recognize the 
rights they have to truly be free from those who enslave them. I urge 
this body to strike the Hyde language from S. 178 and to make good on 
its promise.
  As cochair of the bipartisan Senate caucus to end human trafficking, 
I agree completely this cause ought to be bipartisan. It ought not to 
divide us along any partisan or party lines. I am proud to have worked 
with Members on both sides of the aisle, and I hope we can come to 
agreement now with my good friend and my excellent colleague Senator 
Cornyn and others who have worked so hard and who are so genuinely 
determined to solve this problem and to take a step--it is only a first 
step--in the direction of combating human trafficking.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my friend and colleague Senator Cornyn 
has been involved in discussions with the minority about a path forward 
on the trafficking bill, and I would like to ask him if he is 
optimistic that we may be able to reach an agreement at some point in 
the near future about a way to go forward.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished majority 
leader that I am more optimistic than I have been at any time in the 
last few weeks. I just talked to the Democratic leader who told me 
there are active discussions taking place by all of the key people who 
can help us break this deadlock, and so I am more optimistic. We are 
not there yet, but we are in a much better place than I think we have 
been certainly in the last 3 weeks. So I am hopeful and somewhat more 
optimistic.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we would like to be able to process 
this important bill and move on to a vote on the President's nominee 
for Attorney General. Based upon the progress that is being made by my 
friend and colleague from Texas, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the cloture motion on the Cornyn amendment No. 1120.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, as I have done for the last several weeks, 
I am back again for this week's ``Waste of the Week,'' a series of 
weekly speeches which points out how we can save taxpayer dollars by 
looking at waste, inefficiency, duplication, and other factors that are 
simply a waste of taxpayer money.
  Because this is April and because it is just a day after that fateful 
day in April, April 15--and we all know what that means--our waste of 
the week.
  Clearly, there is a growing consensus that our Tax Code is hopelessly 
complex, hopelessly burdensome, hopelessly anticompetitive, and needs 
comprehensive reform. That is not what we are here to talk about today, 
but I am a strong proponent of moving forward on that issue. It has 
been almost 30 years now--1986 was the last time a comprehensive reform 
was enacted by Congress. It turned out to be a tremendous stimulus to 
our economy. It created a boost in growth and boosted the economy in a 
way that provided us with the necessary funding without having to raise 
taxes, and, in fact, it lowered taxes because of its dynamic effect. 
That is an issue for another day. We will continue to try to pursue 
that. As a member of the Finance Committee, I know that is one of our 
major goals this year, as it is in the House of Representatives. 
Whether or not we are able to achieve our goal, we need to keep working 
on that.
  Today, I want to talk about the waste of the week by looking at the 
Tax Code and doing something I think would be a relatively easy and 
simple way to save the taxpayer some money. It involves a refundable 
child tax credit. The tax laws allow a refund which is not an offset of 
taxes owed but an actual direct payment that occurs if you have 
children. The refundable child tax credit is pretty straightforward. It 
qualifies a taxpayer for a credit of up to $1,000 per child depending 
on their income level.
  I am not here today to talk about the merits of that tax credit. I 
have supported it in the past, and I think it is something that ought 
to be given serious consideration in any kind of tax reform. Rather, I 
am here to discuss the cost to the American taxpayer due to the 
improper use of payments that are

[[Page 5154]]

made to recipients who don't legally qualify for this refundable 
payment.
  According to the inspector general at the IRS, the Internal Revenue 
Service sent out at least $5.9 billion in improper payments in 2013--
payments that went to people who did not legally qualify for the 
benefit.
  Listen to what Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
Administration, said:

       The IRS has continually rated the risk of improper 
     Additional Child Tax Credit payments as low. However, [our] 
     assessment of the potential for improper payments in this 
     program indicates that its improper payment rate is similar 
     to that of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

  What is that rate? Nearly $6 billion and even more than that over a 
period of time.
  He goes on to say:

       It is imperative that the IRS take action to identify and 
     address all of its programs that are at high risk for 
     improper payments.

  Today, we are talking about one of those programs that Russell 
George, the Treasury Inspector General, defined and suggested we look 
at, and we will be looking at some others later.
  We are proposing a pretty easy fix, and I am supporting legislation 
that will require the submission of a valid Social Security number in 
order to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit. 
Requiring the submission of a valid Social Security number does not 
take the credit away from anyone who legally qualifies for this credit, 
but it does help ensure that only those who are truly legally qualified 
will benefit from the credit and will receive the payment.
  According to the most recent estimate by the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, this simple fix--simply requiring a valid Social Security 
number before a payment is given so we can weed out those improper 
payments--could save taxpayers $20 billion over a 10-year period. 
Compared to our multitrillion-dollar budget, $20 billion is a fairly 
small percentage, but compared to the way the taxpayer looks at this, 
$20 billion is a lot of change. It is a lot of money, and the savings 
from that can be used in any number of ways. Hopefully, it will be used 
to lower rates people have to pay in terms of the tax revenues they 
send to Washington, but if it is needed for essential programs, such as 
national defense or homeland security, and we can prove a need for 
that--we are constantly looking for ways to pay for things that are 
essential and need to be done--this is a perfect pay-for. So one way or 
another, it is a benefit to the American taxpayer.
  As we mark tax day this week, I wish we could say we are getting 
close to major tax reform, but since we are not, it is important that 
we continue to look at the Tax Code as well as other functions of 
government to determine how we can continue to save taxpayers money and 
how we can continue to identify unfair and complicated areas of our Tax 
Code.
  So with that we add to the gauge, which is growing every week that we 
identify a program. We started off at zero. Now we are approaching $50 
billion worth of savings for the taxpayer. Our goal is $100 billion. We 
are going to keep doing this week after week, and we are going to keep 
adding money that is identified by our politically neutral accounting 
efforts. We are going to keep adding to this gauge until we reach our 
goal and hopefully go well beyond it.
  Mr. President, $20 billion is no small amount of change. It is being 
used improperly, and we can save that money.
  Stay tuned for next week's ``Waste of the Week.''
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  (Mr. FLAKE assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Deyo Nomination

  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I come to the floor today to recommend 
to the Senate the confirmation of a very qualified individual, Mr. 
Russell C. Deyo, to become Under Secretary for Management at the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  We are very fortunate to have an individual of Mr. Deyo's 
qualifications and integrity willing to serve our government working 
with Secretary Jeh Johnson and trying to help him succeed in his 
mission of keeping this Nation safe.
  Mr. Deyo has a long and successful career and background. After law 
school, he clerked for Judge John Hannum of the U.S. District Court for 
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then spent 2 years at a 
private law firm.
  In 1978, Mr. Deyo joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District 
of New Jersey as an assistant U.S. attorney.
  In 1983, he was promoted to chief of the special prosecutions unit 
for public corruption.
  In 1985, he came to Johnson & Johnson as a litigation attorney and 
became associate general counsel in 1999. He ultimately became vice 
president and general counsel later in 2009 and was responsible for 
human resources.
  After retiring from Johnson & Johnson in 2012, Mr. Deyo served as 
both a standing member of a panel for potential product liability 
arbitration for Eli Lilly and as chairman of the Corporate Board of 
Advisers of the National Counsel of LaRaza.
  He obtained his education at both Dartmouth College, with an 
associate bachelor's degree, and at Georgetown University with a J.D. 
in June of 1975.
  Again, I wish to thank Mr. Deyo for being willing to serve his Nation 
in this crucial capacity.
  I would also like to thank the members of our conference for clearing 
his name. I have worked very closely with our ranking member, the 
Senator from Delaware, in trying to develop not only a mission 
statement but also a commitment to enhance the economic and national 
security of our Nation. We listed a bunch of priorities. The Presiding 
Officer is on our committee, and she is also committed to those exact 
same goals. One of the priorities we listed was our commitment to do 
everything we can to help the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary 
Jeh Johnson, succeed in his mission of keeping this Nation safe. Our 
committee worked hard over a number of obstacles to make sure Mr. Deyo 
has his vote now for confirmation.
  I certainly thank my ranking member, the Senator from Delaware. I 
thank my Republican colleagues for clearing the way for this vote.
  I urge all of our colleagues here in the Senate--I would love to see 
a unanimous vote to approve Mr. Russell Deyo as the Under Secretary for 
Management at the Department of Homeland Security.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, today I wish to express my gratitude to 
the chairman for his work with his conference to clear the path to this 
discussion today of the nomination of Russ Deyo and to bring his name 
forward for hopefully confirmation this afternoon.
  When I first met Russ Deyo, I asked him: How do you pronounce your 
name?
  He said: ``Dio'' as in Rio.
  I said: I think you mispronounce your own name.
  He said: No, no. It is ``Dio'' as in Rio.
  So I try to do that, but he has been called a lot of things. Some of 
the things he ought to be called are talented and dedicated, and we 
should call ourselves lucky that a guy or gal with his credentials from 
the private sector is willing to come and go to work for the people of 
America and to serve all of us.
  The Department of Homeland Security is a Department that, as we know, 
does enormously important work to protect us. People all over this 
Nation--in the air, on the ground, on the borders, in our cities, and 
all over our countryside--have my gratitude and I know the gratitude of 
all of us.
  Every organization of any consequence needs good management, and the 
idea of bringing in Russ Deyo is--this is a fellow who will offer real

[[Page 5155]]

strength to the management team at the Department of Homeland Security. 
We need him. We are glad he is ready to go into the lineup, and I hope 
we will put him in there later this afternoon.
  The position for which he has been nominated, the Under Secretary of 
Management, is the third highest position in the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  While this vote is long overdue, he has been approved by our 
committee now not once, I think, but twice. Unfortunately, we failed in 
the Senate to act on his nomination before the end of the last 
Congress, so we had to start over again. I am just glad he is willing 
to serve in this role.
  As of this week, more than a year will have passed since the last 
Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Management--a fellow named Rafael 
Borras, a very good leader--stepped down from this post. I again thank 
Chairman Johnson for his efforts and our joint efforts to move this 
nomination forward.
  Everything I have learned about Russ Deyo over the past several 
months has led me to conclude that he is an exceptional candidate to be 
the next Under Secretary for Management at DHS. Chairman Johnson has 
already walked through his impressive career.
  Russ Deyo is also no stranger to public service. We tend to emphasize 
his very significant responsibilities at Johnson & Johnson and as a 
partner in a major law firm, but he has also worked with law 
enforcement organizations. He was an assistant U.S. attorney in New 
Jersey for 8 years--something we don't always note--including a period 
as chief of the public corruption unit. His perspective from the 
private and public sectors is going to be a great asset to Secretary 
Jeh Johnson and to Alejandro Mayorkas, the Deputy Secretary at the 
Department, as they work together to get the Department operating in a 
more unified and cohesive manner, in creating one DHS.
  If confirmed, Mr. Deyo is going to face plenty of challenges. For 
example, the Government Accountability Office continues to remind us 
that the overall management of the Department remains on GAO's high-
risk list of government operations that need urgent attention. Of 
course, if confirmed, Mr. Deyo will inherit the challenge of improving 
morale across the Department. I believe Mr. Deyo has the leadership, 
the experience, and the skills necessary to tackle these and other 
challenges at the Department and that he really will make a difference.
  I would just say in closing that all of the organizations I have ever 
been a part of or observed, whether they happen to be a school or a 
university, a sports team, a military unit, a business, a church, the 
House or the Senate--here or at the local level--the most important 
element in the success of those organizations is almost always 
leadership. What we have endeavored to do over the last year, or 
actually a little more than a year, is to take the Department of 
Homeland Security--which was largely bereft at the senior levels of 
Senate-confirmed leadership--and with the addition of Russ Deyo in this 
No. 3 position to be in charge of the management shop at DHS, they will 
have a full slate. They will have a full slate for not the C team or 
the D team or the B team but I think in many respects the A team. We 
expect them to rise to the challenge--there are plenty of challenges 
they face today--and Russ will help make that possible.
  I wish to say to Russ Deyo, if he is listening: Thanks for your 
willingness to hang in there with us until we could get to 
confirmation.
  To the Deyo family: We appreciate very much your willingness to share 
your spouse and in this case your dad with the people of this Nation. 
We need him. We will put him to good work, and after a while we will 
send him back to you safe and sound.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________