[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 143 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10125-S10137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, as we debate this Defense appropriations 
bill, many of my colleagues have discussed the commitment we make to 
those who serve this country in uniform. It is a commitment that begins 
on the day they volunteer for military service, and it extends through 
their retirement and beyond.
  Just as we have an obligation to servicemembers who work in harm's 
way, we need to offer strong support for those who are left here at 
home.
  Military families bear a burden that must not be forgotten. They 
deserve our utmost gratitude. And their stability and well-being affect 
the readiness of our Armed Forces. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
marines cannot afford to be distracted by worries about those they 
leave at home. We need to address the needs of these families, not only 
to honor the sacrifices they make, but also to provide stability. 
Quality

[[Page S10126]]

education is at the very center of these needs.
  That is why we must increase funding for Impact Aid, a program which 
provides assistance to school districts that serve military families.
  Throughout my career in public service, I have been a strong believer 
in education as a powerful force to shape lives--to give people the 
tools they need and the inspiration that will help them succeed. It is 
the foundation upon which we build our Nation's future.
  But even when we see an improvement in scholastic performance at the 
national level, some groups of students fall further and further 
behind. Many children of Federal workers, including military personnel, 
fall into one of these groups.
  Military bases--and other Federal facilities--occupy land that might 
otherwise be zoned for commercial use. Because of this, local school 
districts suffer from a reduced tax base to fund their expenses. This 
limits the amount that can be spent in the classroom and leaves 
students at a serious disadvantage compared with kids in neighboring 
towns.
  We need to correct this inequity.
  In North Chicago, IL--the home of the Great Lakes Naval Training 
Center--only half of the 4,000 students meet or exceed State standards. 
Even with some Federal assistance, North Chicago's School District 187 
is able to spend just under $7,000 per student, per year.
  But in nearby District 125, they have the resources to spend nearly 
twice as much per pupil, and the school performs among the best in the 
State. An increase in Impact Aid funding would help to level this 
playing field, ensuring that the children of our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and marines are not at a disadvantage because of their parents' 
service.
  Impact Aid funds are delivered directly to the school district in 
need, so they do not incur administrative costs at the State level. 
This makes Impact Aid one of the most efficient--and effective--Federal 
education programs.
  Scott Air Force Base is located in Mascoutah, IL--a community that 
receives Impact Aid funding. The local school district is able to spend 
only $6,000 a year on each child, but 90 percent of the students meet 
or exceed State standards. If these are the results that some students 
can achieve with only $6,000 per year, imagine how well Mascoutah might 
perform with even a small increase in available funds.
  It is vital that we target Federal assistance to the people who need 
it most--like the students in North Chicago and Mascoutah. That is why 
I am proud to be a member of the Senate Impact Aid Coalition, a group 
of 35 Senators devoted to protecting this important program. And that 
is why I believe that the $30 million we have set aside for Impact Aid 
is simply not enough.
  It is time to step up our commitment to military families. It is time 
to make sure all children have access to a quality education, 
regardless of who they are or where they are from.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the House version of 
this appropriations bill, which commits $44 million to the Impact Aid 
Program. And when the legislation reaches conference committee, I urge 
Chairman Levin to defer to the House mark.
  The $14 million difference between the House and Senate versions may 
not seem significant compared to the size of the Federal budget. It may 
not seem significant next to the amount we spend to equip and deploy 
our men and women in uniform. But it will be significant to the 
students.
  Students in North Chicago, and Mascoutah--O'Fallon, and Rockford--and 
hundreds of communities in Illinois and over 260,000 students in 103 
school districts across the United States.
  We owe them the same support we continue to show to their parents in 
uniform. And it is time to step up our efforts to meet that commitment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold that request?
  Mr. BURRIS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I rise today to express my serious 
concerns about the nomination of Mr. Tom Perez to head the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice. First, given his affiliation 
with CASA de Maryland, an extreme immigrant advocacy organization for 
which he served as president of the board, I am concerned that he will 
utilize the Civil Rights Division to undermine immigration enforcement.
  Second, Mr. Perez has made statements indicating that he believes 
health care is a civil right and he has a disturbing view of the 
responsibilities of health care providers. Third, his views on a 
Clinton-era executive order requiring health care providers to provide 
services and documents in languages other than English infringes on the 
right of States to declare English as the official State language. 
Finally, though not directly related to Mr. Perez's qualifications, I 
am deeply troubled by the Department of Justice's failure to respond to 
legitimate requests for information by the Senate, the House of 
Representatives, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the 
Department's decision earlier this year to dismiss the New Black 
Panthers voter intimidation case.
  I know some of my colleagues have more thoroughly discussed Mr. 
Perez's positions on immigration issues, but I want to briefly mention 
some of my concerns. Mr. Perez served on the board of CASA Maryland 
from 1995-2002 and as president of the board from 2001-2002. CASA 
provides assistance to Latinos and immigrants in Maryland; it also 
promotes day labor sites, opposes restrictions on immigrants receiving 
driver's licenses, and supports in-State tuition for immigrants. More 
concerning, CASA has been criticized for issuing a pamphlet that 
instructed immigrants targeted by Federal authorities on what to do if 
they are arrested or detained. The Washington Times ran an article on 
the brochure, noting that it ``features cartoonlike drawings of armed 
black and white police officers escorting Hispanic men in handcuffs and 
shows babies crying because their fathers are behind bars.'' I have 
concerns about Mr. Perez's lengthy association with an organization 
that advocates these extreme positions.
  I also believe Mr. Perez has a disturbing view of the health care 
system and particularly of the responsibilities of health care 
providers. Mr. Perez has made statements indicating that he believes 
health care is a civil right. He also has said that health care 
providers receiving Federal funds must provide services in languages 
other than English or risk forfeiture of those funds due to title VI of 
the Civil Rights Act and a Clinton-era executive order directing 
Federal departments and agencies to ensure that those with limited 
English proficiency, LEP, are given meaningful access to programs and 
activities conducted by the Federal Government or by recipients of 
Federal funds. I would note that this executive order was not enforced 
by the Bush administration. I disagree with Mr. Perez's interpretation 
of the Civil Rights Act, and in 2006, I offered an amendment to 
immigration legislation to repeal the executive order. After I offered 
that amendment, Mr. Perez wrote an article in which he stated that I 
had a ``distressing disregard for the doctor-patient relationship,'' 
and that I would ``undermine meaningful communication between doctors 
and patients--thus relegating those who do not speak English to a lower 
rung of our health care system.''
  After all my years of practicing medicine, I take offense at someone 
stating that I have a ``distressing disregard'' for the doctor-patient 
relationship. I have treated numerous patients who do not speak English 
and found ways to communicate with them. Often these patients have 
family members who speak some English or they find other ways to 
communicate. There is no reason to burden health care providers with 
the expense of having to provide services in languages other than 
English.
  Following the Judiciary Committee vote on his nomination, Senators 
Sessions, Cardin, and I met privately with Mr. Perez to discuss my 
concerns about his positions on health care issues, and not only did he 
not alleviate my concerns, but he also made no effort to apologize for 
his incendiary comments. I believe Mr. Perez fails to understand how 
the executive order undermines

[[Page S10127]]

patient care, and I fear this lack of understanding will affect similar 
policies he will implement if he is confirmed to head the Civil Rights 
Division.
  Although Mr. Perez clearly has a passion for limited English--
proficiency individuals, I am afraid this passion clouds his judgment 
as it pertains to health care treatment and costs and will affect his 
judgment as the head of the Civil Rights Division. As proof, I offer 
the following example. In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget, 
OMB, issued a study which stated, ``we anticipate that the cost of LEP 
assistance, both to government and to the United States economy, could 
be substantial, particularly if the Executive Order is implemented in a 
way that does not provide uniform, consistent guidance to the entities 
it covers . . . provision of language services could be most costly for 
the healthcare sector.'' In contrast, Mr. Perez has stated that he does 
``not believe that Executive Order 13166 has a fiscal impact on State 
or Federal Governments because it imposes no new requirements on 
them.'' This lack of judgment is concerning to me.
  In addition to my disagreement with Mr. Perez on the treatment of 
health care as a civil right, his views on the Clinton-era executive 
order requiring health care providers to provide services and documents 
in languages other than English infringes on the right of States to 
declare English as the official State language. Specifically, the 
current acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Civil 
Rights sent a preemptive letter to Oklahoma's attorney general, 
threatening prosecution and retraction of Federal funds if Oklahoma 
enacted a constitutional amendment pending before the State legislature 
at that time, which would declare English as the official State 
language. It is unprecedented for DOJ to send such a preemptive letter. 
Approximately 30 other States have English-only policies, and, to my 
knowledge, none of these States has received such a letter. Three of 
those States have laws similar to the Oklahoma proposal. Thus, this 
letter to Oklahoma was not directed against its current law, but aimed 
at preventing such a law from being enacted because DOJ views it as 
possibly violating civil rights laws. Subsequently, the Oklahoma 
Legislature passed the amendment, and it will be presented to the 
people for approval in 2010.
  I am disturbed that in written questions for the record, Mr. Perez 
affirmed the Department's position. I asked Mr. Perez if it would be 
appropriate for the Office of Civil Rights to send such a preemptive 
letter, and he stated ``if the Civil Rights Division believes that a 
state's `English Only' provisions do not comply with Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, it would be appropriate for it to issue that 
sort of letter.'' He also stated that the Clinton-era executive order 
does not undermine ``the rights of states to declare English as their 
official language.'' Furthermore, Mr. Perez believes that the executive 
order ``does not create new obligations for states.'' As a result of 
the Office of Civil Rights' letter to Oklahoma, all members of the 
Oklahoma delegation have sent a response letter to Attorney General 
Holder. The letter asks him to explain why the Office of Civil Rights 
sent the letter to Oklahoma, whether similar letters have been sent to 
other States or cities with English-only policies, outline what type of 
funding would be denied to Oklahoma if the law was enacted, and whether 
this preemptive letter-writing process is DOJ's policy. To date, the 
State of Oklahoma has not received a response. Without such 
explanation, it appears that Oklahoma was specifically targeted in a 
political maneuver by DOJ since there was no Oklahoma law enacted that 
violated civil rights laws at the time it sent the letter.
  In his writings, Mr. Perez also has advocated for affirmative action 
in admissions to health care schools because he believes minority 
applicants are more likely to work in underserved populations. On March 
30, 2009, Linda Chavez--former Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights, 1983-1985, and Secretary of Labor nominee--wrote an 
article critical of Mr. Perez's arguments for race-conscious admissions 
policies for health professions schools. She notes that in one article, 
Mr. Perez ``cited a handful of studies that purport to show that 
minority doctors are more likely to provide medical care to underserved 
poor minority populations than white physicians are. He then leapt to 
the conclusion that the best way to improve access to medical care for 
underserved populations was to insist that medical schools use race or 
ethnicity in choosing which students to admit.'' She claims that this 
appears to be an argument in support of ``a form of medical apartheid 
in which minority patients should be served by minority doctors under 
the presumption that both groups benefit from this practice.'' She 
calls this argument ``insulting and dangerous'' and notes that 
``doctors who primarily treat patients enrolled in government programs 
are less likely than those with private insurance to have passed 
demanding board certification in their specialties and to have access 
to high-quality specialists in other fields. Under Perez's rationale, 
it shouldn't matter whether the doctors who serve poor people are less 
likely to be board-certified so long as they are black or brown.'' She 
further notes, ``Perez's solution to the problem is to lower standards 
even further so that more under-qualified minority physicians are 
admitted to practice medicine. Medical schools already admit black and, 
to a lesser degree, Hispanic students with lower qualifications than 
whites or Asians.''
  Finally, I am deeply troubled by the Justice Department's failure to 
respond to legitimate requests for information regarding its decision 
not to pursue the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party voter 
case. Earlier this year, House Judiciary Committee Members exchanged a 
series of letters with the Justice Department requesting an explanation 
for why the Department decided not to pursue the case against the New 
Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation that occurred in the 
November 2008 elections in Philadelphia. These Members sought an 
explanation for the dismissal of the case, which the Bush Justice 
Department had filed in early January 2009. The Justice Department did 
not respond to these inquiries until mid-July, and even then they were 
vague and indicated possible political interference with this case. 
Following the denial of this request for information, the House Members 
asked members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold Mr. Perez's 
nomination until the Department provided a more thorough response. 
Senator Sessions also sent a letter to the Justice Department and did 
not receive an acceptable response. The independent U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights also has demanded that the Justice Department explain its 
dismissal of the lawsuit against members of the Black Panther Party and 
have not received a satisfactory response from DOJ.
  Voter intimidation is unacceptable, and Congress deserves an 
explanation of the Justice Department's actions. Oversight of the 
Department is a legitimate function of Congress, and Members deserve an 
explanation rather than stonewalling. For this reason, I will vote 
against cloture on Mr. Perez's nomination--as a protest to this lack of 
cooperation. I will vote against Mr. Perez's nomination based on the 
aforementioned concerns about his policy positions.
  Madam President, I thank Senator Cardin because he graciously 
arranged a meeting between myself and Senator Sessions and, I believe, 
Senator Kyl several months ago. There is no question that Mr. Perez is 
a very bright, engaging, and competent individual.
  Regretfully, my concerns with his nomination were not allayed by that 
meeting. I think Senator Cardin has done a great job shepherding this, 
and I know the outcome. I still think the American people ought to hear 
about the concerns I have.
  We are in the midst of a lot of difficulty in our country. We are 
struggling somewhat with our mojo, our confidence, with where we are 
going and how we are going to get there. A lot of it comes back to how 
did we ever get to the depth of problems we are having today? I think 
about this a lot, because I think the answer to it is the solution for 
how we get out of the problems we are in. Where do we go? How is it 
that we have an almost $12 trillion debt right now, $100 trillion in 
unfunded liabilities, and a budget deficit this year that, by the time 
you count what we stole from Social Security and

[[Page S10128]]

all the other trust funds, is about $1.8 trillion, and debt that will 
double in 5 years and triple in 10--how did we get there?
  I think this nomination is a key answer for us. How we got there was 
building a Federal Government that has forgotten several things, but, 
most importantly, what the Constitution said about its real role. No. 
2, it has allayed the concerns and the benefits of personal 
responsibility in this country.
  I think Mr. Perez is a fine man, but I think his viewpoint is a 
disaster for the future of this country in terms of what is a civil 
right and what isn't. It is a civil right, according to Mr. Perez, that 
I have to, as a physician or a hospital or a grocery store, interpret 
language for anybody who would come to this country and cannot speak 
the language.
  Our history is that people who have come to our country learned the 
language so they can succeed. One of the things that has made us great 
has been the commonality of English. The very statements Mr. Perez 
would make--that doctors who don't agree and health care providers who 
don't agree with his perception of a civil right of having somebody 
speak your language, no matter what it is, that they don't care about 
their patients and don't care about healing--is a step too far. But 
those are his statements.
  If we are to get out of the problems we are in as a nation, it is 
going to take us time to relook at what made us successful. I mentioned 
all these other problems before, because in the Constitution--I read a 
letter from a constituent this morning about how my obligation for 
Oklahoma is to represent only Oklahoma's interests. I said, you know, 
that isn't the oath I took. The oath I took was to uphold the 
Constitution. So now we have this expansive Federal Government we are 
choking on, not just in terms of its costs but also in terms of how its 
tentacles reach into people's lives. We are getting ready to have a 
health care debate to enhance that by another 25 percent in terms of 
the reach of the Federal Government into your individual lives, and we 
have a nominee for the Justice Department who believes that individual 
responsibility and personal accountability don't fall equally across 
this country, it falls only on those providing services.
  The other issue is the fact that 30 States have English-only 
language. The Justice Department this past spring and summer sent 
notification to the State of Oklahoma on a bill that was in the 
legislature, threatening the State of Oklahoma if they passed that 
bill. Well, 13 other States have identical bills, or laws, on what was 
being passed in the legislature in Oklahoma, and it will come to a vote 
of the people. So the legislature passed it, and it will come to the 
vote of the people this November. But they sent a threatening letter. 
They won't answer our letter asking how many other States have you sent 
that letter to. They didn't. It was about discussing whether an 
individual has any personal responsibility to be able to communicate.
  Finally, we have the Justice Department refusing to answer questions 
about true voter intimidation and the dropping of a case where that 
occurred. You cannot be on both sides of the civil rights issue. You 
can't say it is good over here but not over there. Denying people or 
manipulating voters has as great an impact on individual civil rights 
as any other thing.
  I come to the floor not to say Mr. Perez is not a fine man. But it is 
his kind of thinking that expands well beyond what our Founders ever 
thought was a guaranteed civil right. I readily admit that our Founders 
were wrong on several of those issues. But when we expand it beyond the 
case, that goes away from personal responsibility and accountability. 
There is a balance, and we need to protect everybody's civil rights in 
this country. We are having a human rights hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee right now on some of these very issues.
  Mr. Perez's extreme views, in fact, are that if States have English-
only laws, he will go after that, and if we don't have the same 
viewpoint he has, rather than what the Constitution says and what the 
precedent from court hearings says, I think that will not lead to an 
outcome that will be favorable for our country.
  I will finish up by saying our problems are gigantic. They are not 
simple. There are not simple answers.

  The condition in which we find ourselves is from excess--whether it 
is excess earmarking, excess program, lack of oversight, or the excess 
of one hardened position over a balanced system that protects human 
rights but also does not destroy our system. I believe although Mr. 
Perez is qualified, his foundational biases should eliminate him from 
this position.
  I again thank my colleague from Maryland. He has been very 
accommodating during this course. I had lifted previously my hold on 
Mr. Perez, and I think he knows that. But I am concerned with the 
direction of his leadership and what it will mean in terms of where we 
go as a country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his 
cooperation as we have moved this nomination to the Senate floor and 
will have a vote today. I thank him for the manner in which he handled 
his concerns, his willingness to meet with Mr. Perez, and to talk 
openly about these issues.
  He and I may disagree on one fundamental principle; that is, I think 
civil rights is a basic responsibility of the Federal Government to 
enforce. I think every person in this country should have the 
opportunities that are granted in America. I want to make sure our 
government actively pursues a civil rights agenda because I think that 
is important to protect everyone's rights.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. COBURN. Through the Chair, I ask the Senator, my problem is not 
with that; I agree with the Senator on that. My question is as we carry 
out expansion beyond that in terms of Executive orders that are not in 
the law but are Executive orders that we have never ruled on, and then 
we are going to consider that.
  Specifically I ask him, does he recognize the estimated $6 billion 
cost in the health care system if, in fact, Mr. Perez's interpretation 
of that Executive order was carried to its fullest extent by making 
translation services available to anybody of any language at any time 
throughout the whole country? That would be my question. I appreciate 
his thought.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague for the question. 
Tom Perez, in our discussions, said he would clearly use a reasonable 
standard. I might point out that the Executive order to which the 
Senator is referring was strengthened both under the Clinton 
administration and Bush administration. President Bush's administration 
also believed this was an important provision. The Senator is correct.
  I also point out in regard to the understanding of English, Tom Perez 
comes from an immigrant family and believes very strongly that everyone 
should learn English; that it is an important part of our country. He 
has expressed that openly. He also has indicated that we should be 
doing more to help immigrant families be competent in English.
  The issue here deals with the receipt of health care. One has to be 
able to communicate. One has to be able to communicate with the people 
with whom one comes in contact. We know that is one of the key issues 
on quality care. It was for that reason that both the Clinton 
administration and the Bush administration adopted regulations to deal 
with the ability to communicate when people enter our health care 
system.
  Mr. Perez has indicated in interpreting that regulation that a 
reasonable test must be complied with, but it is certainly an important 
issue in dealing with quality care.
  Let me, if I may, quote one of the individuals who has recommended to 
us that we confirm Mr. Perez as the head of the Civil Rights Division 
and compliments President Obama on his choice; that is, the former 
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under George 
Bush. I am referring to Dr. Sullivan. Dr. Sullivan states:

       Tom Perez is a nationally recognized civil rights lawyer 
     who enjoys an impeccable reputation as someone who is 
     knowledgeable, inclusive, effective, and even-handed. He is

[[Page S10129]]

     an ideal nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil 
     Rights.

  I point out it is unfair to judge Mr. Perez on an Executive order, 
and I think that Executive order is an important part of our health 
care in this country. He, as the enforcer of our civil rights, will 
enforce that Executive order because he knows it is important in 
protecting the civil rights of the people who are in America. But he 
also has a reputation for doing that in a fair manner, an effective 
manner, and an evenhanded manner. That should be the judgment that we 
use in this body as to whether to support his confirmation.
  I think third party validators have made it clear that Tom Perez is a 
person who will exercise that judgment correctly. I hope my colleagues 
will support his confirmation on the floor of the Senate.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to address the nomination of 
Thomas Perez to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
Division at the Department of Justice.
  That is an important position. It requires ability and experience and 
fairness. I think President Obama, as all Presidents, is entitled to 
some deference in selecting executive branch nominees such as this one. 
I have come to the conclusion after some contemplation that I am not 
able to support this nominee. I do not desire that his nomination be 
delayed unless there will be some additional matters that need to be 
looked at of which I am not now aware. So I am prepared to vote up or 
down. I know we have only one vote, and that is a question of cloture, 
whether to bring this nomination up for an up-or-down vote.
  I guess I am at a point where I don't feel comfortable voting either 
way on that if we don't have any other votes. I will wrestle with that 
decision.
  The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is charged 
with protecting the civil rights of all Americans. It is an important 
division. As such, it is critical that the division be free from 
partisanship and not be used as a tool to further an agenda of one 
group or another, one ideology or another.
  The President has chosen this nominee, someone who has a record of 
and a reputation for very strong political activity. That is not 
disqualifying, but it is a matter I am concerned about because I am 
concerned about this division.
  In reviewing Mr. Perez's past statements and his record, I am 
concerned whether he is capable of putting aside partisan beliefs and 
whether he is, therefore, suited to head the Civil Rights Division of 
the U.S. Department of Justice.
  Over the past several months, news reports have raised concerns that 
decisionmaking at the Department and the Civil Rights Division in 
particular have been based on politics and not on protecting civil 
rights. I hate to say that, but real objections have been raised.
  In May, the Justice Department voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit that 
it had won against the New Black Panther Party. During the last 
election, two of that group's members had dressed in military-style 
uniforms and intimidated voters outside a Philadelphia voting place.
  A long-time civil rights activist who was there and who saw it, 
Bartle Bull, called it ``an outrageous affront to American democracy 
and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear.''
  On July 30, the Washington Times reported that a political appointee, 
Thomas Perrelli, the Associate Attorney General of the Department of 
Justice, and third in charge of that great Department, approved the 
decision to suddenly reverse course and drop the complaint. Many people 
have seen the video of that utterly unacceptable activity by the New 
Black Panther Party. Mr. Perrelli's decision to allow this voter 
intimidation to go unprosecuted stands in stark contrast to his 
statements made during the nomination process when he stated:

       I agree that both civil and criminal laws for governing the 
     conduct of elections should be enforced.

  Of course, that is fundamental.
  In May, the Members of the House Judiciary Committee sought an 
explanation from the Department. They had taken a judgment in the case, 
senior career prosecutors had, against this group. The question was, 
apparently they began a discussion of giving it away, setting it 
aside--a judgment they had already taken. Eventually that is what the 
Department did, through some maneuvers that I do not think are 
consistent with the normal processes of the Department of Justice. They 
found one group within the Department whose responsibility did not 
include making these kinds of decisions, they made a decision that it 
was okay to set aside the judgment against them, a civil judgment, I 
think, that they had taken. It was not good.
  The House Judiciary Committee, our colleagues, demanded an 
explanation. The responses of the administration were vague and 
incomplete. In addition, the independent U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights has demanded that the Justice Department explain the dismissal 
of that lawsuit, but the administration rebuffed the request, claiming 
that the Department decided to investigate the case internally through 
its Office of Professional Responsibility. The Department of Justice 
claims it cannot provide information to anyone on the outside until 
that internal investigation is complete.
  Based on the lack of document production and lack of answers from the 
Department of Justice, on September 30, the Civil Rights Commission 
Chairman, Gerald Reynolds, wrote to Attorney General Holder, repeating 
his request for information on previous voter intimidation 
investigations so the Commission could determine whether the 
Department's reversal of course in this case constituted a change in 
policy and what the implications of this would be.
  Chairman Reynolds also pointed out that:

       [M]any aspects of the Commission's inquiry have no 
     connection with the matter, subject to the OPR jurisdiction . 
     . .

  And that if the Department were nonresponsive, the Commission would 
be forced to propound interrogatories and interview requests directly 
on affected Justice Department personnel.
  So even the independent Commission on Civil Rights is concerned about 
this. If you care about voting rights, how did this happen that we 
dismiss a case when there is a video of one of the most blatant 
intimidations you can imagine at a polling place? Serious questions 
have arisen. Was the dismissal of the case a blatant partisan political 
move by the Department of Justice? Was this Black Panther group 
protected because they were on the right side of the election? If so, 
it implicates serious dangers for voter intimidation prosecutions in 
the future, I suggest. Before we vote to approve Mr. Perez as head of 
the Division of Civil Rights, the Senate needs to know how he will 
conduct the office.
  Unfortunately, this kind of issue is only one of the important issues 
he will be facing. In June, it became apparent that the Justice 
Department would work against commonsense measures by States to ensure 
that only citizens would be allowed to vote in elections. The Supreme 
Court has held that States can pass and enforce voter identification 
laws to protect the integrity of elections. Yet according to the 
Associated Press, the Civil Rights Division under Attorney General 
Holder has:

     . . . rejected Georgia's system of using Social Security 
     numbers and driver's license data to check when prospective 
     voters are citizens.

  Rather than working alongside the State of Georgia to ensure that 
only citizens are allowed to vote, which would be a good goal and role 
for the Department of Justice, the Department has worked to ensure that 
the system remains broken. As the Georgia Secretary of State has 
observed:

       The Department of Justice has thrown open the door for 
     activist organizations such as ACORN to register noncitizens 
     to vote in Georgia elections, and the State has no ability to 
     verify an applicant's citizenship status or whether the 
     individual even exists. The Department of Justice completely 
     disregarded Georgia's obvious and direct interest in 
     preventing noncitizens from voting.

[[Page S10130]]

     Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good 
     public policy.

  The Georgia Secretary of State said that. That is a serious charge. 
This is very troubling.
  There seems to be a view by some that the more people who vote, the 
better elections are; that voting in itself is a good thing and we 
should want more and more people to vote. Of course, we want all 
eligible people to vote. It seems to be implicit in this argument that 
it matters little if the people who vote are illegal or the votes cast 
are fraudulent votes. But I contend, I think without much dispute, it 
is as damaging to a fair election to allow someone to vote who is not 
eligible or someone to vote twice, fraudulently, or someone to vote for 
someone who did not show up on election day and slip into the ballot 
box and say: I am John Jones and vote for that person--that does as 
much damage to the integrity of elections as if an individual somehow 
were wrongfully denied the right to vote in the outcome of an election.
  I would be the first to acknowledge that in our past we have, and 
particularly in the South, had blatant examples, before the Voting 
Rights Act predominantly, when people were blatantly denied the right 
to vote. It was a stain on our election process and a stain on the 
integrity of that process. But this is a time we need to be working 
together to make sure every vote is honest and fair and not fraudulent.
  Another example of apparent politics at play in the Civil Rights 
Division occurred in Missouri, where the Department has quietly refused 
to continue an existing ongoing lawsuit that was brought under the 
National Voter Registration Act. That lawsuit was brought 4 years ago 
to enforce a provision that required States to clean up their 
registration lists to prevent voter fraud. According to commentator 
Hans von Spakovsky:

       When the suit was filed in 2005, one-third of the counties 
     had more registered voters than voting-age residents. One 
     county's list was 153 percent of the Census count. And the 
     State had done virtually nothing to clean up its rolls.
       Fast forward to March. There remains no evidence that the 
     voter registration rolls in most Missouri counties have been 
     purged of their thousands of nonresidents and decedents. 
     Registration numbers from the November elections show that 
     there are still more than a dozen Missouri counties with more 
     registered voters than voting-age residents.

  Yet rather than continuing the case to ensure that Missouri cleans up 
its voter registration rolls, the Department of Justice refused to 
pursue the case and dropped it, a distressing sign to me that it does 
not take the integrity of the voting process seriously--certainly not 
seriously enough. Is the Department of Justice committed to integrity 
in the process? Or just allowing anybody who wants to walk in and vote 
to vote? Of course, these decisions have been made by the Civil Rights 
Division before Mr. Perez has been confirmed, that is certainly true. 
He does not have any culpability in these actions. But it just raises 
concerns of mine about: Is he committed to fixing it? Will he correct 
these kinds of decisions? Is he committed to fairness, regardless of 
political impact in an election? There are important rules in voting. 
Those rules must be followed.
  Will he reinstate the case in Philadelphia where there was a clear 
indication of threats and intimidation against voters? Will he correct 
the course that the Civil Rights Division has taken in undermining 
commonsense voter identification laws? Will he reinstitute National 
Voter Registration Act lawsuits to ensure that States clean up their 
voter rolls to prevent voter fraud?
  The way this happens is you have a large number of names on a voter 
roll and a voting precinct and that creates a real danger, if you don't 
have identification, if you don't require the voter to produce any 
identification, the person walks in there and says: John Jones?
  I am John Jones.
  OK, you get to vote, and he votes.
  He goes to the next voting place, he knows somebody's name is on the 
list who is not allowed or not in the district or not going to vote 
that day, and he says: I am Ralph Smith and he signs and votes and goes 
in again and again and again and people have been known to travel all 
over multiple precincts casting votes in the names of persons not their 
own name. It is fraudulent. It demeans the integrity of the entire 
election process as much as if the person had wrongly been denied the 
right to vote.
  I am concerned where Mr. Perez will be in this. He has been pretty 
active politically. When he ran for the Montgomery, MD, county council 
he responded to a question asking ``What would you like the voters to 
know about you?'' Mr. Perez said: ``I am a progressive Democrat and 
always was and always will be.''
  This is a free country and that is all right. I am just saying, in 
all fairness, that statement makes me a little nervous.
  As a councilman, Mr. Perez expressed disdain for Republicans, at one 
point, according to the report, giving ``a 5-minute speech about how 
some conservative Republicans do not care about the poor.''
  In an April 3, 2005, Washington Post article, Mr. Perez was described 
as ``about as liberal as Democrats get.''
  I am also concerned Mr. Perez will not be committed to fully 
enforcing our Nation's immigration laws, some I have worked hard on. We 
need to create a lawful system of immigration. We cannot continue in 
this lawless method as we are, and one of the first things you do to 
reduce illegal immigration is you stop rewarding people who violate our 
laws to come here. He previously served as the President of the Board 
of CASA de Maryland, an immigrant advocacy organization that has taken 
some extreme views and been criticized by a number of people in the 
media. CASA de Maryland issued a pamphlet instructing immigrants 
confronted by the police to remain silent. CASA also promotes day labor 
sites. This is where people, often without lawful status, come and seek 
work and opposes restrictions on illegal immigrants receiving drivers 
licenses. He was President of the Board.
  Mr. Perez, himself, has spoken in favor of measures that would assist 
illegal aliens in skirting U.S. immigration laws. For example, as a 
councilman in 2003, Mr. Perez supported matricula consular ID cards 
issued by Mexico and Guatemala as a valid form of identification for 
local residents who worked and used services, without having any U.S.-
issued documents to prove their identity.
  Of course, after a good bit of examination and public discussion, 
those matricula cards were shown to be unreliable, and that is an 
unworkable way to determine the legal status of someone. But he was a 
defender of the matricula cards, which I think is troubling given the 
position he will be seeking to assume.
  He also supported a bill granting instate tuition rates to illegal 
immigrants in Maryland and stated:

       We have a legal obligation to make the same commitment to 
     hundreds of immigrant high school students who have made 
     Maryland their home.

  We don't have a legal obligation to give people who are illegally in 
the country tuition and certainly not cheaper instate tuition than our 
out-of-state tuition.
  Although Mr. Perez has taken many of these positions while acting in 
a political capacity--and there is a distinction between that political 
advocacy and being the head of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights 
Division--I do think it is reasonable for us to be concerned about 
whether he will use the Department of Justice's resources to advance 
his ideas and an agenda that is not consistent with the highest ideals 
of civil rights.
  I don't believe establishing lawful rules of immigration or lawful 
rules for voting is unfair and contrary to civil rights. Indeed, they 
are a cornerstone. The law is civil rights in a true sense.
  So I am concerned, and we are going to be watching to ensure that the 
Civil Rights Division not be politicized. It must be above politics. It 
must work to protect the rights of all Americans regardless of their 
political party, their race, or background.
  Given the very political decisions apparently being made now in the 
Department of Justice, I think it takes someone committed to rising 
above this kind of activity and to right the ship.
  I have talked with him. I enjoyed that conversation. I certainly have 
no ill will toward Mr. Perez personally.

[[Page S10131]]

But I have to say, I think it is important that we have honesty in 
voting, I think it is important that we have a legal system that works 
with regard to immigration, and at this point I am not convinced Mr. 
Perez has demonstrated he has the will to do those things, and that is 
what troubles me about the nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is available on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I was going to speak, but I see the distinguished Senator 
from Maryland, who has done a superb job in this matter, and I would 
yield him 5 minutes. If he needs more time, I will yield more time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for the way he handles the matters that are brought to the 
floor, the way he handled the nomination of Tom Perez, allowed all 
sides an opportunity to get all the information they wanted. It was 
done in a very fair manner, and I compliment him on his leadership on 
this appointment.
  I wish to comment briefly on Senator Sessions' points relating to 
several issues.
  First, in regard to voting rights, I am in complete agreement with 
Senator Sessions that I want the Civil Rights Division and its 
leadership to deal with the concerns we have of voting in this Nation.
  I am very disappointed that the previous administration basically 
didn't bring any cases to allow people who were intimidated to be able 
to cast their votes. We have had serious problems of groups sending out 
notices on the wrong date of when the elections take place, targeted to 
minority communities. We have had episodes where letters were sent to 
minority communities threatening that if they tried to vote and had 
outstanding parking tickets, they could be arrested. We have seen 
intimidation. I have been a victim myself of that type of activity in 
my campaign for the U.S. Senate where on the day before the election 
fraudulent literature was handed out trying to mislead minority voters.
  So I want the next head of the Civil Rights Division to be actively 
involved in protecting our right to vote. I would hope my colleague 
from Alabama would join me in trying to strengthen the laws. We had a 
bill that then-Senator Obama presented that I joined with Senator 
Schumer and others to give the Department of Justice more power to make 
sure those types of fraudulent activities can't take place.
  I would welcome the support of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle for this important legislation. Let's work together to make sure 
every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast their vote and have it 
counted without intimidation. I know that is certainly going to be a 
major goal of the Civil Rights Division under the leadership of Tom 
Perez.
  My friend from Alabama mentioned the Black Panther case. Well, let me 
point this out: The decision in that case was made by a career 
attorney, not by a political appointee. And that is what I would hope 
all of us would want from the Civil Rights Division, that we take 
partisan politics out of that division, as it was so apparent under the 
previous administration. Tom Perez is committed to allowing career 
attorneys to make those types of decisions. And quite frankly, there 
was an injunction to prevent one of the defendants from that activity. 
So I think we should look at the record and look at what we are trying 
to achieve. Let's not use labels. Let's look at the issues and not 
labels. Look at his record.
  On the immigrant issue, let me point out that Tom Perez is firmly 
committed to enforcing the laws in a fair, evenhanded manner. His 10-
year record at the Justice Department is the best evidence of that 
commitment.
  Quite frankly, I am going read into the Record endorsements because I 
think third-party validators are a good way for us to know what type of 
person we have in Tom Perez. The Judiciary Committee received letters 
of support from a number of former assistant attorneys general to the 
Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, including Bill Lann 
Lee, John Dunne, Deval Patrick, Stanley Pottinger, Stephan Pollak, 
James Turner, Ralph Boyd, and Wan Kim. Several were appointed under 
Republican administrations. This is a quality person who has the 
confidence of those who know of his professionalism in moving forward 
the Civil Rights Division under its traditional leadership in this 
country.
  Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters 
we have received from law enforcement officials and organizations, 
including Colonel Terrance Sheridan, the superintendent of the Maryland 
State Police; Tom Manger, chief of police from Montgomery County, MD; 
Raymond Knight, sheriff for Montgomery County, MD; and the State Law 
Enforcement Officers Labor Alliance of Maryland, and others.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Borough of Haledon Council,

                                       Haledon, NJ, April 3, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: I congratulate President Barack Obama 
     and Attorney General Eric Holder for nominating Thomas Perez 
     for Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. 
     There is no doubt that Mr. Perez's qualifications and record 
     are outstanding. Mr. Perez will lead gracefully the division 
     of the Department of Justice responsible for enforcing 
     federal statutes prohibiting discrimination particularly 
     those statutes that protect the voting rights of our diverse 
     populations. As you know, prior to his election to the 
     Montgomery County Council in 2002, Perez served as deputy 
     assistant attorney general for civil rights, and director of 
     the Office for Civil Rights for the Department of Health and 
     Human Services in the Clinton administration.
       I am aware that one of Perez's most important tasks will be 
     enforcing the Voting Rights Act, one of the most successful 
     enactments of the U.S. Congress in the previous century. It 
     provided millions of African-Americans with the right to 
     register and vote. It also gave African Americans the power 
     to elect candidates of their choice, in turn providing 
     African Americans with a voice in government and the decision 
     making process. The Voting Rights Act has had a positive, 
     albeit less dramatic effect on the election of Latino public 
     officials. According to the US Census Bureau the estimated 
     Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2003, 
     is 39.9 million, making people of Hispanic origin the 
     nation's largest race or ethnic minority. This number is 
     expected to rise significantly in the near future, and does 
     not include the 3.9 million residents of Puerto Rico. It is 
     imperative that the Latino population be better represented 
     in government, and in the electoral process.
       I strongly support Mr. Perez for Assistant Attorney 
     General, and I am confident that he will work with Congress 
     and administration officials to fortify the federal voter 
     registration and election reform laws. With his experience, 
     commitment, and knowledge, Thomas Perez will help to 
     eliminate inequitable barriers in the electoral process; and 
     make certain the Civil Rights Division carefully scrutinizes 
     state redistricting efforts following the 2010 Census.
           Sincerely,
                                             Reynaldo R. Martinez,
     Councilman.
                                  ____



                                        Maryland State Police,

                             Pikesville, Maryland, April 23, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to provide you with a 
     favorable recommendation for Mr. Tom Perez for the position 
     of Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 
     Department of Justice. I have had the privilege and pleasure 
     of working with Tom Perez for the past two years in his 
     capacity as the Secretary of the Maryland Department of 
     Labor, Licensing and Regulation (D.L.L.R.). During this time, 
     Tom was instrumental in assisting the Maryland law 
     enforcement community in its seven year endeavor to enactment 
     regulatory legislation which requires secondhand precious 
     metal dealers and pawn brokers to report transactions 
     electronically. Tom's stewardship of this legislation through 
     the General Assembly was key to its passage during the 2009 
     Legislative Session,
       Under Tom's leadership, his D.L.L.R.. staff has 
     collaborated with various Maryland law enforcement entities 
     to provide training on the regulatory laws controlling scrap 
     metal, pawn, secondhand precious metal, jewelry and traveling 
     gold shows, Additional educational initiatives directed by 
     Tom toward the industries regulated by his agency have 
     resulted in the affected businesses to become more compliant 
     with the state's regulations and to work more closely with 
     law enforcement. As such, D.L.L.R. and law enforcement have 
     become good partners in enforcing the regulations and laws 
     controlling these industries.
       Tom Perez has also been most helpful to the Maryland 
     Department of State Police and the citizens of this state by 
     working closely with businesses who were facing layoffs and 
     downsizing by providing information

[[Page S10132]]

     on recruiting by Maryland Department of the State Police. 
     During these economic times, Tom has shown care and 
     compassion toward those in need of his assistance.
       Tom truly is an honorable man. I would add that Tom has 
     always been fair and honest in our conservations. If he 
     disagreed with a position, he would foster open discussion 
     and listen to opposing viewpoints. In the end, Tom would 
     never allow policy differences interfere or influence a 
     relationship. I believe Tom Perez is an excellent choice for 
     the position of Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 
     Division, Department of Justice. He is a proven leader who 
     can make a difference and has a long history of ensuring the 
     rights of Americans are protected. Thank you again for 
     allowing me the opportunity to provide you with my 
     recommendation of Tom Perez for this most important position.
           Sincerely,
                                             Terrence B. Sheridan,
     Superintendent.
                                  ____

                                             Department of Police,


                                        Montgomery County, MD,

                                    Rockville, MD, April 23, 2009.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Specter and Leahy: I am writing to 
     wholeheartedly support the nomination of Thomas Perez for the 
     position of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. 
     During Mr. Perez's tenure as a Montgomery County (Maryland) 
     Councilman, I was impressed by his integrity, intellect and 
     work ethic. He was a public servant in the truest sense of 
     the word. Mr. Perez brings an ability to tackle complex 
     problems and issues with consensus and common sense.
       Mr. Perez is a public-safety advocate and brought his 
     experience as a civil-rights attorney to benefit the 
     Montgomery County Police Department. His assistance in 
     training our senior police officials was very well received.
       The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice 
     requires someone with high ethical standards and a strong 
     legal mind. Mr. Perez superbly fits the bill. I urge you to 
     support his appointment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 J. Thomas Manger,
     Chief of Police.
                                  ____

                                            Office of the Sheriff,


                                        Montgomery County, MD,

                                    Rockville, MD, April 21, 2009.
     Re recommendation for Thomas E. Perez.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I first met Tom Perez following his 
     election to the Montgomery County (Md.) Council in 2002. At 
     that time I was not familiar with his distinguished career as 
     a federal prosecutor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for 
     Civil Rights, and law school professor. But between 2002 and 
     2006, as Montgomery County Sheriff, I was fortunate to be 
     able to work with Tom on numerous public safety and fiscal 
     matters affecting the operation of the Sheriff's Office.
       I became impressed with Tom's ability to quickly assess the 
     nuances of complex law enforcement, budgetary and employment 
     law issues. He addressed public policy issues with fairness, 
     and in a manner that recognized and balanced the diverse 
     positions involved in governmental decision making.
       Tom's appointment as Secretary of the Maryland Department 
     of Labor, Licensing and Regulation gave him an opportunity to 
     use his expertise to confront problems generated by the 
     current housing foreclosure crisis. Again he was able to 
     craft legislative solutions that recognized and successfully 
     addressed the respective concerns of consumers and commercial 
     interests.
       Speaking as a lifelong law enforcement officer and 
     official, I would be delighted to witness Tom's confirmation 
     and swearing in as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil 
     Rights Division, Department of Justice.
       Please accept my appreciation for your consideration of my 
     views on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Raymond M. Kight,
     Montgomery County Sheriff.
                                  ____

                                             State Law Enforcement


                                      Officers Labor Alliance,

                                                    Annapolis, MD.
       On behalf of State Law Enforcement Officers Labor Alliance 
     (SLEOLA), I am writing to express support for Tom Perez to 
     become the next Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights 
     in the Department of Justice. Having seen his work ethic and 
     fair mindedness at work at Maryland's Department of Labor, 
     Licensing and Regulation (DLLR), we would like to see him 
     bring that same approach to this vitally important Justice 
     Department position.
       The SLEOLA's primary purpose is to unite into one labor 
     organization all eligible organizations whose members are 
     employed with the Maryland State Police, the Natural 
     Resources Police, the State Forest and Park Service, the 
     Maryland Department of General Services and the Maryland 
     State Fire Marshal. One of our constituent groups is the 
     Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Police Force. 
     This is a small contingent of sworn officers responsible for 
     security at DLLR in Baltimore.
       Our officers who work with Secretary Perez see firsthand 
     the dedication he has to the mission of DLLR and the people 
     of Maryland. DLLR is experiencing a renaissance, and it is 
     easily attributed to Secretary Perez's tenure. He displays 
     the character and integrity that make us confident he will 
     bring the kind of rejuvenation we saw at DLLR to the 
     Department of Justice.
       We believe Tom Perez will make an excellent Assistant 
     Attorney General for Civil Rights, and urge you to confirm 
     his nomination.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jimmy Dulay,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CARDIN. We have a quality person who will return the Department 
of Justice Civil Rights Division to its historic role, increasing the 
morale and professionalism in that Department. I am proud to support 
him and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. I applaud the distinguished Senator from Maryland. He has 
been a star in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his support of Tom 
Perez is one of the reasons Mr. Perez went through our committee with 
an overwhelming vote.
  Incidentally, we do have letters of support. One I have which is very 
meaningful--and I think the Senator from Maryland would agree--is the 
letter we received from Senator Kennedy, the late Senator Kennedy. 
While this matter is pending, I ask unanimous consent to have the 
letter from the late Senator Kennedy printed in the Record, as well as 
letters of support from numerous attorneys general, including the 
attorney general of Vermont.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 16, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Pat, Arlen and Members of the Committee: I write to 
     enthusiastically endorse Tom Perez's nomination to be 
     Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department 
     of Justice. As you know, Tom did an excellent job for me from 
     1995 to 1998, on my Judiciary Committee staff when I was a 
     member of the Committee. I believe he's an exceptional choice 
     for Assistant Attorney General, and I urge his prompt 
     confirmation.
       During Tom's impressive service on my staff, he worked hard 
     and well on civil rights, hate crimes, and a variety of 
     immigration, criminal and constitutional issues. Work on 
     civil rights has been at the core of Tom's career, which 
     began as a prosecutor in the Criminal Section of the Civil 
     Rights Division, where he helped bring to justice the 
     perpetrators of hate crimes, including racially-motivated 
     shootings. He also prosecuted law enforcement officials 
     involved in violent and corrupt practices, and his work as a 
     career prosecutor earned him promotion to deputy chief of the 
     Criminal Section.
       After serving on my staff, Tom returned to the Civil Rights 
     Division as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, supervising 
     the Division's criminal prosecutions, and its litigation in 
     the areas of education and employment discrimination. He had 
     a key role in establishing the interagency Worker 
     Exploitation Task Force, which coordinated enforcement of 
     laws against involuntary servitude and trafficking in 
     persons.
       In 1999, Torn became Director of the Office for Civil 
     Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, where 
     he led a staff of 230 people in ensuring that health and 
     human services providers complied with civil rights laws.
       Upon leaving the federal government in 2001, Tom became a 
     professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law. 
     Motivated by his strong desire to make a difference in 
     peoples' lives, Tom also was elected to the Montgomery County 
     Council in Maryland, and became a leader in promoting 
     affordable housing and affordable health care, as well as 
     improvements in education. Finally, for the past two years, 
     Tom has served as Secretary of Maryland's Department of 
     Labor, Licensing and Regulation.
       A main unifying theme of Tom's career is his desire to help 
     people, by ensuring that their rights are protected and that 
     they receive the services they need. His commitment to public 
     service and his ability to be effective in both executive and 
     legislative positions is impressive. He has been energetic in 
     seeking change, and working cooperatively with others to 
     achieve it.
       A second main theme of Tom's career has been his 
     exceptional performance as a lawyer. He's been highly 
     successful as a prosecutor, as a lawyer serving this 
     Committee, as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and

[[Page S10133]]

     as a law professor. Importantly, Tom understands the role of 
     a government lawyer. Having been a career attorney in the 
     Department of Justice, he knows the importance of developing 
     effective working relationships with career employees and 
     making sure that law enforcement decisions are made on the 
     basis of the facts and the law, without favoritism based on 
     partisanship or ideology. In light of the challenges that the 
     Department of Justice, and especially the Civil Rights 
     Division, have faced in recent years, these are indispensible 
     qualities in an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
       Tom's outstanding legal skills, his years of impressive 
     experience as a prosecutor, his career-long commitment to 
     enforcing civil rights, and his thorough familiarity with the 
     legal and policy issues in the Civil Rights Division make him 
     uniquely well qualified to lead the Division now. I strongly 
     urge the Committee to report his nomination favorably.
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy.
                                  ____

         State of New Jersey, Office of the Attorney General, 
           Department of Law and Public Safety,
                                       Trenton NJ, April 23, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chair, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter: I am 
     writing to express my support for the nomination of Thomas E. 
     Perez for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
     Division of the United States Department of Justice. Mr. 
     Perez is exceptionally qualified to lead the Division, 
     possessing demonstrated and impeccable legal, management, and 
     leadership skills.
       I served in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights 
     Division, Criminal Section, from 2001 to 2005, and I remain 
     engaged with the Department through participation in the 
     Executive Working Group. Currently, as Attorney General for 
     the State of New Jersey, I am the chief law enforcement 
     officer in the State, with a mandate to enforce the State's 
     civil rights and criminal laws. I know Mr. Perez to be a 
     committed, dedicated, and highly effective advocate and 
     prosecutor. I look forward to working with Mr. Perez in 
     addressing shared federal and state civil rights priorities.
       Mr. Perez will bring a breadth of advocacy, policy, and 
     leadership experience to the Division. He has had a 
     distinguished career in the Department of Justice, serving in 
     several roles in the Division. He has prosecuted civil rights 
     cases in the Criminal Section and, as the Deputy Assistant 
     Attorney General for Civil Rights, oversaw the Division's 
     complex criminal, education, and employment litigation. Since 
     leaving the Department, Mr, Perez has continued his 
     commitment to public service as a faculty member at the 
     University of Maryland School of Law and a member of the 
     Montgomery County Council. In his current capacity as 
     Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and 
     Regulation in Maryland, Mr, Perez bas gained valuable 
     experience and insights into the priorities and workings of 
     state government, which complements his considerable federal 
     and local leadership experience.
       For these reasons, I am pleased to recommend Mr. Perez to 
     the Committee. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
     questions.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Anne Milgram,
     Attorney General.
                                  ____

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter: As the 
     chief law enforcement officers of our respective states, we 
     write to express our strong support for the nomination of 
     Thomas Perez for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
     Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. 
     We urge his confirmation.
       Secretary Perez's qualifications and credentials are 
     exceptional. He is a nationally recognized civil rights 
     lawyer whose breadth and depth of experience make him an 
     ideal choice to lead the Civil Rights Division. He knows the 
     Division well, having worked there for almost a decade in a 
     variety of critical positions. As a prosecutor in the 
     Division, he was lead attorney in some of the Department's 
     most high profile and complex civil rights cases. As Deputy 
     Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, he oversaw 
     complex litigation in the employment and education areas.
       In Maryland, Secretary Perez, in his current capacity as 
     Secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing and 
     Regulation, has played a key role in the state's response to 
     the ongoing mortgage crisis. He negotiated agreements with 
     six major mortgage servicing companies to provide relief to 
     Maryland homeowners in danger of foreclosure. One of the 
     largest ongoing mortgage fraud prosecutions in the nation 
     originated in Secretary Perez's office. With housing at the 
     top of the Department of Justice's agenda, Secretary Perez 
     will be well-situated to play a major role.
       He has held leadership positions in federal, state and 
     local government, and has worked in all three branches of the 
     federal government. As such, he has an acute understanding of 
     the need for the federal government to work in partnership 
     with state and local governments to safeguard the civil 
     rights of all Americans.
       Heading the Civil Rights Division, like running an Attorney 
     General's office, requires extensive legal, management and 
     leadership skills, as well as extensive experience in 
     building coalitions. Secretary Perez has led important 
     agencies. He currently heads a Department of about 1600 
     employees, and has held other senior positions in the federal 
     government. He has a well-earned reputation as someone who 
     listens, learns quickly, builds consensus, and leads 
     effectively.
       Mr. Perez's distinguished career demonstrates his 
     leadership abilities, integrity and commitment to public 
     service. We are confident that Mr. Perez would be an 
     exceptional Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
     Division and urge you to confirm his nomination.
           Sincerely,
     Terry Goddard,
       Attorney General of Arizona.
     Tom Miller,
       Attorney General of Iowa.
     Martha Coakley,
       Attorney General of Massachusetts.
     Jon Bruning,
       Attorney General of Nebraska.
     Mark Shurtleff,
       Attorney General of Utah.
     Rob McKenna,
       Attorney General of Washington.
     William H. Sorrell,
       Attorney General of Vermont.
                                  ____

       April 29, 2009.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman,
     Committee on the Judiciary.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Ranking Member,
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter: As the 
     chief law enforcement officers of our respective states, we 
     write to express our support for the nomination of Thomas 
     Perez for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
     Division of the United States Department of Justice. We 
     believe that Mr. Perez has the experience, knowledge, and 
     abilities to lead this important Division.
       Secretary Perez would bring exemplary advocacy, leadership, 
     and prosecutorial experience and qualifications to the Civil 
     Rights Division. He is an experienced and nationally 
     recognized civil rights lawyer who knows the Division well, 
     having worked in it for almost a decade in a variety of 
     critical positions. As a prosecutor in the Division, he was 
     lead attorney in some of the Department's most high profile 
     and complex civil rights cases. As Deputy Assistant Attorney 
     General for Civil Rights, he oversaw complex litigation in 
     the employment and education areas.
       In Maryland, Secretary Perez has demonstrated a keen 
     understanding of State government in his current position as 
     Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and 
     Regulation. In this capacity, he has played a key role in the 
     state's response to the ongoing mortgage crisis. He 
     negotiated agreements with six major mortgage servicing 
     companies to provide relief to Maryland homeowners in danger 
     of foreclosure. One of the largest ongoing mortgage fraud 
     prosecutions in the nation originated in Secretary Perez's 
     office. With housing at the top of the Department of 
     Justice's agenda, Secretary Perez will be well-situated to 
     play a major role and to foster partnership with state and 
     local governments to safeguard the civil rights of all 
     Americans.
       Heading the Civil Rights Division, like running an Attorney 
     General's office, requires extensive legal, management, and 
     leadership skills, as well as extensive experience in 
     building coalitions. Secretary Perez has led important 
     agencies. He currently heads a Department of about 1600 
     employees, and has held other senior positions in the federal 
     government. He has a well-earned reputation as someone who 
     listens, learns quickly, builds consensus, and leads 
     effectively.
       Mr. Perez's distinguished career demonstrates his 
     leadership abilities, integrity and commitment to public 
     service. We are confident that Mr, Perez would be an 
     exceptional Assistant Attorney general for the Civil Rights 
     Division and urge you to confirm his nomination.
           Sincerely,
         Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island Attorney General; Richard 
           Blumenthal, Connecticut Attorney General; Alicia G. 
           Limtiaco, Guam Attorney General; Mark J. Bennett, 
           Hawaii Attorney General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney 
           General; James D. ``Buddy'' Caldwell, Louisiana 
           Attorney General; Jim Hood, Mississippi Attorney 
           General; Gary King, New Mexico Attorney General; 
           Richard Cordray, Ohio Attorney General.

  Mr. LEAHY. It is interesting that finally we are getting to this 
nomination. What is troubling to me, as someone who has been here for 
35 years, is

[[Page S10134]]

to see what is happening this year that is really unprecedented: having 
to overcome a Republican filibuster of a nomination that was voted out 
of committee 17 to 2. All but two Republicans voted for it. That was 4 
months ago.
  There are no questions about the qualifications of Tom Perez. He is a 
former special counsel to Senator Kennedy. He has been nominated to run 
the division where he previously served with distinction, spending 10 
years as a trial attorney in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights 
Division, rising to Deputy Chief of the section.
  There is no question about the critical need for leadership in the 
Civil Rights Division, the division charged with enforcing our landmark 
civil rights laws and protecting all Americans from discrimination. Our 
delays in considering this nomination have hindered the work of 
restoring the division's independence and the tradition of vigorous 
civil rights enforcement, especially after the Bush administration 
compiled one of the worst civil rights records in modern American 
history and injected partisan politics into the division's hiring and 
law enforcement decisions.
  We need real leadership to restore the traditional sense of purpose 
that has guided the Civil Rights Division, a division that has acted in 
a totally nonpartisan way to uphold the civil rights of all Americans 
no matter what their political background, as is the priority of 
Attorney General Holder.
  It is a shame this filibuster has held up Mr. Perez for 4 months. The 
President designated Mr. Perez on March 13 and formally nominated him 2 
weeks later. We held his confirmation hearing April 29, over 5 months 
ago. I thank Senator Cardin, who chaired that hearing and did a very 
able job of it. And then after accommodating the request of the senior 
Republican and other Republicans of the Judiciary Committee, we did not 
move immediately to it; we held it over until after the Memorial Day 
recess so they could ask other questions. Mr. Perez's nomination was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee on June 4. Senator Hatch voted for 
him; Senator Grassley voted for him; Senator Kyl, the deputy Republican 
leader, voted for him; Senator Graham and Senator Cornyn voted for him.
  The ranking member, Senator Sessions, and Senator Coburn asked to 
meet the nominee before consideration by the Senate. That meeting took 
place almost immediately after the request. It reportedly went well. 
Unfortunately, despite these efforts, it has taken 4 months to schedule 
Senate consideration of this well-qualified nominee. That makes a 
mockery of the kind of way we should treat the Department of Justice, 
which is the Department of Justice of America for all Americans. It is 
not a partisan place, it is there for all of us.
  In fact, if the Senate Republican minority applied the same standard 
to the consideration of President Obama's nomination of Tom Perez as 
Democrats and Republicans used in considering President Bush's first 
nomination to serve the Civil Rights Division, Ralph Boyd, Mr. Perez 
would have been confirmed many months ago.
  I remember the Boyd nomination well. I chaired the Judiciary 
Committee at the time he was confirmed. We held Mr. Boyd's hearing just 
a little over 3 weeks after his nomination. Compare that with the 
delays here. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee with every 
single Democrat voting for him. Did he have to wait 4 months after 
that? No. He was confirmed 1 day later by a voice vote in the Senate. 
No shenanigans. No partisanship. No posturing for narrow special 
interests. I want to be sure that was heard: no posturing for narrow 
special interests.
  By comparison, it has now been 188 days since Mr. Perez was nominated 
to the same post, even longer since he was designated. It should not 
have taken more than twice as long to consider President Obama's first 
nomination to this post as it took for President Bush's.
  Then President Bush had a second nomination to head the Civil Rights 
Division, Alex Acosta. We moved even more quickly. At that point, the 
Democrats were in the minority. We did not filibuster. We did not 
obstruct. We did not delay. We knew how important it was. We 
cooperated. We agreed to a hearing less than 4 weeks after he was 
nominated. He was reported from the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous 
vote. He was confirmed by a Senate voice vote. It took just 36 days. 
Republicans have dragged the process out on the Perez nomination to 
extend more than five times that long. Democrats didn't do that to 
President Bush. No shenanigans, no partisanship, no posturing for 
narrow special interests.
  President Bush's third nomination to the civil rights division, Wan 
Kim, was also considered and confirmed much more quickly than Mr. 
Perez. He was confirmed in the Senate by a voice vote. There was no 
filibuster. There were no shenanigans. There was no partisanship. There 
was no posturing for special interests. Then Mr. Kim had to resign 
along with Attorney General Gonzales and the entire senior leadership 
of the Bush-Cheney Justice Department in the wake of the U.S. Attorney 
firing scandal and revelations of political hiring and decisionmaking 
that threatened the morale and independence of the Civil Rights 
Division and the Department.
  Indeed, it was that scandal that prevented us from considering 
President Bush's fourth nomination to head the Civil Rights Division. 
Grace Chung Becker refused to answer many questions at her confirmation 
hearing about whether she was involved in politicized hiring and 
decision-making, repeatedly citing the then-ongoing internal 
investigation by the Department as a reason not to answer. In light of 
Ms. Becker's repeated invocation of the investigation in response to 
questions, we had to await its conclusion before moving forward on her 
nomination. Unfortunately, the report from the Department's Inspector 
General and Office of Professional Responsibility was not completed 
until it was too late to consider Ms. Becker's nomination. There is no 
similar cause to delay the consideration of Mr. Perez's nomination. We 
should instead have treated his nomination as we did that of Mr. Boyd, 
Mr. Acosta, and Mr. Kim.
  I say this because the filibuster of Mr. Perez's nomination is 
indicative of the double standard that Republican Senators seem intent 
to apply with a Democratic President. It is wrong. I am not saying that 
Republican Senators don't have the power under Senate rules to do it or 
that it is even unconstitutional. What I am saying is, it is not in the 
interest of the American people. It is bad judgment. It is misspent 
time. It is something we can ill afford. The Civil Rights Division, 
following the scandals of the last administration, needs to be restored 
to the level of prestige it held under both Republican and Democratic 
presidents in the past.
  Ten months into President's Obama's first term, President Obama 
having won overwhelmingly, we find that 16 nominations reported by the 
Judiciary Committee, many of them unanimously, remain pending on the 
Senate's executive calendar. Seven of them were before the last recess, 
including the nomination of Mr. Perez. Five of these nominations are 
for appointments to be assistant attorneys general at the Department of 
Justice. The Department of Justice, which during the Gonzales days 
reached probably its low point, certainly since I have been old enough 
to practice law, we saw was demoralized. We saw the scandals. Now we 
are trying to build it back up.
  So what has happened? Because of Republican foot dragging and 
shenanigans and appealing to special interests, we find five out of a 
total of 11 divisions at the Department do not have a confirmed and 
appointed head. The Office of Legal Counsel, as well as the Civil 
Rights Division, the Tax Division, the Office of Legal Policy, and the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division remain without Senate-
confirmed Presidential appointees to guide them.
  President Obama won the election. President Obama inherited a Justice 
Department that had been wracked by scandal. He ought to be commended 
for trying to put it back. But look what has happened with some of 
these delays. Even his attorney general was delayed for weeks and 
weeks. And when they finally allowed him to have a vote, he got a 
greater vote than any of the last four attorneys general. Is this delay 
for the sake of delay? Is there such resentment that President Obama 
won the election? Then talk to those who voted, but don't hold up the 
Department of Justice. The Department

[[Page S10135]]

is there for Republicans and Democrats and Independents, for all of us. 
We have to do a better job of confirming the leadership team of the 
Justice Department to ensure that the Nation's top law enforcement 
agency is fully equipped to do its job. I hope that all Senators who 
delayed law enforcement in this country will be reminded of that when 
they go home and speak about being in favor of law enforcement.

  I was privileged to spend 8 years of my public life in law 
enforcement. I still breathe deeply the sense of being in law 
enforcement. Every one of us favors good law enforcement. But you are 
damaging law enforcement by holding up these people. I hope now, 
despite this unnecessary filibuster, Republicans and Democrats who 
joined together in the past to help law enforcement will join together 
to confirm this well-qualified nominee.
  Mr. Perez has been nominated to lead the Civil Rights Division, which 
for 50 years has stood at the forefront of America's march toward 
equality. It has a long tradition of independent law enforcement that 
has helped transform the legal landscape of our country and brought us 
closer to the ideal of a ``more perfect union.'' A strong and 
independent Civil Rights Division is crucial to the enforcement of our 
precious civil rights laws.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Perez made clear his commitment 
that the Justice Department would enforce the law. In the arena of 
civil rights, living up to those assurances is particularly important, 
because the nation's civil rights laws ensure that the system works for 
all Americans--no matter the color of their skin, their gender, their 
religious affiliation or their sexual orientation. The civil rights 
laws are the foundation of our Nation's aspiration toward a just and 
fair society.
  That is why so many people were concerned during the last 
administration when we witnessed an abandonment of the Division's 
finest traditions of independence and a rollback of the priorities upon 
which it was founded. The report released nine months ago by the 
Justice Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional 
Responsibility confirmed some of our worst fears about the last 
administration's political corruption of the Civil Rights Division.
  The report confirmed our oversight findings that political appointees 
in the Division marginalized and forced out career lawyers because of 
ideology, and injected a political litmus test into the Division's 
hiring process for career positions. It should come as no surprise that 
the result and the intent of this political makeover of the Civil 
Rights Division led to a dismal civil rights enforcement record. This 
report was just one of the final chapters in the regrettable legacy of 
damage that the Bush administration inflicted on the Justice 
Department, our civil rights, and our fundamental values. It also 
reinforced the need for new leadership.
  Given that Tom Perez has a distinguished record of public service and 
a long career advancing civil rights, I have full confidence that he is 
the right person to restore the Civil Rights Division to its finest 
traditions of independent law enforcement. He is the first person 
nominated to head the Civil Rights Division in over 35 years who has 
experience as a career attorney in the Division.
  In addition, he has worked on civil rights at various levels of 
Federal, state and local government, serving as Special Counsel to 
Senator Kennedy, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, 
Director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and 
Human Services, and currently as Maryland's Secretary of Labor, 
Licensing, and Regulations. His impressive credentials also include 
graduating from Brown University, Harvard Law School, and the Kennedy 
School of Government. By confirming this highly qualified nominee 
today, we will take a significant step forward.
  Numerous major civil rights and law enforcement organizations have 
written to endorse Mr. Perez's nomination, including the Leadership 
Conference for Civil Rights, the National Women's Law Center, and the 
chief law enforcement officers of the States of Arizona, Iowa, 
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, and Vermont. Those chief law 
enforcement officers wrote: ``Secretary Perez's qualifications and 
credentials are exceptional'' and ``[h]e is a nationally recognized 
civil rights lawyer whose breadth and depth of experience make him an 
ideal choice to lead the Civil Rights Division.'' The Leadership 
Conference of Civil Rights wrote: ``It will take strong and reliable 
leadership combined with extensive experience at the Division to 
restore the Division to its previous prominence in the enforcement of 
civil rights laws. Tom Perez is the right person to take on that 
challenge.''
  Mr. Perez's nomination has also earned support from both sides of the 
aisle. Former Republican staff members of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee have described him as ``a public official of the highest 
integrity . . . whom the Committee and the nation can be proud.'' These 
Republican staffers who worked with Mr. Perez describe him as a person 
``more interested in `moving the ball forward' for the common good than 
in scoring political points at the expense of his adversaries.'' 
Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who worked with the nominee 
when he served as Maryland's Secretary of Labor, Licensing, and 
Regulation, wrote that Tom Perez is committed to ``serving the public 
good.'' He also wrote ``it is hard to imagine how President Obama and 
Attorney General Holder could have made a better choice.'' Senator 
Mikulski of Maryland said, ``I am confident Tom Perez will get the 
Civil Rights Division back on track'' and he ``will restore our 
reputation . . . of tolerance and equal rights and protection for 
all.''
  Mr. Perez intends to make restoration of the Civil Rights Division 
and its mission a priority. He has pledged to follow in the footsteps 
of his mentor, his former boss, Senator Kennedy, and rekindle the 
bipartisanship that has characterized the fight for civil rights 
throughout our Nation's history by returning the division to its law 
enforcement roots. Let us not go back to an era in the Senate when we 
were opposed to civil rights enforcement. Let's support this well-
qualified nominee. Let's go back to enforcing the civil rights laws.
  Does the Senator from Vermont have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Less than 1 minute.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am so proud the Senate will confirm 
Maryland's own Thomas Perez to be Assistant Attorney General for the 
Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. I commend the 
Senate for its action. The Civil Rights Division has gone far too long 
without leadership that achieves its goals.
  Secretary Perez is well suited for this crucial position. As 
Maryland's secretary of labor, Mr. Perez inherited a department that 
had been neglected and minimized. He quickly took control by 
reenergizing and reinvigorating the Department and I have no doubt that 
he will do the same for the Civil Rights Division.
  The Civil Rights Division was created in 1957 and was a key force in 
desegregation. The division was charged with protecting minority rights 
including the right to vote. However, a division that was once a source 
of pride at the Department of Justice was decimated and caught up in 
political hiring under the previous administration. Civil rights 
enforcement was put on the back bench and productivity plummeted. Now 
more than ever the Department of Justice needs someone to restore 
morale to hardworking career employees and public confidence in 
Department. Thomas Perez is the right man for the job.
  Thomas Perez meets my criteria for nominees: competence, commitment 
to the mission of the agency, and integrity. His competence to serve in 
this position is unquestionable. Mr. Perez graduated cum laude from 
Harvard Law School, and has amassed extensive experience in civil 
rights laws as a chief of the Civil Rights Division and Director of 
Civil Rights Office for Health and Human Services. His commitment to 
the agency was demonstrated by his work as a civil rights attorney at 
the Department, where he secured convictions in a high profile race-
motivated hate crime in Lubbock, TX, involving defendants who went on a 
killing spree directed at African Americans. Lastly, his integrity 
stems from his upbringing in a hard-working

[[Page S10136]]

immigrant family. It was demonstrated as he prosecuted public officials 
for corruption and violators of our Nation's laws.
  I am confident that Mr. Perez will get the Civil Rights Division back 
on track with enforcing this country's civil rights laws. I have no 
doubt that he will combat discrimination, protect minorities, and hold 
violators accountable. Today we restored our reputation of embodying 
this country's values of tolerance and equal rights and protection for 
all. I thank my colleagues for their strong support of his 
confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I have any remaining time, I yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Vermont is 
yielded back.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Tanker Pricing

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to discuss a matter that 
is unrelated to the pending nomination. I have been concerned about the 
competition for the Air Force's No. 1 acquisition priority, the KC-X 
replacement aerial refueling tanker. This competition was opened for a 
second time on September 25 with the release of the RFP to the two 
bidders. We know this has been a troubled acquisition program. People 
actually went to jail early on in the process for attempting to create 
a sole source lease agreement. That breach of the public trust caused 
the Senate and Congress to mandate that a full and open competition be 
held to replace the Air Force's aging tankers. Full and open 
competition language was included in the 2005 Defense Authorization Act 
explicitly to prevent one competitor from having an unfair advantage 
over the other.
  A troubling fact has come to my attention regarding the second round 
of tanker competition. The Air Force released Northrop Grumman's 
proposed pricing for the KC-X tanker to Boeing, the other competitor, 
at the end of the first competition, a competition that resulted in 
Northrop Grumman being declared the winner. I am told that such a 
release of pricing data was within acquisition regulations and that it 
is customary that the pricing data for the winning proposal, in this 
instance the Northrop Grumman proposal, be shared with the other 
competitors. The Department of Defense has stated that the Air Force 
did disclose the winner's pricing information to the losing competitor 
after last year's source selection. The Department of Defense further 
stated:

     . . . this disclosure was in accordance with regulation and 
     more importantly that it created no competitive disadvantage 
     because the data in question are inaccurate, outdated, and 
     not germane to this source selection.

  That statement might sound reasonable if it were not your pricing 
data that had been given to your competitor, but it certainly flies in 
the face of even the simplest definition of fairness. Let's be clear. 
This round of the KC-X competition is based on the same capabilities 
development document, the CDD, as the last, and the winner of the last 
competition is going to be bidding using the same aircraft they won 
with last time. How is their pricing data not germane to this round of 
competition? If is it not relevant, why won't the Department give both 
competitors the same insight to each team's pricing from the last 
competition?
  Earlier this year we passed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2009 and dedicated an entire section of that act to the need for 
fair competition. A basic tenet of effective competition is 
transparency to all bidders. In both versions of the 2010 authorization 
bills currently pending in this session, there is language that directs 
a fair and open competition, as has been true in previous years as we 
considered this acquisition project. It is a big one. It is important. 
It is the Air Force's No. 1 acquisition priority.
  I stand behind the Air Force in their recognition of the need to 
reestablish their credibility. It had been lost somewhat in the 
improprieties that turned up several years ago. But I am disheartened 
by the fact that they don't seem to understand this issue of not 
sharing the same pricing data between the two bidders undermines their 
credibility and fairness. The Air Force certainly can't take the 
Northrop team's pricing data back. It has already been given to Boeing. 
It is too late for that. There is a simple fix to this problem. Both 
competitors should have the pricing data from the last competition. 
That is the only practical way to level the playing field. It is the 
right way to go forward with replacing an aging tanker fleet, some of 
which are over 50 years old. By the time the new tankers are in place, 
some existing tankers will be 80 years old. Releasing this data is what 
a fair competition requires and what the Air Force should do.
  I understand that the bill managers have selected a certain number of 
amendments to consider and this amendment will not be selected for a 
vote. I have some amendments that have been selected. I understand the 
managers' constraints, but I believe the Air Force should consider this 
simple step toward fairness and should be committed to making sure one 
side does not have an unfair advantage over the other.
  I have talked with Senators Coburn and Vitter who have an interest in 
this nomination. They have agreed to vitiate the cloture vote and 
proceed to an up-or-down vote on the nominee.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on this matter be vitiated and that it be in order to request the 
yeas and nays for a vote up or down at 12:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Thomas E. Perez, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and 
the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 306 Ex.]

                                YEAS--72

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     LeMieux
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Burr
     Byrd
     Lieberman
     Sanders
     Specter
     Udall (CO)
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  Under the previous order, the President shall be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action.

[[Page S10137]]



                          ____________________