[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5735-S5737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Perez Nomination

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concerns over 
the President's nomination of Thomas Perez to be Secretary of the 
Department of Labor.
  When executing its advice-and-consent role, which, of course, is 
ensconced within the Constitution itself, it is the duty of the Senate 
to ensure that the people the President appoints to positions of power 
are of the highest caliber. It is our duty to examine their record and 
to determine whether each nominee ought to be granted the public trust.
  While no one can deny that Mr. Perez has spent his career in public 
service, I am afraid his record raises serious concerns over his 
ability to fairly and impartially lead the Department of Labor. Mr. 
Perez has a documented record of acting with political motivation and 
being a partisan, selective enforcer of the law. He has been misleading 
in his sworn testimony and ethically questionable in some of his 
actions.
  For example, during his tenure at the Department of Justice, Mr. 
Perez has been in charge of the Civil Rights Division, which includes 
the voting rights section. One would hope that if any part of the 
Department of Justice would be apolitical, it would be the Civil Rights 
Division. But under Mr. Perez's watch, the voting rights section has 
compiled a disturbing record of political discrimination and selective 
enforcement of the law.
  You don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is take a 
look at the 258-page report issued by the Department of Justice 
inspector general earlier this year.
  The report cites a ``deep ideological polarization'' of the voting 
rights section under Mr. Perez. It goes on to say this polarization 
``has at times been a significant impediment to the operation of the 
Section and has exacerbated the potential appearance of politicized 
decisionmaking.''
  Instead of upholding and enforcing all laws equally, Mr. Perez 
launched politically motivated campaigns against commonsense 
constitutional provisions such as voter ID both in Texas and in South 
Carolina.
  The Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion written by John 
Paul Stevens, who was, by all accounts, an independent member of the 
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the United States held that 
commonsense voter identification requirements are not an undue burden 
on the right to cast one's ballot and, indeed, are a reasonable means 
by which voter fraud is combated and protection of the integrity of the 
ballot is ensured.
  Yet Thomas Perez, working at the Department of Justice, targeted the 
voter ID requirement passed by the Texas Legislature and blocked it 
effectively, and the same thing in South Carolina, based on nothing but 
politics--certainly not based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent that 
states it was not an undue burden on the right to vote, and it was a 
legitimate means to protect the integrity of the ballot and to combat 
fraud.
  The inspector general goes on to describe misleading testimony that 
Mr. Perez gave before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2010 about 
a prominent voting rights case, stating that it ``did not reflect the 
entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees.'' This 
is why, when you are sworn in as a witness in court, you are asked to 
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When what 
you say is the truth but you leave out other information, it can, in 
effect, by

[[Page S5736]]

its context, not be truthful. This is part of the problem with the 
testimony Mr. Perez gave before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
  Going further back, we can see Mr. Perez's ideological roots started 
as a local official in Montgomery County, MD. During his tenure on the 
county council, he consistently opposed the proper enforcement of our 
immigration laws. In fact, he went so far as to testify against 
enforcement measures that were being considered by the Maryland State 
Legislature.
  Finally, there is the matter of Mr. Perez's quid pro quo dealings 
with the City of St. Paul, MN. Of course, I am referring to the well-
publicized decision of Mr. Perez to withhold Department of Justice 
support for a lawsuit against the City of St. Paul. He did so in 
exchange for the city withdrawing a case that it had before the Supreme 
Court, a case that many would have believed would have resulted in the 
Court rejecting an aggressive interpretation of the Fair Housing Act 
that guided Mr. Perez and the Department of Justice.
  In fact, that is the reason he did it. He was afraid the Supreme 
Court would rebuke the Department of Justice's aggressive 
interpretation of the Fair Housing Act. While this may not have been a 
direct violation of any laws, it is, at best, ethically dubious.
  In summation, we have a nominee for the Department of Labor who has a 
record of ideological, polarizing leadership; giving incomplete and 
thereby misleading testimony before official tribunals; and of 
enforcing the law in a partisan and selective manner--in essence, a 
``you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours'' way of going about the 
public's business.
  As citizens we should ask, Is this the type of person we would want 
to serve in the President's Cabinet? As Senators, we ought to ask, Is 
this the best we can do for the Secretary of the Department of Labor?
  I believe Mr. Perez's record disqualifies him from running this or 
any other executive agency of the Federal Government. I fear his 
leadership would needlessly politicize the Department and impose top-
down ideological litmus tests. For all these reasons, I oppose his 
nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
nomination of Fred Hochberg to be the President and Chairman of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
  Despite taking the helm of the Bank in the midst of the worst 
financial crisis since the Great Depression, Mr. Hochberg's leadership 
expanded financing for American exporters when private financing was 
nearly impossible to acquire. In 2012, the Export-Import Bank helped to 
support an estimated 255,000 American jobs at 3,400 companies, and 85 
percent of Export-Import Bank transactions directly benefited small 
businesses.
  The Export-Import Bank is self-sustaining, charging fees to cover its 
expenses and creating no cost to U.S. taxpayers. Furthermore, since 
2008, the Bank has been able to send nearly $1.6 billion in profits to 
the U.S. Treasury.
  Mr. Hochberg was first nominated to be President and Chairman of the 
Export-Import Bank on April 20, 2009, and he was confirmed unanimously 
by this body on May 14, 2009. Mr. Hochberg was renominated by President 
Obama on March 21, 2013, and he was approved 20-2 in the Senate Banking 
Committee on June 6, 2013. I urge my colleagues to once again confirm 
Mr. Hochberg without delay.
  If we fail to confirm Mr. Hochberg before July 20, we run the risk of 
leaving the Bank without a quorum to act on many of the transactions 
before it--creating an uneven playing field for American workers and 
exporters.
  Mr. Hochberg's nomination is supported by both labor and business 
groups. These two groups understand the importance of the United States 
not unilaterally disarming against our global competitors. The Bank 
plays a very important part in this country's efforts to expand exports 
and create good, high-paying jobs in America. Mr. Hochberg has been 
instrumental in this effort and should be confirmed.
  I urge all my colleagues to support President Hochberg's nomination 
today.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
confirmation of the Hochberg nomination occur at 3:40 p.m. today; that 
if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that 
no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed 
in the Record; and that President Obama be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action.
  What time is it right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 3:33 p.m.
  Mr. REID. I wish to modify my request to reflect a voting time of 
3:35.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Senators should expect two votes; the vote on confirmation 
of the Hochberg nomination to the Ex-Im Bank and the vote on the motion 
to invoke cloture on the Perez nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Fred P. 
Hochberg to be president of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States?
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Ex.]

                                YEAS--82

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Barrasso
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair directs 
the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland, to be Secretary of Labor.
         Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Patrick J. Leahy, Bill Nelson, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Kaine, Jack 
           Reed, Barbara A. Mikulski, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod 
           Brown, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey Jr., Bernard 
           Sanders, Al Franken, Robert Menendez, Barbara Boxer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.

[[Page S5737]]

  The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute so 
that I may be able to read a letter with regard to the upcoming vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senate will be in 
order.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, is there a unanimous consent request 
pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request pending. 
The Senator from Florida has asked unanimous consent for a minute to 
read a letter with regard to the nomination.
  Mr. HARKIN. Then I ask for 1 minute following the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Florida? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. RUBIO. Before we vote on this, especially to my colleagues on the 
Republican side, we are about to give 60 votes to a nominee who is not 
in compliance with a congressional subpoena.
  I have in my hand a letter sent to me moments ago by Darrell Issa, 
the chairman of the Oversight Committee in the House, where he writes 
in part that ``Mr. Perez has not produced a single document responsive 
to the Committee's subpoena. I am extremely disappointed that Mr. Perez 
continues to willfully disregard a lawful subpoena issued by a standing 
Committee of the United States House of Representatives. . . . This 
continued noncompliance contravenes fundamental principles of 
separation of powers and the rule of law. Until Mr. Perez produces all 
responsive documents, he will continue to be noncompliant with the 
Committee's subpoena. Thank you for your attention to this matter.''
  He goes on to note, by the way, that Mr. Perez has not produced a 
single document to the committee; therefore, he remains noncompliant.
  Members, you are about to vote to give 60 votes to cut off debate on 
a nominee who has ignored a congressional subpoena from the House on 
information relevant to his background and to his qualifications for 
this office.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. The Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the contentions made by the Senator are 
absolutely wrong. We had a hearing on this. We explored it in our 
committee. Instead of the 1,200 e-mails they cite, we are talking about 
that over a 3\1/2\-year period there were 35 e-mails located on his 
personal emails that touched Department of Justice business and were 
not forwarded to the Department of Justice, and those have been looked 
at, and none of them demonstrate that he acted improperly or 
unethically. When they were discovered, the e-mails were immediately 
forwarded to the DOJ server and are now part of the DOJ record 
retention system.
  I might add that the 35 e-mails were made available to the House 
Oversight Committee staff prior to Mr. Perez's confirmation hearing, 
and the Senate HELP Committee staff have also been offered access to 
review all of those e-mails.
  The contentions made by the Senator from Florida are just absolutely 
wrong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the nomination of Thomas Edward Perez, of Maryland, to 
be Secretary of Labor shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Ex.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________