mr. perez, stepped in. and he -- he's an enormous fan of the disparate impact theory. in fact, he had used it to go after banks, of all things, in his time at the department of justice. and, by the way, at some point neuter, i will come to the floor and detail why i object to his nomination, why i object to his appointment and to his confirmation. but today i'm just make the argument why it's a bad idea to move forward on this nomination until certain questions are answered. this is where mr. perez steps in and what he basically did is he basically went to the city of st. paul and said look, if you drop your supreme court case, if you drop your supreme court case, we will not intervene in the whistle-blower case. it's what is known in latin as a quid pro quo. you do this for me, i'll do that for you. city of st. paul, drop your supreme court case and i will not intervene on behalf of the department of justice. he argues reasons why he did that were based on -- he told the house committee the reason

why i did that is because i thought this was a bad case, had bad facts and interto move forward on the h.u.d. whistle-blower case anyway. he claimed that. but in fact, a subsequent investigation found that a career attorney in the department of justice actually didn't feel that way at all. a career attorney who was involved in this case believed it was a good case and, in fact, in a meeting did about the case he expressed concern that this looked like we were buying off, quote-unquote, the city of st. paul. so right away the nominee had quite, frankly, misled the committee when he argued it was a bad case, that's not true. the career prosecutor wanted to move forward and was concerned what this looked like, this was a buy-off. but then the nominee was asked, by the way, did you use your personal email to conduct this deal? did you e-mail with people about it? we understand your federal

account, we have is access to that but you the did you use your personal accounts? we all have business accounts and personal accounts. the question was, did you use your personal accounts to cut this deal or to negotiate this deal or even talk about it with anybody? his answer was he couldn't recall. he had no recollection of that. but subsequently, however, it was discovered in fact he had used on at least one occasion initially, he had useds email to discuss something one someone at the city of st. paul. so that's when the house oversight committee stepped in and it asked him voluntarily and the justice department voluntarily to produce any emails from his private account that had to do with his official capacity. under the request. it wasn't emails between you and your children or your family or send us emails about you planning your vacation. what they asked for was any emails from private accounts that have to do with your official capacity and the

justice department responded to that request by saying we have found 1,200 instances of the use of his personal emails for official business and we found at least the number initially was 34 but then 35 instances where it violated the open records laws of the federal government. so he was voluntarily asked to produce these emails to the house. he refused. the house then subpoenaed these records. a subpoena which has the power of congress behind it basically compelling you, you must produce it now. and again he refuses to produce these emails. so we have before the senate today a nominee to head the labor department of the united states of america that refuses to comply with other a congressional subpoena on his email records regarding his official business conduct. refuses to comply. won't even answer. ignores it. here's what i would say to you. how can we possibly vote don

firm somebody if they refuse to produce relevant information about their official conduct? think about that. this is an invitation for any official in the executive branch to basically conduct all their business in their private accounts because they know that they will never have to produce it. they can just ignore the congress. now, the nominee mr. perez, hides behind the department of justice and says they're handling this for me. the problem is the department of justice does not toe poa gleez these emails. they're from his personal account that he refuses to produce. if in fact there was nothing to worry about, i haven't seen the emails, none of us do, that's the point, the fact is we're now being asked to vote to confirm someone, to give him 60 votes to cut off debate on the nomination of someone who is in open contempt of a congressional subpoena and repeated requests including a bipartisan request. i have it here me.

a bipartisan request signed by mr. issa of california, mr. cummings, the ranking minority member dated may 8, 2013, we write to request you produce all documents responsive to the subpoena issued by the committee regarding your use of nonofficial email account to conduct official department of justice business. the department is represented to the committee, the justice department has told the committee there are roughly 1,200 such i mails that exist. the. to allow the committee to examine these emails produce these documents in unredacted form no later than may 20, 2013, and the answer is nothing, silence, crickets. this is wrong. how can we possibly move forward on a nominee,, i don't care what deal has been cut, how can we move forward on someone until we have information they've been asked by a congressional

committee, this is outrageous. if ever there was an instance where someone's nomination should not move forward this is a perfect example of it. i'm not standing here saying deny this nominee 60 votes because i think he's a liberal act have vis. i do and i think that's the reason he shouldn't be confirmed, what i'm saying to my republican colleagues is i don't care what deal you cut, how could you possibly agree to move forward on a nomination when the nominee refuses to comply with a congressional subpoena to turn over records about official business at the justice department and, by the way, we're not confirming him to an ambassador post in some obscure country halfway around the world. this is the labor department. this is the labor department. i am shocked that there are members of my own conference that would be willing to go forward and ahead on a nomination like this that are willing to give 60 votes on a nomination like this on a

nominee that is quite frankly flat-out refused to fly comply with a congressional subpoena and answer questions that are legitimate and important. weiner about to make someone the head of one of the most powerful agencies in america, impacting the ability of businesses to grow and create jobs at a time quite frankly where our economy did not sn doing very well, we're about to nominate and appoint someone to chair that agency to head up that agency when that individual has refused to comply with a legitimate request. mowrk we possibly go along with that? -- how can we possibly go along with that? i understand how important it is to protect the rights of minorities here. i understand how important it is to protect the right of the minority party to block efforts to move forward. but my goodness, what's the point of even having the 60 voatd threshold if you can't use it for legitimate reasons? this is not me saying i'm going to block this nominee until i

get something i want. this is a nominee that refuses to cooperate, that flat-out has ignored congress and told them to go pound sand and you're going to vote for this individual to move forward until this question is answered? i would implore my colleagues quite frankly on both sides of the aisle because this sets a precedent. there won't be a democratic president forever. and there won't be a senate democratic majority forever. but at some point in the future you will have a republican president, and they're going to nominate people and those people may refuse to comply with a records request. and you're not going to want those records? you're not going to say -- u in the past blocked people for that very purpose. so i ask my colleagues again, how can you possibly move forward on a nominee that refuses to comply with giving us the information we need to fully vet that nomination? this is a serious constitutional

obligation we have. do we have an obligation to the senate being a unique labor legislative body? but even more important to the constitution and to the role the senate plays in reviewing information and we are being blatantly denied relevant information and we have colleagues of mine say doesn't matter, move forward. this is wrong. it's not just wrong, it's outrageous. again, i do not think that we should use -- nor do i think we have, by the way, used the 60-vote threshold, as a way to routinely block nominees moving forward. this president has done very well with his nomination across the board. judiciary, cabinet, executive branch, but my goodness, could we at least agree that i have a right as a senator from florida all of you have a right as a senator from your states to have information, all the information, all the relevant information on these nominees before we move forward, and i'm telling you if ear ready to

concede that point what's the point of having the 60-vote threshold if you can never use it for legitimate purposes? i would argue to my colleagues today, let's not have this vote today. let's not give 60 votes on this nominee until he produces these emails and we have time to review them so we can fully understand what was behind not just this quid pro quo deal but behind his public service at the justice department, as an assistant attorney general. quite frankly confirmed by this senate with the support of republicans. this is not an unreasonable request. and for us to surrender the right to ask these questions is a der riks liks of -- dereliction of duty and it is wrong. if ever there was a case in point why the 60-vote threshold matters this this is an example of one. if this moves forward there is no reason why any future nominee would not decide to give us the same answer, i tell you

nothing, i tell you what i want you to know and we are forced to vote up or down on someone we do not have information on and that is wrong. so there is still time to change our minds on this. this is a legitimate exercise of this, not forever, let them produce these emails, let us review these emails and then bring him up for a vote and then you can vote on him whether you like it or not based on all the information. but to allow someone to move forward who is basically telling an oversight committee of congress i don't have to answer your questions, i don't have to respond to your letters, i ignore you, i want you to think about the precedent you're setting. i want you to think about how that undermines the constitutional, not just the right, the constitutional obligation of this body to provide advice and consent on presidential nominees. and i think this is especially important when someone is going to be a member of the cabinet and overseeing an agency with the scope and the power of the labor department.

and so i still hope there is time to convince as many of my colleagues as possible, i don't hold great hopes i will con convince a lot of my democratic colleagues but i hope i can convince the majority of my republican deletion to refuse to give 60 votes to cut off debate until chairman issa and the oversight committee gets answers to their questions that, frankly, we would want to know. they've taken leadership on asking the questions but we're the ones who have to vote on the nominee. we should at a minimum stand here and demand these be answered before we move forward. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm glad the majority saw the light and stepped back from committing a tragic mistake. it's good news for our country and for our democracy. now that that's behind us we can get back to debating the issues our constituents are concerned about. a lot of my constituents are concerned about obamacare. this is that a law basically passed against their will and it's a law imposed on them by a distant bureaucracy headquartered here in washington. if the folks in d.c. are to be believed, its implementation is going just simmingly. the -- swimmingly. the democratic leader in the house of representatives called it fabulous. the president said the law is working the way it's supposed to. and my friend the majority leader said just the other day that -- quote -- "obamacare has been wonderful for america."

fabulous? wonderful? these aren't the kind of words one normally associates with a deeply unpopular law or one that media reports suggest is having a very painful impact on americans we represent. which sets up an important question for senators to consider. just who are we prepared to believe here? when it comes to obamacare. the politicians who developed it or the people who are reacting to it? the politicians in washington who forced this law on the country say everything is just fantastic. they spent millions on slick ads with smiling actors and sunny sounding scripts that blissfully -- i'm being kind here -- blissfully dismiss what the reality of this law will actually look like to so many americans. or what the reality of the law has already become, already

become, for some of them. that's why the people -- why the people have taken an entirely different view of this. they're the ones worried about losing the coverage they like and want to keep, which is understandable given the growing number of news stories about insurance companies pulling out of states and markets altogether. and they're the ones worried about their jobs and their paychecks. each anecdote we hear about a college cutting hours for its employees or a restaurant freezing hiring or a small business already taking the ax to its work force at such an early stage, each is a testament to just how well this law has been working out for the people we were sent here to represent. according to the chamber of commerce small business survey released just yesterday, anxiety about the requirements of obamacare have now surpassed economic uncertainty as the top worry for small business.

the impact of obamacare now surpasses economic uncertainty as the top worry for small business owners. here's another thing, when even cheerleaders for the law start to become its critics, that's when you know there's something to this train wreck thing everybody keeps talking about. unions -- unions are lived. even though they helped pass the law, it's because they see their members losing care and becoming less competitive as a result of it. that's why they fired off an angry letter to congress just this week. the california insurance commissioner's troubled, too, even though he's been one of obamacare's biggest boosters. he's so worried about fraud that he warned we might have a real disaster on our hands. well, it's hard to argue with him. the president was so worried about some of this law turning into a disaster that he selectively delayed a big chunk of it.

but he only did that for businesses, just delayed it for businesses. a constituent of mine was recently interviewed by a tv station in payday duk paducah as what she said about the president's decision -- quote -- "it ain't right." well, she's not alone. we can argue about whether the president even had the power to do what he did but here's the point today. if businesses deserve a reprieve because the law is a disaster, then families and workers do too. because if this law isn't working the way it's supposed to, then it's a terrible law. and if it's not working as planned, then it's not right to foist it on the middle class while exempting business. that's why the house will vote this week to at least try remedy that. it's an important first step to giving all americans and all businesses what they really ne need, which is not a temporary delay for some -- not a

temporary delay for some -- but a permanent delay for everyone. the politicians pushing obamacare might not like that, but they're not the ones who are having to live with this thing the same way most americans will have to live with it. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in process be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent i be recognized as if in morning business for what time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. i last wednesday came to the floor and talked about the president's global warming speech that he had made a couple weeks ago, and all that the white house is doing to help frame the debate with the talking points memo. you remember, the talking points memo is the memo that he used to get people to talk about -- to respond to his speech, what to say and what not to say. we happened to intercept that, and it was very, very interesting. also they had the secret meetings that took place with some of the alarmists, senators, on the floor, so that we are communicating properly, madam president, the term over the past 1 years of those individuals who say the world is coming to an end, global warming and all of that, those are the ones who are the alarmists. so they are trying to revive

this thing that has been pretty much resolved over a long period of time. the first thing that the president doesn't want to talk about when you talk about global warming, now they changed the name because one is not as acceptable, so they tried climate change and what's the most recent one they're using? nay, carbon pollution. one of these days they'll find something else. -- something that sells, so far they haven't. one of the things they don't want to talk about is cost and this is the reason: we have had the global warming, the cap-and-trade bills over the past 12 years. when the first bills came out, the republicans were a majority so i was the chairman of the committee called environment and public works and i was the one who had the responsibility of defeating them and we did. and -- and the reason was that in the very beginning back in the kyoto treaty, we're talking

about 12 years ago, everyone believed all this was taking place. remember, this is when al gore came back from rio de janeiro and convinced everyone it was. we thought this was the case until a group out of the wharton school that did a study and they said if we pass cap-and-trade, i think they were using, i'm going from memory now, that they would regulate emissions from organizations that emitted 25,000-tons or more of co2 a year. if we did that, the cost would be between 300 and $400 billion a year. now one of the things i do as a conservative is every time we hear these figures, i get the most recent information that i can from my state of oklahoma in terms of the number of people that are there that are filing federal tax returns and i do the math. what that, madam president, at

that time it would cost -- this is the way it works out -- each one about $3,000 a year. now, that's if we had cap-and-trade. now, this kind of kept going throughout the years, the most recent one was by -- authored by senator markey, who up until yesterday was congressman markey, he's now officing next if to me, one i have a great deal of respect for but he had the last bill that was cap-and-trade bill and, again, i'm going from memory, it was around regulating those with emissions of 25,000 tons of -- a year or more. now, the amount of the cost of the thing has never been debated that much because it came out later on that the charles rivers association came out and said it would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, mimplet i.t. said it would be about that much so we know the cost is there.

but under the president's plan it would be far more. no one has actually calculated this yet to my knowledge because if the president tries to do this -- keep in mind, he's trying to pass by regulation a cap-and-trade policy for america. that he was not able to pass through legislation. so we're doing it through regulation. if you do it through regulation it has to be under the clean air policy. the clean air act. now, the clean air act requires us to regulate any source that puts -- put the emissions under that over 250 tons. so instead of 25,000 tons, regulated it would be 250 tons. that would be, you know, every hospital, every apartment building, every school, every oil and gas well, every farm. and those are the ones who would actually come under this thing, just a massive regulation. and no one knows exactly what it would cost the economy but it

would be staggering because we know that to petroleum this -- pull this off, the e.p.a. alone would have to spend $21 billion and hire an additional 23,000 bureaucrats to do this. that's not my figures. that's their figures. so you have to stop and think the cap-and-trade bills cost 4 50bdz -- $400 billion at the level of regulating the he'll mitigators of 25,000 tons or more a year and just imagine what it would be when you drop it to 250 tons. the second thing the president doesn't want to talk about is the fact that it is a unilateral effort. if you passed a regulation in the united states of america, it's going to only affect united states of america. and i've always had a lot of respect for lisa jackson. lisa jackson was the administrator of the e.p.a. under the obama administration. while she is lmb and -- liberal

and i'm conservative, she was always honest in her answers. i asked her the question, if we pass by legislation or any other way cap-and-trade in the united states is that going to reduce worldwide co2 emissions? and the answer, her answer was no. because if you do that, you're doing it just us on the brightest sectors of our economy without china, without mexico, without india and the rest of the world doing it, then u.s. manufacturers could have the reverse expect fect because they could end up having to go to other countries where there are not restrictions on emissions so they would be emitting more. so this is the problem that we have. there go our jobs overseas seeking energy in areas where they're able to afford it. and i -- using her -- lisa jackson's quote exactly, she said, when i asked her the question on the record, she said, "i believe that the u.s. action alone will not impact

co2 levels." so here's what we've got, it's a combination of two things and this is what the president doesn't want to talk about in his lust for overregulation in this country. one is the fact that it's -- it's going to cost a lot of money. it would -- it would be the largest tax increase in the history of america, without question. and the second thing is, even if do you it, it doesn't lower emissions. so this this is -- this is th the -- this is the problem that you have. then a lot of people say, well, then why do they want to do it? i know i lose a lot of people when i make this statement, but there are people in this government who believe that government should control our lives more. i said this back when i was in the house. one thing that i saw were differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals have a basic philosophy that government can run our lives better than people can. and so when you stop and you look at one of the most outstanding, recognized

scientists in this country, he's a guy named dr. richard lindsen. he's with m.i.t. he's considered to be a great source, maybe "the" greatest source in terms of scientific knowledge. and he said that regulating carbon is a bureaucrat's dream because if you regulate car borntion you regulate -- regulate carbon, you regulate life. if you control carbon, you control life. now, open to the e.p.w., environment and public works committee, is going to conduct a hearing on climate change, whatever they call it. i think they're starting out with global warming. they may call it something else. what's the third thing they're calling it? thank you, luke, you're nice to have here. carbon pollution. that's the new word, because that is more sellable. you know, a lot of stuff around here is done with wordsmithing. i mean, we do it, republicans and democrats both do it. and that's one, since global warming didn't work and climate change didn't work, now it's co2 -- what is it?

carbon pollution. yeah. so anyway, they're going to have a -- a -- a hearing and the chairman of the committee, barbara boxer, is going to have a lot of the people come in and -- and talk about the world coming to an end. however, the interesting thing here is that the administration is -- is sending all just the alarmists to talk about how bad global warming is and how we're all going to die but they're not taking the process seriously enough to send any real official. we have no government officials that are on as witnesses. this is highly unusual. this doesn't happen very often but that's what we're going to be having. it's important for members to understand that these greenhouse gas regulations are not the only e.p.a. regulations that threaten our economy. again, all the regulations on government taking -- getting involved in our lives, if you look at this chart -- yeah, this is a chart, these are the ones that are the ones that they are actually working on right now in the environment and public works

committee or the environmental protection agency. utility mact. utility mact was something they passed. it's done. but mact, by the way, madam president, means maximum achievable control technology. and -- and so it says, where is our technology right now? how much of this can we control? the problems we're having is they're putting the emissions requirements at a -- at a level that is below where we have a technology to make it happen. so utility mact. that would be the cost -- these figures, by the way, are not refuted figures. that would cost $100 billion. it would cost $1.65 million jobs. that's in the law already. you have a lot of coal fronts that are being shut down right now. but wait a minute, you might ask, how can they do that when right now we're reliant upon coal for 50% of the power it takes to run this machine called america? the next one, boiler mablght, that's -- now, boiler mact, again, that's maximum achievable control technology.

boiler mact, every manufacturer has a boiler so this controls all manufacturers. and that is estimated to be $63.3 billion and 800,000 jobs. the -- the naaqs legislation would put a lot of countries out of attainment. i was mayor of the city of tulsa back when we were out of attainment. tulsa, the city is located in tulsa county. in tulsa county, when we're out of attainment, we're not able to do a lot of the things that we were -- you know, that we're supposed to do in order to try to recruit industry. and this -- this right here would put 2,800 countries out of attainment, including all 77 counties in my -- in my state of oklahoma. and if that causes emissions to increase, then the company would be required to find an offset for these new emissions. we're kind of in the weeds here but the simple outcome is that no new businesses would be able

to come to an out-of-a-attainment area and existing businesses wouldn't be allowed to expand. the president is also issuing a near tier 3 standard that applies to refineries as they manufacture gasoline. this rule will cause gasoline to rise by 9 cents a gallon. the e.p.a. is also working tirelessly to tie groundwater contamination to hydraulic fracturing, a process that -- so that they and the federal government can -- can regulate this. you know, they tried that in the -- in wyoming, in the pavilion case. they tried it in pennsylvania in the demmic case, and in texas several times, they have made that effort. i know something about that, madam president, because the -- in the state of oklahoma, hydraulic fracturing started there in 1949. 1949. there's been a more than a million applications of hydraulic fracturing.

that's a way of getting oil and gas out of tight formations. they've tried it over a million times and there's never been a confirmed case of groundwater contamination. but they still want to have this regulated by the federal government. and so the -- the interior's trying to -- which would apply to federal lands. this thing -- there isn't time to get into the -- the basis -- the basic problem here; that is, this president, president obama, has had a war on fossil fuels now for longer than he's been president of the united states. and, of course, the key is this. if they could stop hydraulic fracturing and regulate that at the federal level, then they can stop all this boom that is going on right now in the country. i mean, we've had a 40% increase in the last four years of our production of oil and gas, but the interesting thing is, that's all on private land and on state land. it has not -- we've actually had a reduction in our production on

federal land. so that is a problem that we'r we're -- we're having there that is -- is very serious. the e.p.a. also wants to develop a guidance document for waters of the united states. now, the clean water restoration act is one that was tried to -- they tried -- introduced it two years ago and they tried to get it passed. the senate author was senator feingold from wisconsin and the house author was congressman oberstar. not only did we defeat the clean water restoration act -- they were both defeated in their next election. so we have the -- that effort. again, this is something the president's trying to do. they were not able to do it through regulations. and what it means is this. we have rules saying that the federal government's in charge of water runoff in this country only to the extent that it is navigable. that's the word that's written into the law. i think we all understand that. you take the navigable out, then

every little -- in my arid state of oklahoma, if you have standing water after a rain, that would be regulated by the federal government. now, you talk -- that's a major problem that our farmers have, not just the oklahoma farm bureau but farm bureaus throughout america, saying that the -- the -- the water restoration act and the -- and the cap-and-trade are the two major issues that they are concerned with. now, there's a lot of what the e.p.a. has done that is done just through enforcement. i was very proud of some of ou our -- this has been about a year ago, i think, luke, that we had about -- i think it was, we had one of our staff person discover that a guy named al aramardaris, you might remember him, he was a regional e.p.a. administrator. he said -- and he was talking to a bunch of people in texas. he's a regional administrator for the e.p.a. and he says, what we've got to do is we need to crucify the oil ÷nd gas industry.

and he said just like the romance when they go through turkey and they would crucify the first five people that they would see and that would get the attention and get them to be their subordinates. this is a perspective of not just armendariz but the entire e.p.a. and the fossil fuel industry. by the way, armendariz is no longer there and he is working with one of the environmental groups now and i'm sure he is a not happier there. the e.p.a. is also expanding a number of permits the oil and gas industry is required to obtain under the clean air act by counting multiple well sites as though they were one site, even though they may be spread out in as many as 42 square miles. all of this is so they can regulate more of what goes on at the wells and underscores how adversarial they are to us, having the fuel we need to run this country. the e.p.a. was eventually sued and lost the case over this issue. this issue of what they are doing right now throughout

america to try to -- to force all of the -- the oil sites into one site as they did. they lost in the sixth circuit court of appeals, but outside of the sixth circuit, the e.p.a. is still using their old regulations. this is one we have been talking to them about. the e.p.a. is also targeting the ag committee. we already talked about what their top concerns are, but in addition to that, the e.p.a. recently released a private sensitive data of pork producers and they are -- their concentrated animal feeding operation, that's cafo, to environmental groups. the environmental groups hate the cafo's, and the e.p.a. knows this and by doing this, the e.p.a. has enabled the environmental groups to target cafo's and put them out of business there. that's our farmers. the farmers seem to be -- it seems to me whu you look -- when you look at people coming into

my office and they talk about the abuses of this overregulation and all these things, it seems like the ones that keep getting hit worse and worse are the farmers. i can remember when they tried to treat propane as a hazardous waste, and we had a hearing. this was some years ago. and i was the at that time chairman of the environment of public works committee. i can remember when they said this only cost the average farmer in oklahoma another $600 or $700 a year. well, we went through this thing and we were able to defeat this. so these farmers have been hit hard, but they are not alone. all these regulations have been devastating to the entire economy and they are preventing us from achieving our economic recovery. the president is engaged in an all-out war on fossil fuels and he is intent on completing this until his assault on the free enterprise system is completed. the business community knows how bad the regulations are. they have been fighting them both tooth and nail since the

beginning of obama's first term. now, this chart shows the rules that were approved during the president's first term. this is what he did. if you look at them, take some time, and these will be printed in the record so you need to be looking them up and realizing how serious it is. the greenhouse gas, we talked about that. the e.p.a. on the diesel independence. all of these regulations are costing -- costing fortunes. the second chart, now, that's the ones that were approved during the president's first administration. the second is more alarming because it shows several of the major rules that the president began developing during his first term but delayed their finalization until after the election, so they waited until after the election knowing that the american people would realize how costly this was and that would cost his -- could cost his campaign. now, he's gaming the system, using his administration to

advance the radical agenda but hiding the truth from the american people, and he's doing it with the secret talking points and doing is with the secrecy which shrouds the bad rules. are these the talking points that we -- no. these are the rules that were delayed until after the election, so you can get a good idea of the cost. if we take down the cost of each one, it is just an incredible amount. the third chart -- yes, okay -- is the developing -- that's what he is doing right now, but he has no accountability to the electorate because he can do what he wants to right now. groups are on record opposing this. we have -- we have all of these groups that are on record opposing this thing. the u.s. chamber of commerce, the association of manufacturers, national federation, nfib, american railroads, going all the way down to all the ag groups and including a lot of the labor unions. historically, the labor unions

go right along with the democrats and with the liberals, but they realize now this is a jobs bill, and consequently this is -- we have the united mine workers and others that are -- are being affected by this and are trying to do something about their overregulations. all these groups have opposed the rules being put out by the e.p.a. even the unions have opposed the rules because they kill all kinds of jobs, union and nonunion jobs alike. sees he will roberts, the president of the united mine workers, said that his organization supported my congressional review act. let me explain what that was. you may notice in the first chart we had the first mac bill that was passed. that would have put coal out of business. so what we have in this -- in this body is a rule that nobody uses very often and it hasn't been used very successfully, but it says if a regulator passes something that is not in the

best interests of the people, then if you can get a -- pass a congressional review act with just 30 cosponsors and here in the senate get a simple majority, you can stop that from being -- from going into effect. well, i had a c.r.a. on that utility mac, and sees i will roberts, president of the united mine workers, said his organization supported my c.r.a. to overturn the utility mact rule because the rule poses to mine workers and association members lots of jobs. we also had somebody recently that jimmy hoffa came out. these are jobs. today's national unemployment rate is 7.6%. guess what? in oklahoma, we're at full employment. in north dakota, they are at full employment. we have all throughout america -- people used to think of the oil bill as being west of the mississippi. that's not true anymore. with the marcellus chain going through, you have new york, pennsylvania. in pennsylvania, i understand it's the second largest employer up there, so it's -- and if we

were able to do throughout america what we do in oklahoma, we would have -- we would solve the problem that we have right now, but the obama rules are there and obama wants to pursue more that are even worse. i'm mentioning this, we're going to have a very fine lady, gina mccarthy, who has been the assistant director of the e.p.a. in charge of air regulations for about four years, and while we get along very well, she is one who promotes these regulations. i won't be able to support her nomination. i understand that the votes are all there and we will be having a good working relationship, but i -- i just think it's a wake-up call to the american people. they are going to have to realize the cost of this. the total cost of these regulations is well over $600 billion annual hi, which will cost us as many as 9 million jobs, and the e.p.a. has a reason our nation has not returned to full employment, and

all this is done i think intentionally by the obama administration to cater to their extreme base, and right now the moveon.org, the george soros, michael moore and that crowd are the ones that are the far left environmentalists, hollywood and their friends. this is going to have to change because a marginal education endeavor. we have a country to save, and i know that there is a lot of partisan politics going on. in this case, the least known destructive force in our country now is the overregulation and all of those organizations that oppose it are going to have to pay for it. it's going to be paid for by american dollars and american jobs. with that, i see my good friend from iowa on the floor, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i will take a few

minutes to talk about the president's nominee for secretary of labor tom perez. i have already spoken on mr. perez over the last few weeks, and i will not repeat everything i said, but it is important for my colleagues to understand the basis of my opposition. we've had a lot of debate around here over the last few days about what grounds are appropriate to oppose an executive branch nominee. many of my colleagues have suggested that senators should not vote against such a nominee based on disagreement over policy. that may or may not be the appropriate view, but i'm not going to get into that debate today. i'm quite sure that i would disagree with mr. perez on a host of policy issues, but i want to make clear to my colleagues, those policy differences are not the reason i'm vigorously opposed to this nominee. i'm opposed to mr. perez because

the record he has established to government service demonstrates that he is willing to use the levers of government power to manipulate the law in order to van a political agenda. several of my colleagues cited examples of his track record in this regard, but in my view, perhaps the most alarming example of mr. perez's willingness to manipulate the rule of law is his involvement in the quid pro quo between the city of st. paul and the department of justice. in this deal, the department of justice cut with the city of st. paul. the department agreed not to join two false claims act cases in exchange for the city of st. paul withdrawing its case before

the supreme court in a case called magnerv. gallagher. mr. perez's actions in this case are extremely troubling for a number of reasons. at this point, no one disputes the fact that mr. perez actually orchestrated this entire arrangement. he manipulates the supreme court dockets so that his favorite legal theory called disparate impact theory would evade review by this high court. in the process, mr. perez left a whistle-blower twisting in the wind. those are the acts, and even mr. peres doesn't dispute that. the fact that mr. perez stuck a deal that potentially squandered up to 200 million taxpayer dollars in order to preserve a disparate impact theory that he favored is of course extremely

troubling in and of itself, but in addition, in addition to that underlying quid pro quo, the evidence uncovered in my investigation revealed mr. perez sought to cover up the facts that the exchange ever took place. and finally, let me emphasize that this should concern all of my colleagues when mr. perez testified under oath about the case, both to congressional investigators and during confirmation hearings. in those two instances, mr. perez told a different story. the fact of the matter is that the story mr. perez told is simply not supported by the evidence. let me begin by reviewing briefly the underlying quid pro quo. in the fall of 2011, the

department of justice was poised to join a false claims act lawsuit against the city of st. paul. that's where the $200 million comes in. that's what was expected to be recovered. the career lawyers in the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota were recommending department of justice join the case. the career lawyers in the civil division of department of justice were recommending the department join the case, and the career lawyers in the department of housing and urban development were recommending that justice join the case. so at that point, all of the relevant components of government believed that this case was a very good case. they considered the case on the merits, and they supported moving forward, or as one of the

attorneys wrote in an email in october, 2011 -- quote -- "it looks like everyone is on board." end of quote. but, of course, this was all before mr. perez got involved. now, at about the same time the supreme court agreed to hear the case called magner v. gallagher. in magner, the city of st. paul was challenging the use of disparate impact theory under the fair housing act. the disparate impact theory is a mechanism mr. perez and the civil rights division were using in lawsuits against banks for their lending practices. for instance, during this time period mr. perez and the justice department were suing countrywide for its lending practices based upon disparate impact analysis. in fact, in december of 2011, the department announced it had reached a $355 million

settlement with countrywide. and, again, in july 2012 the department of justice announced a $175 million settlement with wells fargo addressing fair lending claims based upon that same disparate impact analysis. and, of course, there are a string of additional examples but i don't need to recite them here. but what is clear is that if that theory were undermined by the supreme court, it would likely spell trouble for mr. perez's lawsuits against the banks. so mr. perez approached the lawyers handling the magner case and quite simply he cut a deal. the department of justice agreed not to join two false claims act cases in exchange for the city of st. paul withdrawing magner

from the supreme court. now, you've got interfering in the agenda of the supreme court at the same time a deal is going to cut the taxpayers out of winning back $200 million under the false claims act. in early february, 2012, mr. perez flew to st. paul and he flew there solely to finalize the deal. the next week, justice department declined to join the first false claims act called the newell case. the next day, the city of st. paul kept their end of the bargain and withdrew the magner case from the supreme court. now, there are a couple of aspects about this deal i want to emphasize for my colleagues. first, as i mentioned, the evidence makes clear that mr. perez took steps to cover up the fact that he had bartered

away the false claims act cases, and the $200 million. on january 10, 2012, mr. perez called the line attorney in the u.s. attorney's office regarding the memo in the newell case. newell was the case that these same career attorneys that i referred to and quoted previously were strongly recommending the united states join. now, all before mr. perez got involved. mr. perez called the line attorney and instructed him not to discuss the magner case in the memo that he prepared outlining the reasons for the decisions not to join the case. and here is what mr. perez said on that call -- quote -- "hey, greg, this is tom perez calling you at -- excuse me, calling

you at 9:00 on tuesday. i got your message. the main thing i want to ask you, i spoke to some folks in the civil division yesterday and wanted to make sure that the declination men and women' that you sent to the civil division and i'm sure it probably already does this, but it doesn't make any mention of the magner case. it is just a memo on the merits of the two cases that are under review in the qui tam context." so it's pretty clear that they didn't want anything in writing that led -- that led people to believe that there was any deal being made. now, after that telephone message was left, approximately one hour later mr. perez sent

mr. brooker a followup email writing -- quote -- "i left a detailed voice mail. call me if you can after you have a chance to review the voice mail" -- end of quote. then several hours later mr. perez sent another followup email writing -- quote -- "were you able to listen to my message? " -- end of quote. now, mr. are perez' voice mail was quite clear and obvious. it told mr. brooker -- quote -- "make sure that the declination memo doesn't make any mention of the magner case. it is just a memo on the merits of the two cases" -- end of quote. so very clear, it couldn't be more clear, in fact, that this was an effort that no paper trail, that there was ever any

deal made. yet when congressional investigators asked mr. perez why he left the voice mail, he told an entirely different story. here is what he told investigators -- quote -- "what i meant to communicate was it is time to bring this to closure and, if the only issue that is standing in the way is how you talk about magner, then don't talk about it" -- end of quote. but anyone who actually listens to the voice mail knows that this is just plainly not what he said in that voice mail. he didn't say anything about being concerned with a delay. he said -- quote -- "make sure you don't mention magner. it is just a memo on the merits ." his intent was crystal clear. mr. perez also testified that

mr. brooker called him back the next day and refused to omit the discussion of magner. now, let's applaud that civil servant because he isn't going to play that game. and according to mr. perez, he told mr. brooker during this call to follow the normal process. but, again, this story is just not supported by the evidence. one month later, after mr. perez flew to minnesota to personally seal the deal with the city, a line attorney in the civil division emailed his superior to outline the -- quote, unquote -- "additional facts about the deal." point six read -- quote -- "u.s.a. m.n. -- that stands for u.s. attorney, minnesota -- so let me start over again.

quote -- "u.s.a. m.n. considers it underlined nonnoacial that its -- negotiable that its office will include the discussion of the supreme court case and the policy issues in the decline kilnation memo -- declination memo" -- end of quote. if mr. perez's story were true and the issue was resolved on january 11, then why one month later would the u.s. attorney's office need to emphatically state that it would not hide the fact that the exchange took place? now, as i just mentioned, mr. perez flew to minneapolis to finalize the deal on february 3, and i would think, wouldn't you, that a deal of this magnitude would be written down so that the parties understood exactly what each side agreed to. but was this agreement written

down? no, it wasn't. after mr. perez finalized the deal, the career attorneys asked if there was going to be a written agreement. what was mr. perez's response? he said -- quote -- "no, just oral discussions. word was your bond" -- end of quote. so let me just review. at this point mr. perez had just orchestrated a deal where the united states declined to join a case worth up to $200 million of taxpayers' money in exchange for the city of st. paul withdrawing a case from the supreme court, and when the career lawyers asked if this deal will be written down, he said -- quote -- "no, your word was your bond" -- end of quote. of course, the reason you make agreements like this in writing

is so that there is no disagreement down the road about what the parties agreed to. and as it turns out, there was, in fact, a disagreement about the terms of this unwritten deal. the lawyer for the city -- that's mr. lilihag -- told congressional investigators that on january 9, approximately one month before the deal was finalized, mr. perez had assured him that -- quote -- "h.u.d. would be helpful" -- end of quote if the newell case proceeded after the department of justice declined to intervene. mr. lily hawg -- mr. a lili hag said the day after they finalized the bill that h.u.d.

had begun assembling information to assist the city in a motion to dismiss the newell complaint on -- quote, unquote -- "original source grounds." but according to mr. lilihag, this assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the civil division learned of it. now, why is that significant? mr. perez represents the united states. he represents the american people. now, this mr. newell, the whistle whroar blower, is -- whistle-blower, is bringing a case on behalf of the united states and indirectly, the people. mr. perez is talking to the lawyers on the other side, and he tells the people in essence, after the united states declines to join the case, we will give you information to help you

defeat mr. newell, who is bringing the case on behalf of the united states. let me say that a different way. in effect, mr. perez is offering to give the other side information to help defeat his own client. now, is that the way you represent the american people? and you're working for the american people. mr. perez was asked about this under oath. mr. perez told congressional investigators -- quote -- "no, i don't recall ever suggesting that" -- end of quote. so on the one hand we have mr. lilihag who says mr. perez made this offer first in january and then again on february 4, but the assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the civil division caught wind of it.

on the other hand, is mr. perez who testified under oath -- quote -- "i don't recall" -- end of quote ever making such an offer. who should we believe? the documents support mr. lilihag's versions of the event. on february , the line attorney said and done an email and relayed a cover -- and relayed a conversation a line attorney in minnesota had with mr. lilihag. according to mr. lilihag, the line attorney wrote there were two additional items that were part of the deal, and one of those two items was this -- quote -- "h.u.d. will provide material to the city in support of their motion to dismiss the original source grounds" -- end of quote.

internal emails she when the career lawyers learned of this promise they strongly disagreed with it and they conveyed their concern to tony west, head of the civil division. during his transscribed interviews, mr. west testified that it would have been -- quote, unquote -- "inappropriate to provide this material outside of the normal discovery channels. mr. west said -- quote -- "i just know that that wasn't going to happen, and it didn't happen" -- end of quote. in other words, when the lawyers at the civil division learned of this offer, they shut it down. again, why is this important? it's important because it demonstrates that the documentary evidence shows the events transpired exactly, exactly, as mr. lillehaug said

they did. mr. perez offered to provide the other side with information that would help them defeat mr. newell, in this case on behalf of the united states. in my opinion, this is simply stunning. mr. perez represents the united states. any lawyer would tell you it is highly inappropriate to offer to help the other side defeat their own client. this brings me to my final two points that i want to highlight for my colleagues. even though the department traded away mr. newell's case and $200 million, mr. perez has defended his actions in part by claiming that mr. newell still had his day in court. what mr. perez omits from his story is that mr. newell's case was dismissed precisely because

the united states would not continue to be a party and would not be a party. after the united states declined to join the case, the judge dismissed mr. newell's case based upon -- quote unquote -- the public disclosure bar, finding that he was not the original source of information to the government. i'll remind my colleagues we amended the false claims act several years ago, precisely to prevent an outcome like this, specifically the amendments made clear that the justice department contests the original source dismissal even if it fails to intervene as it did in this case. so the department didn't merely decline to intervene, which is bad enough, but in fact it affirmatively chose to leave

there newell all alone in this case. and of course that was the whole point. that is why it was so important for the city of st. paul to make sure the united states did not join the case. that is why the city was willing to trade away a strong case before the supreme court and cut the taxpayers out of -- in the process when this case doesn't go forward, you cut the taxpayers out of $200 million. the city knew that if the united states joined the action, the case would almost certainly not go forward. i said that wrong. i'm sorry. the city knew that if the united states joined the action, the case would almost certainly go forward. conversely, the city knew that if the united states did not join the case and chose not to contest the original source, it

would likely get dismissed. the department traded away a case worth millions of taxpayers' dollars. they did it precisely because of the impact the decision would have on the litigation. they knew that as a result of their decision, the whole whistle-blower would get dismissed based upon original source grounds since the department didn't contest it. and not only that, mr. perez went so far as to offer to provide documents to the other side that would help they defeat mr. newell in his case on behalf of mr. perez's client, the united states. that's really looking out for the taxpayers. how would you like to have a lawyer like that defending you in some death penalty case? and yet, when the congress gets -- congress starts asking questions, they have the guts to

say -- quote -- "we didn't do anything improper about mr. ne well" -- or, -- quote -- "we didn't do anything improper because mr. newell still had his day in court." mr. newell didn't have his case in court because the success of that $200 million was dependent upon the united states staying in it. this brings me to my last point on the substance of this matter and that has to do with the strength of this case. throughout our investigation the department has tried to defend mr. perez's action by claiming that the case was marginal and weak. once again, however, the documents tell a far different story. before mr. perez got involved, the career lawyers at the department wrote a memo recommending intervention in the case. in that memo, they describe st. paul's actions as -- quote -- "a particularly egregious example

of false certification." in fact, the career lawyers in minnesota felt so strongly about the case that they took the unusual step of flying to washington, d.c. to meet with officials in the department of housing and urban development. and housing and urban development, of course, agreed that the united states should intervene in this false claims case. but, of course, you know, that was all before mr. perez got involved. the documents make clear that career lawyers considered it a strong case, but the department has claimed that mike hertz, the department's experts on the false claims act, considered it a weak case. in fact, during his confirmation hearing, mr. perez testified before my colleagues on the senate help committee that mr. hertz -- quote -- "had a

very immediate and visceral reaction that it was a weak case." but once again, the documents tell a much different story than was told to members of the senate. mr. pertz knew -- mr. hertz knew did the pw*t case in november 2007. two months later a department official took notes of a meeting where the quid pro quo was discussed. the official wrote down mr. hertz's reaction. she wrote -- quote -- "mike, odd. looks like buying off snowball. snowball -- looks like buying off st. paul. should be whether there are legitimate reasons to decline as to past practices." the next day the official e-mailed the attorney general and said mike hertz brought up

the st. paul disparate case in which the st. paul attorney general filed an amicus brief in the supreme court. he's concerned about the recommendation that we decline to interview in two qui tam cases against st. paul." these documents appear to show that mr. hertz's primary concern was not the strength of the case, as mr. perez lead my senate colleagues to believe. mr. hertz was concerned the quid pro quo mr. perez ultimately arranged was improper. again, in his words, it -- quote -- "looks like buying off st. paul." yet, mr. perez led my colleagues on the help committee to believe that mr. hertz believed it was a bad case on the merits.

so let me make one final point regarding process and why it is premature to even be having this debate. as of today, when we vote on mr. perez's nomination, we will be voting on a nominee who today has not complied with a congressional subpoena compelling him to turn over certain documents to congress. i'm referring to the fact that the house oversight and government reform committee subpoenaed e-mails from mr. perez. during the course of our investigation, we learned that mr. perez was routinely using his private e-mail account to conduct government business, including business related to the quid pro quo. in fact, department of justice admitted that mr. perez had used his private e-mail account approximately 1,200 times to

conduct government business. after mr. perez refused to turn those documents over voluntarily, then the house oversight committee was forced to issue a subpoena. and yet today mr. perez has refused to comply with the subpoena. now here you've got a person in the justice department doing all these bad things, people want him to be secretary of labor. and we're supposed to confirm somebody that won't respond to a subpoena for information that congress is -- is constitutionally entitled to. and we want him to be a secretary of labor when we have people come before congress and say, yes, we will respond to letters from congress. we'll come up and testify. we're going to cooperate in the spirit of checks and balances.

and then we've got somebody before the senate that won't even respond to a subpoena. so i find it quite troubling that this body would take this step and move forward with a nomination when the nominee simply refuses to comply with an outstanding subpoena. can any of my colleagues recall an instance in the past when we were asked to confirm a nominee who would flatly refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena? why would you want somebody in the cabinet thumbing their noses at the elected representatives of the people of this country, that have the constitutional responsibility of checks and balances to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed? that's what they take an oath to do. it's quite extraordinary and should concern all of my

colleagues, not just republicans. my colleagues are well aware how i feel about the whistle-blower protection act, and my colleagues know how i feel about protecting whistle-blowers who have courage to step forward often at great risk to their careers. and this is about much more than whistle-blower, about the whistle-blower who was left dangling by mr. perez. this is about the fact that mr. perez manipulated the rule of law in order to get a case removed from the supreme court docket. and this is about the fact that when congress started asking questions about this case, and when mr. perez was called upon to offer his testimony under oath, he chose to tell a different story. and the unavoidable conclusion is that the story he told is not supported by the facts. and this is about the fact that

we are about to confirm a nominee who even as of today is still thumbing his nose at congress by refusing to comply with the congressional subpoena. i began by saying that although i disagree with mr. perez on a host of policy issues, that those disagreements are not the primary reason my colleague should reject this nomination. we should reject this nomination because mr. perez ma manipulated the hraoefrs of power available -- the levers of power to save a theory from supreme court review. perhaps when mr. perez was called to answer questions under oath, i do not believe he gave us a straight story. finally, we should reject this nomination because mr. perez failed and refuses yet to comply with a congressional subpoena.

for these reasons, i strongly opposite the nomination and -- i strongly oppose the nomination and i urge my colleagues to do the same. and, mr. president, i've completed my statement. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i have listened very carefully to my friend from iowa, and i couldn't disagree with him more. i know he has very strong views about the nomination of tom perez. well, let me go through the record. i want to spend a little bit of time first talking about tom perez. i know him very well. before i start, mr. president, i have 13 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i know tom perez. we have served together in

government in maryland. he served on the county council of montgomery county. first latino to serve on the county council of montgomery county. montgomery county which is very close to here is larger than some of our states. it's a large government and has very complex problems. he served with great distinction on the county council. as the presiding officer knows, that's a very difficult responsibility, to serve for local government. you've got to deal with the day-to-day problems of the people of our community. he served with such distinction that he was selected to be the president of the council, the head of the council in montgomery county. he then went on to become the secretary of labor and licensing of regulation under governor o'malley in the state of maryland, very comparable to the position that president obama has appointed him to as secretary of labor in his cabinet. it's very interesting.

as secretary of labor, licensing and regulation, he had to deal with issues that are very difficult issues, that can divide groups. but instead, he brought labor and business together and resolved many issues. it's very-track, in his confirmation process -- it's very interesting. in his confirmation process, business leaders and labor leaders came forward to say, this is the right person at the right time to serve as secretary of labor in the obama administration. i held a press briefing with the former head of the republican party in maryland, and he was very quick to point out that tom perez and him didn't agree on a lot of policy issues, but he is a he a professional, he listens and tries to make the right judgment. and that's why he should be confirmed as secretary of labor. that was the former head of the republican party in maryland who

made those statements just a few months ago. tom perez has a long history of public service, served originally in the department of justice in many different capacities. he started in the department of justice. he served in the civil rights division, and of course later he became the head of the civil rights division. he helped us in the united states senate sesqu senate, sera senate person for senator kennedy. and i think the greatest testimony of his effectiveness is how he's taken the civil rights division from a division that had lost a lot of its glamour, a lot of its objectivity under the previous administration and is returning the department of justice to that great institution to protect the rights of all

americans. look at his record in the department of justice. enforcement of the shepherd-byrd hate crimes prevention act, 140 defendants on hate crimes in the four years. that's a 74% creassments 194 human trafficking cases. that's a 40% increasement. you could talk a good deal about what happened between 2004 and 2008 with countryside engines corporation -- countr country-we financial corporation engaged in systemwide discrimination against african-american and latino borrowers, requiring him to pay more for their mortgages. i know the nan that caused. i met with families that should have been in traditional mortgages that were steered in subprime and they loved their homes. tom perez represented them. one of the largest recoveries

ever. the settlement in 2011 required bank of america now the owner of country-wide to provide $335 million in monetary relief to more than 230 victims of discriminatory lending, the largest fair lending settlement in history. that's the record of tom perez. -- as the head of the civil rights division. division of investigation of wells fargo bank, alleging that the bank engaged in a nationwide pattern -- or practice of discrimination against minority borrowers by placing again subprime loans. the largest per-victim recovery ever reached in a division lending discrimination case required wells fargo to pay more than $184 million to compensate discrimination victims and to make a $50 million investment in home buyers assistance programs. mr. president, i could go on and

on and on about the record that tom perez has done in his public service, at the county level, the state level, at the federal level. he has devoted his career to public service and has gotten the praise of conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, business leaders, labor leaders. that's the person we need to head the department of labor. so let me spend a few minutes talking about senator grassley's two points that he raises as to why we should deny the confirmation of tom perez, the president's choice for his cabinet. he talks about the fact that tom perez hasn't answer all the information that senator grassley would like to see from a house committee, a partisan effort in the house of representatives; not the only case. there's hardly a day or week that goes by that there's not

another partisan investigation in the house of representatives. that's the matter that the senator from iowa is talking about. not an effort that we try to do in this body, in the senate, to work bipartisan when we're doing investigations. this has been a partisan investigation. thousands of pages of documents have been made available to congressional committees by the department of justice. so let's get the record straight as to compliance. the department of justice, tom perez has complied with the reasonable requests of the congress of the united states. spend a lot of time doing that. it's our responsibility for oversight. we carried out our responsibility for oversight. and any balanced review of the work done by the department of justice civil rights division will give the highest marks to tom perez on restoring the integrity of that very important

division in the department of justice. so let me talk about the second matter that senator grassley brings up. and that deals with the city of st. paul case -- one case. it dealt with the city of st. paul in the supreme court magna case. now, mr. president, senator grassley points out that this is a desperate gac impact case t nt only affects the individual case that's before the court, it will have an impact on these types of cases generally, and when you're deciding whether to litigate one of these cases, you have to make a judgment as to whether this is the case you want to present to the court to make a point that will affect not only the justice of the litigants but many other litigants. and you got to decide the risk of litigation versus the benefit of litigation. you've got to make some tough

choices as to whether the risk is worth the benefit. and in this case, the decision was made not by tom perez, not by one person. career attorneys were brought into the mix, and career attorneys -- career attorneys -- advised against the department of justice interceding in this case. h.u.d. lawyers thought that this was not a good case for the united states to intercede. senator grassley says, well, this was a situation where there was a quid pro quo. it was not. there was a request that the united states intercede and dismiss. tom perez said, no, we're not going to do that. the litigation went forward. so a professional decision was made based upon the best advice gotten by career attorneys,

attorneys from the agency that was directly affected by the case that was before the courts, and a decision was made that most objective observers will tell you was a professional judgment that's hard to question. it made sense at the time. so i must say that senator grassley has a concern about this case. people can come to different conclusions. but look at the entire rare recf tom perez. i think he made the right decision in that case. but i i know that he has a proud record of leadership on behalf of the rights of all americans. and that's the type of person that we should have as secretary of labor. tom perez has been through confirmation before. he was confirmed by the judiciary committee to serve as the head of the civil rights division of the department of justice. thorough vetting was done at that time.

questions were asked. debate was held on the floor of the senate. and by a very comfortable margin, he was confirmed to be the head of the civil rights division. and now the health, education, labor, and pinks committee has n committee has held a vote on mr. perez, reported him favorably to the floor. it's time to have an up-or-down vote on the president's nomination for secretary of labor. i would hope all my colleagues would vote to allow this nomination to be voted up or down. i was listening to my distinguished friend from iowa. i heard nothing that would deny us the right too have a vote -- to have a vote on a presidential nomination. that's the first vote we're going to have on whether we're going to filibuster a cabinet position for the president of the united states on a person

whose record is distinguished, a long record of public service, and a proven record. then the second vote is on confirmation, and senators may disagree. i respect every senator to do what he or she thinks is in the best interests. but i would certainly hope on this first vote, when we're dealing whether we're going to filibuster a president's nomination for secretary of labor, that we would get the overwhelming support of our colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on tom perez to be the next secretary of labor. i started by saying that i've known tom perez for a long time, and i have. i know he is a good person, a person who is in public service for the right reasons, a person who believes that each individual should be protected under our system and that, as secretary of labor, he will use that position to bring the type

of balance that we need in our commercial communities to protect working people and businesses so that the american economy can grow and everyone can benefit from our great economy. i would urge my colleagues to support this nomination and certainly to support moving forward on an up-or-down vote for secretary of labor. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. sand sand let me begin by con-- mr. sanders: let me begin by concurring with the remarks of senator cardin. tom perez will make an excellent secretary of labor, and i strongly support his nomination. mr. president, it is no great secret that the united states congress is currently held in

very low esteem by the american people, and there are a lost reasons for that. but i think that the major reason perhaps in the midst of so many serious problems facing our country, the american people perceive that we are just not addressing those issues, and they are right. regardless of what yo your political point of view may be, we're looking at a middle class that is disappearing. are we addressing that issue? no. poverty is just extraordinarily high. are we moving aggressively to address that? no, we're not. we have the most expensive health care system in the world, enormously bureaucratic and wasteful. are we addressing in a? no, we're not. but the issue that i want to talk about today may b maybe moe clearly than any other issue in tesms our neglect is the -- in terms of our neglect is the issue of global warming. mr. president, at a time when

virtually the entire scientific community, the people who spend their lives studying climate change, tell us that global warming is real, that it is significantly caused by human activity, and that it is already doing great damage, it is beyond comprehension that this senate, this congress, is not even discussing that enormously important issue on the floor of the u.s. senate. where is the debate? where is the legislation? -- where is the legislation on what might be considered the most significant planetary crisis that we face? mr. president, i fear very much that our children and our grandchildren, who will reap the pain from our neglect, will

never forgive us for not moving in the way that we should be moving. now, mr. president, i understand that some of my colleagues, including my good friend, jim inhofe from oklahoma, who i like very, very much, that some of my republican friends especially believe that global warming is a hoax. they believe that global warming is something -- that it's a hoax perpetrated by al gore, the united nations, the hollywood elite. this is what people like jim inhofe actually believe. well, i have to say to my good friend, mr. inhofe, that he is dead wrong. global warming is not just a crisis that will impact us in

years to come, it is impacting us right now, and it is a crisis that we must address. in fact, global warming is the most serious environmental crisis facing not just the united states of america but our entire planet, and we cannot continue to ignore that reality. "science news" reports that cities in america matched or broke at least 29,000 high-temperature records just last year. according to the national ocean graphic and atmospheric administration, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded for the contiguous united states. it was the hautees hottest yearr

recorded in new york, in washington, d.c., in louisville, kentucky, and in my hometown of burlington, vermont, and other cities across the nation. our oceans also are warming quickly and catastrophically. a new study found that north atlantic waters last summer were the warmest in 159 years of record keeping, and the united nations world meteorological organization in may issued a warning about the loss of arctic sea ice and extreme weather that is increasingly shaped by climate change" -- end of quote. and scientists are now warning that the arctic may experience entirely ice-free summers within two years. let me repeat that. the arctic may experience entirely ice-free summers within two years.

scientists are also reporting that carbon dioxide levels have reached a dangerous milestone level of 400 parts per million, a level want see not seen on tht earth for millions of years. in fact, the world's leading scientists unequivocally agree, a recent review of the scientific literature found that more than 98% of peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change supports the conclusion that human activity is causing climate change. among scientists, says the american association for the advancement of science -- one of the most important and prestigious scientific organizations in our country and the world -- and this is what they say -- and i quote -- "among scientists, there is now

overwhelming agreement, based on multiple lines of scientific evidence, that global warming -- global climate change is real, it is happening right now, and it will have broad impacts on society." and that's from the american association for the advancement of science. mr. president, we are not into speculation and we are not into debate. the conclusion is there. global warming is real, it is happening right now, it is impacting the united states of america and the world right now, and it will only get worse if we do not act. i mean, the examples of that are so numerous that one could go on hour after hour, but let me just

give you just a few. extreme weather events are now occurring with increased frequency and increased intensity. that's extreme weather disturbances. in 2011 and 2012, the united states experienced an extraordinary25 billion-dollar disasters -- 25 separate billion-dollar disasters, so-called, because they eeched caused more thaeachcaused more n dollars worth of damage. unpresunprecedented. noaa's studying extreme temperatures, extreme drought, extreme prescription, tropical storms, noaa's climate extremes index tells us that 2012 was

characterized by the second most extreme climate conditions ever recorded. a number of colleagues make the point and they come up and say, well, senator sanders and others, dealing with climate change is going to be expensive. transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels is going to be expensive. well, they're right. it is going to be expensive but the question that we have to ask is: compared to what? compared to doing nothing? compared to conducting business as usual? compared to allowing a significant increase in droughts, in floods, in extreme weather disturbances? compared to that acting now and

acting boldly is cost-effective. yes, it will be expensive. but it will be a lot less expensive, cause a lot less human pain and less human death than allowing global warming to continue unmitigated. mr. president, the cost -- and this is an interesting point, especially i think for my conservative friends who look to the business community for information and for analysis. the cost of insured catastrophe and extreme weather events has been trending upward for 30 years. this is a very significant economic issue. munich re., the largest reinsurance company in the world -- that's the company that

ensures the insurance companie companies -- has already documented a fivefold increase in extreme weather eens in north america since -- events in north america since 1980. and they keep track of this stuff pretty closely, because for them, this is a dollars and cents issue. they are the ones who help others pay out the benefits when there is extreme damage as a result of storms and floods, et cetera. and they calculated, munich rf ere.calculated, that the economc damages due to natural catastrophes in the united states exceeded $139 billion in 2012 alone. so when you talk about money and you talk about expense and you talk about cost, let's understand that we are already racking up record-breaking costs in terms of dealing with the

extreme weather disturbances we have seen in recent years. the alliance insurance company noted bluntly last fall that -- and i quote -- climate change represents a threat to our business" and insurance k. but it's not just the insurance companies. it's the businesses that are seeing insurance become unaffordable when they're hit with floods and other disasters. and that comes right out of their bottom lines. global warming, of course, is closely tied to drought and fire as well. last year's drought, affecting two-thirds of the united states, was the worst in half a century. but the united states is not the only country on earth being impacted. we obviously pay attention to what's happening within our borders. but global warming is having huge impacts all over this

planet. brazil is experiencing its worst drought in 50 years. it is directly affecting over 10 million people in that country, and because of impacts to wheat, -- wheat farmers, the price of flour rose over 700%. australia just experienced a four-month heat wave with severe wildfires, record-setting temperatures, and torrential rains and flooding, causing over $2 billion in damages in that country. in recent years, other parts of the world -- russia, china, southern europe and eastern europe -- have also suffered severe heat waves and droughts, with substantial impacts to agriculture, communities, and their economic well-being. just weeks ago, as everybody in america knows, we watched as fired raged acros aacross westen

parts of the united states, including the massive and dangerous explosive westfork fire in southwestern colorado. and let me take a moment now to acknowledge the delts of 19 un-- the deaths of 19 ununbelievably brave firefighters from pros scott, arizona, who lost their -- from prescott, arizona, who lost their lives trying to protect their neighbors and property near phoenix. wildfires like these fires like these appear to be increasingly necessary. in fact, the chief of the forest service says that america's wildfire season lasts two months longer than it did 40 years ago and burns twice as much land as it did then because of the hotter, drier conditions from climate change.

last year's extraordinary wildfires burned more than nine million acres of land, according to the national interagency fire center and chief kidwell also warned about the increasing frequency of monster fires. monster fires. mr. president, when we're talking about drought, it is not just kind of abstraction. when drought occurs, agriculture suffers. when agriculture suffers, the cost of food goes up. and in parts of the world where people have very little money, this is catastrophic. and one of the points made by the c.i.a., the department of defense, many of our intelligence agencies, when they talk about national security issues, they often put at the top of the list or close to the top of the list global wng

because they understand that drought and floods means that people don't have the food they need, people don't have the water they need, people are going to migrate from one area to another, it is going to cause tension, it is going to cause conflict. so global warming is also a major, major national security issue. mr. president, one of the issues we don't talk enough about, and i know senator whitehouse of rhode island does talk about it is the impact that global warming is having on our oceans, driving fish to deeper, cooler waters, threatening the fishing industry and food security. in the pacific northwest, for example, according to noaa, and as reported by "usa today," just this spring, shellfish farmers on the west coast are increasingly experiencing collapses in both hatcheries and

natural ecosystems. extreme weather and rising sea levels also threaten people across the planet. more than 31 million people fled their homes just last year because of disasters related to floods and storms tied to climate change, according to a number of sources. and climate change will create in years to come even larger numbers of what we call climate refugees. as so-lying countries lose land mass to rising seas and to decertification consuming once- fertile territory. in northern india, nearly 6,000 people are dead or missing from devastating floods and landslides just last month. closer to home, hurricane sandy alone displaced 3/4 of a million people in the united states and

is costing us up to 60 billion federal dollars in helping those communities rebuild. permanent displacement is already occurring in the united states. in other words, people are permanently losing their residences. the army corps of engineers predicted that the entire village of nutok, alaska, could be under water by 2017, and more than 180 additional native alaskan villages are at risk. parts of alaska are literally vanishing, and scientists believe that entire u.s. cities or parts of coastal cities are in danger of being flooded as well. in fact, experts are telling us that cities like miami, fort lauderdale, new york, new orleans and others will face a growing threat of partial submersion within just a few

decades as sea levels and storm surge levels continue to climb and that entire countries, small island nations like micronesia and the other nations face similar risks. ironically, rising sea levels are even threatening key oil industry infrastructure. for example, scientists at noaa are estimating that portions of louisiana state highway 1 will be inundated by rising high tides 30 times a year. highway 1 provides the only road access to a port servicing nearly one out of every five barrels of u.s. oil supply. mr. president, what's my point? my point is that we are facing a horrendous planetary crisis. we cannot continue to ignore it. we must act, and we must act

now. mr. president, in my view, the first thing that we must do is we must not make a terribly dangerous situation, i.e. global warming, and greenhouse gas emissions even worse than it is right now. we must break our dependence on fossil fuels, not expand it. we must modernize our grid and transform our energy system to one based on sustainable energy sources, and we must move aggressively toward energy efficiency. and in that process, we must reject the keystone x.l. pipeline proposal which would dramatically increase carbon dioxide emissions, according to the e.p.a. by the equivalent of

18.7 million metric tons per year, releasing as much as 935 million metric tons over 50 years. in other words, the planet faces a crisis right now. why would we think for one second about making that crisis even worse? further, congress needs to end wasteful subsidies for the industries that are causing climate change. according to a report by d.b.l. investors, between 1918-2009, the oil and gas industry received government subsidies to the tune of $446 billion, to say nothing of state subsidies which have benefited from decades worth of back room political deals. in other words, why are we continuing to subsidize those industries that are helping to

bring devastating damage to our planet? thirdly, even though fossil fuels are the most expensive fuels on earth, the fossil fuel industry for too long has shifted these enormous costs on to the public, walking away with billions in profits while the american people have to bear the real costs of rising seas, monster storms, de devastating droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather. so when people tell you that coal or oil are cheap, what they are forgetting about are the social costs in terms of infrastructure damage and in terms of human health. these fuels are not cheap. as we transform our energy system away from fossil fuels, we must finally begin pricing carbon pollution emissions so

the polluters themselves begin carrying the costs instead of passing them on to our children and grandchildren. and i am proud to have joined with senators -- senator barbara boxer, the chairperson of the environment committee in the senate, to introduce the climate protection act earlier this year. our bill establishes a fee on carbon pollution emissions, an approached endorsed by people all across the political spectrum. including conservatives, like george schultz, nobel laureate economist gary becker, mitt romney's former economic advisor greg mchue, former reagan advisor art laffler, former republican congressman bob english and others. our bill does a number of things, and one of the things it does is return 60% of the revenue raised directly back to taxpayers in order to address increased fuel costs.

it puts money, substantial sums of money, to support sustainable energy research, weatherizing homes, job creation, helping manufacturing businesses save money through energy efficiency and deficit reduction. what this does do is it begins the process of transforming our energy system. by imposing a fee on carbon, it deincentivizes fossil fuel by putting money into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. it helps us move in a very different and healthier direction. mr. president, let me just conclude by saying this, going back to the point that i made when we started. the american people are shaking their head at what goes on in washington. this country faces enormous problems, economic problems,

social problems and i would argue that in global warming, we face a planetary crisis. the american people want us to act. it is incomprehensible that week after week, month after month, year after year we are not addressing the issue of global warming. and i hope that sooner than later we bring serious legislation to the floor of the senate. we have that debate and we do with that planetary crisis requires and that is transform our energy system, move away from fossil fuel, move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. 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's the duty of the senate to ensure that the people that the president appoints to positions of power are of the highest caliber. it's our duty to examine their record and to determine whether or not each nominee ought to be granted the public trust. and while no one can deny that mr. perez has spent his career in public service, i'm 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's 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 voting rights -- excuse me, the civil rights division, which includes the voting rights section. you would hope that if any part of the department of justice that would be apolitical, it would be the civil rights division. but under the -- mr. perez' rights, the voting rights section has come piled 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 that this polarization has at times been a significant impediment to the operation of the section and has exacerbated the potential appearance of politicized

decision making. instead of upholding and enforcing the law equal, mr. perez launched politically motivated campaigns against commonsense, constitutional provisions like voter i.d., 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 a 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 reasonable means by which voter fraud is combatted and protection of the integrity of the ballot is ensured. yet thomas perez, working at the department of justice, targeted the voter i.d. requirement passed by the texas legislature

and blocked it, effectively. same thing in south carolina. based on nothing but politics. certainly not based upon united states supreme court precedent that said 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 theavment 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. that's why when you're sworn in as a witness in court, you're 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 affect by its context not be truthful. that is part of the problem with mr. perez before the testimony he gave before the u.s.

commission on civil rights. going further back, we can see that mr. perez's ideological roots started in -- as a local official here in montgomery county, maryland, during his tenure on the city council, he consist enltdly opposed the -- consistently opposed the proper enforcement of our immigration laws. in fact, he went so far as to testify against enforcement that was being considered by the maryland state legislature. and finally, there's the matter of mr. perez's quid pro quo dealings with the city of st. paul, minnesota. and, of course, i'm 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. so, in fact, that's the reason he did it, because he was afraid the supreme court would rebuke the department of justice's aggressive interpretation of the fair housing act. and while this may not have been a direct violation of any laws, it is, at best, ethically dubious. so in summation, we have a nominee for the department of labor that has a record of ideological polarizing leadership, of giving incomplete and thereby misleading testimony before official tribunals, of enforcing the law in a partisan and selective manner, and in essence, in a you scratch my back/i'll crash is your back way of going against the public citizens. we should ask, is this the type of person we would want to serve in the president's cabinet? as senators, we should ask, is this the best we can do, o for e

secretary of the department of labor? i believe mr. perez's record disqualifies him for running that or any other executive agency of the united states -- of the federal government. and i fear his leadership would needlessly politicize the department and impose pop-down ideological litmus tests. for all these reasons, i will oppose his nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the clerk will call the roll. -- and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: are we having a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i would ask it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the vote on the confirmation of hochberg occur at 3:40 today, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider made and

laid on the table, be with no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order, that any related statement be printed in the record and president obama immediately notified of the senate's action. what time do we have today? what time is it right now? the presiding officer: 3:33 p.m. mr. reid: why don't we -- modify this, 3:35. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection. mr. reid: 3:35. the senators then, mr. president, confirming that request, should expect two votes. the vote on confirmation of hochberg, for export-import bank and the motion to invoke cloture on perez.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the confirmation of fred p. hochberg to be president of the export-import bank of the united states. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? the ayes are 82, the nays are 17. the confirmation is agreed to. 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. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motn to

invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to ing to a close debate on the nomination of thomas edward perez of maryland to be secretary of labor. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate -- the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the senate. the senator from florida is recognized. mrmr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent for one minute so i could make a statement with regards to the vote. ferraro is there objection? the senate will be in order.

harass mr. president? the presiding officer: 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, that we proceed to the -- the senator from florida has asked for a -- a unanimous consent request for a minute to read a letter to peek to this nomination. -- so to speak for this nomination. mr. harkin: then i would ask for a minute following the senator from florida. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the request from the senator from florida. without objection. 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 a letter sent to me by chairman issa where he writes "mr. perez has not produce add single document rive to the committee's subpoena. i am disappointed that mr. perez disregards a 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 the responsive documents, he will continue to be noncompliant with the committee's subpoena. thank you for your attention to this mavment" he goes ton note, "mr. perez has not produce add single document to the committee. therefore, he remains noncompliant." members, you are about to vote to give 60 societies and cut off debate on a nominee that has ignored a congressional subpoena from the house on information relevant to his background and to his qualifications toker this office. the presiding officer: senator's time has expired. the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, again, this is just -- a senator: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will come to order. mr. harkin: the contentions made by the senator from are florida are absolutely wrong many we had a hearing on this. we explored it in our committee. instead of the 1,200 e-mails that they cite, we're talking

about over a three and a half year period, 35 e-mails located on his personal e-mail that touched department of justice impis and were not forwarded to the department of justice. and those have been looked at an none of thement demonstrate that he acted improperly or unethically. when discovered, the e-mails were immediately forwarded to the d.o.j. serve he and are now part of the d.o.j. record redential system. i might add, 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. so the intentions made by the senator from florida are just absolutely wrong. the presiding officer: is it the sense of the senate that the nomination of tom perez to be secretary of labor shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are manned d

maundertory under the rules. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 40, 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senior senator from washington state is recognized. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm really pleased that yesterday the senate was able to come together and work out a bipartisan agreement to make some progress on approving president obama's nominees. this is a great example of the kind of work that i hope we can

do more of going forward, because, you know, gridlock is really getting in the way of progress on far too many issues that affect our families and communities that we have a responsibility to serve. one of the most egregious examples of this that still remains is the republican leadership who are blocking a bipartisan budget conference and the regular order that they called for in order, it appears, to gain leverage by manufacturing a crisis come this fall. now, democrats have come to the floor to talk about this a lot over the past few weeks, but unfortunately it seems to be getting worse, not better. we have heard more -- from more and more tea party republicans about their latest brinksmanship threat. they are now saying defend health care reform or we're going to shut down the government. now, mr. president, i wish i was making this up, but it's real. the house has already tried to repeal this law 37 times.

in fact, just for good measure, they are voting on it again this week. now, we all know that's not serious, it is certainly not governing, it is pointless pandering, and it does absolutely nothing to help the families and communities we represent. you know, mr. president, there are so many real problems, we all need to be focused on, we need to protect our fragile economic recovery and get more of our workers back on the job. we need to replace sequestration, and we need to tackle our long-term deficit challenges responsibly. we have got to stop this lurching from crisis to crisis and return to regular order and give families and communities the certainty that they deserve. but the only way we can do that is if we all work together, and the last thing we need to do right now is to rehash old political fights. now, mr. president, based on

what i'm hearing more and more of in recent days, not only are tea party republicans willing to push us towards a crisis this fall, but they will do that to cut off health care coverage for 25 million people and end the preventative care for our seniors that's free and cause our seniors to pay more for prescriptions. now, these political games may play well with the tea party base, but here's the reality -- obamacare is the law of the land. it passed through this senate with a supermajority. the supreme court upheld it. it is already today helping millions of americans stay healthy and financially secure. so we should all be working together right now to make sure it's implemented in the best way possible for our families and our businesses and our communities. but instead, what we're hearing are some empty political threats and a push for more gridlock here in the senate. now, mr. president, i don't

think it's a coincidence that the very people who are pushing now for a government shutdown to defund the health care law are the ones who are blocking a budget conference. if your goal is to just simply push this country into a crisis, as it seems to be for the tea party and the senate republican leadership now, then those are the ways you do it. now, when the senate budget passed, i was really optimistic. we worked here all -- for a very long time, hours and hours, well into the night, well into the hours of the morning, allowed everyone the opportunity to vote on their amendments. they were voted up or down, agreed to or not agreed to, and we passed a bill. because both republicans and democrats said they wanted to return to regular budget order, and they said if we did that, we would get back to a responsible process. i took them at their word, but here we are, mr. president, 192

days -- at the time we had 192 days to reach a bipartisan budget agreement, and three months later now democrats have come out here 16 times to move to the next step of the process, to get us to a bipartisan budget conference with the house. and each time that we've asked to do that, a tea party republican or a member of the senate republican leadership has stood up and said no, i'm not going to let you work out the differences with the house. we're not going to do a budget. we're just going to allow things to plod along here until we have a crisis in the fall. now, mr. president, there are now less than three weeks before we are scheduled to return home, all of us, to our states for constituent work. well, if we can't get an agreement by then, we are going to return in september with very little time before a potential government shutdown on october 1. now, we still have a window of opportunity to reach an agreement before we're in crisis mode. i would tell all of you it is

closing quickly. mr. president, ask your constituents. they are sick and tired of hearing about block and partisanship coming out of washington, d.c. it's got to end. now, this body had a great -- we had a great conversation on monday night in the old senate chamber. everybody had an opportunity to have their say, and a group of republicans led by senator mccain who are very interested in ending the gridlock worked together with us to solve the problem. in fact, i have to say it's been very heartening to hear from the many republicans who agree with the democrats that despite our differences -- and they are many -- we should at least, at the very least sit down in a conference committee, a bipartisan conference committee with the house and try to solve this problem and get an agreement. it started with just a few who are willing to stand up to their leadership, but, mr. president, i think we all should know that chorus is getting louder.

senator moran, for example, said just yesterday, and i quote -- i, too, hope we can have a budget conference because the process needs to work." now, i'm sure senator moran would agree with me that getting a bipartisan deal is not going to be easy. we know that. we know it's going to be difficult, but we all know it won't unless we get to work now. so rather than risking our economic recovery and hurting our families and communities by manufacturing a crisis this fall, i'm really hopeful that the bipartisan spirit that we all move forward with this week will carry over into this budget debate, and rather than just listening to a few, republicans will listen to the republican members who prefer some bipartisan commonsense approach to this over brinkmanship and chaos. so, mr. president, we still have an opportunity to govern the way the american people rightly expect us to and to come together and try and reach an

agreement, and i am ready to go to work and sit down with the conservative house majority to try and solve a problem that all of us have come to congress saying we want to work on, and that is a budget agreement. that budget agreement means certainty for our constituents, it means the ability, no matter how tough the choices are for us, and none of us is going to love any of them, will be able to give them certainty so they know how to move moving forward. so, mr. president, i would ask as if in legislative session, that i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res. 25, that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of s. con. res. 8, the budget resolution that was passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, that h. con. res. 25 as amended be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the senate insist on its

amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate. that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side, a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue, that there be two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the votes in relation to the motions and that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes, all the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. lee: i'm not objecting to a budget. i'm not even objecting to the idea of having a conference. i just want the debt limit left

out of the budget conference. the debt limit is a separate issue, one that warrants its own debate, its own discussion, its own legislation. my request is a simple one -- no backroom deals on the debt limit. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senator from washington modify her request so that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: let me just explain so that the senator understands. we are offering in this unanimous consent to allow the senate to speak on the very issue that the senator is requesting, to do it in what a democracy does and to allow an amendment on it and let the senate speak. that's what we do here. and i would object to his motion, and i would re-ask for our unanimous consent that would allow an amendment on his issue of the debt ceiling and allow this body to speak on it before

we go to conference. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the lee unanimous consent request. the question is, the unanimous consent request from the senator from washington. is there objection? mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: in that case, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. murray: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to talk about --. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. vitter: excuse me, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator is recognized.

mr. vitter: thank you. i rise to speak about the gina mccarthy nomination to head the e.p.a. and in particular efforts that i've led with my republican colleagues on the environment and public works committee to bring a whole lot more sunshine and transparency to e.p.a., something that's been sorely, sorely lacking for a long time and has been a particular problem, really reached no depths in terms of a problem in the last four years. now, mr. president, when this important nomination first came up, i focused specifically on these important transparency, openness issues. now, i disagree with the obama administration e.p.a. on all sorts of substantive issues, including, for instance, to take the most obvious, their war on coal. i disagree with both the past

administrator and this nominee, gina mccarthy, on all of those key, substantive issues like this war on coal. but i specifically chose not to focus on that in the nomination. i knew president obama won the election, i knew he had a fundamentally different view than i do on those key environmental and economic issues. what i focused on with other republican members of our committee was something that should be beyond dispute, beyond partisanship, really beyond debate, the need for openness and transparency with regard to what e.p.a. does and why they do it. this has been a battle i've been waging for a long time, including on the e.p.w. committee and, mr. president, i think this is a crucial issue. for a long time, e.p.a. under multiple administrations has

lost the confidence of congress and the american people. it used to be, including when e.p.a. was first founded and the -- in the first decade of its existence, that it was viewed as a nonideological group of experts. it was viewed as being led by real scientists and real science, peer reviewed, expert science, not by ideology, not by political agendas, not by partisanship. unfortunately, mr. president, i think e.p.a. and a lot of federal agencies but e.p.a. is perhaps the worst example, has gotten far afield from that. and it is viewed by most americans, myself included, as led by ideology, motivated by partisanship and a political agenda, not sober, sound science. and that's why we need to get back to complete openness and transparency so that we see what

e.p.a. is doing, why they're doing it, and try to hold them accountable so that their decisions are based on objective science, not cherry picking science, not partisan science, not what i would call "new york times" or tabloid science. and, again, those are what all of my key requests of e.p.a. and the nominee over this gina mccarthy nomination went to. over many, many weeks --, in fact, months mr. president -- i went back and forth with ms. mccarthy and e.p.a. over these very basic, sound, reasonable requests. and the good news, although it took a lot of back and forth, the good news is in each of the five key categories i identified on behalf of all of the republican members of e.p.w.,

we were able to secure real, meaningful, and substantial commitments in terms of moving the ball forward in at least four of those categories, and we're going to move the ball across the goal line in the fifth category as well. so let me briefly outline those five important categories that all relate to openness and transparency and where we're getting with regard to our agreements with the e.p.a. over the last several weeks. request number one had to do with foia, the freedom of information act. now, as anybody who has followed it in the news, e.p.a. has really drug its feet and frustrated a lot of legitimate foia requests by private citizens, by states affected by other stakeholders. the freedom of information act was designed to put sunshine on the federal government, to allow everyday citizens, anyone, the ability to get

basic important information from any federal agency. and yet as news releases and certain incidents illustrate over the last several years, e.p.a. has really tried to you frustrate that process. in fact, in certain documents we were able to obtain, we even got an email from within the general counsel's office at e.p.a. instructing all of the satellite offices of e.p.a. around the country how to frustrate legitimate foia requests, how to delay, how to frustrate, how to object obfusc. it wasn't about a particular foia request that they thought was out of bounds or inappropriate, it was just how to frustrate in general. that is completely inappropriate. that's beyond the bounds of the law. so we talk in great detail at the e.p.a. about how they have to change that. and this basically summarizes

the agreements we reached. first, e.p.a. agreed to mandate the retraining of all of their work force, 17,000-plus people, to tell them not how to frustrate foia requests but what foia is about, how to live by the law, how to honor foia requests in an open and timely way. secondly, e.p.a. committed to issuing new guidance on records maintenance and the use of personal email accounts. one way a lot of folks at e.p.a. clearly were frustrating foia requests is they would do official business on personal email accounts and so when a foia request was made, their e.p.a. emails were produced but lo and behold, the really important stuff, the stuff they wanted to hide was on their personal accounts. that is clearly a pattern that's been used at e.p.a. and other federal agencies to frustrate openness and transparency and

foia. so e.p.a. is specifically going to issue guidance to say that is absolutely illegal, that is absolutely off limits. and most importantly, trust but verify, here's the verify, the inspector general will complete an odd it to all of this stuff. we're going to put an end to foia abuse and we're going to make sure every american has foia as a legitimate tool for information, for openness, and transparency, as was intended when congress passed that law. the second category that i focused on in my discussions with e.p.a. were emails and communications, exactly what i was talking about before. there has been a pattern and several high-ranking officials were involved including lisa jackson, the former administrator, there's been a pattern of using personal email

accounts, also fake email names to in my opinion hide important information from the public. and the clearest example is what i said a minute ago. if you do the really important business on your personal account, and somebody sentdz in a foia request and then the agency produces your official emails, guess what, the really important stuff isn't produced, it's hidden. and that has to stop. and so we demanded a lot of things in this category. first of all, the nominee herself, we asked her to review her personal email accounts and report back that she hadn't used it for agency-related matters. she did that. she confirmed that. secondly, e.p.w. continues to coordinate with the house oversight and government reform committee to obtain further information. we do not have -- let me be crystal clear about that --

republicans on the e.p.w. committee not have obtained everything we've asked for or everything we serve with regard to emails and communications. so we're working with the house committee, with subpoena power, and we'ring with with closely with them and we are going to get even if it takes using their subpoena power, what we deserve. and then both committees recently put the e.p.a. on notice that they're considering issuing subpoenas with regard to just that. so this is the category where we have got ten least from the e.p.a. with regard to our discussions regarding the gina mccarthy nomination but i just want to make very clear so no one is surprised, we're going to get what we deserve, including through house subpoenas, if it takes that. the third category that i focused on in my discussions with gina mccarthy and the

e.p.a. are underlying research data. e.p.a. has done a lot of really important rules, rule making in the last several years, and in each of those cases, they base that rule making on specific research. one big problem is the world, the public, even including members of congress, not have had availability of that research data so that we can simply sort of compare notes and enlist outside experts to say look, does this data really lead to that rule? does it really lead to that conclusion? well, this has been an ongoing argument for a long time, and finally in the midst of these discussions related to the gina mccarthy nomination we've scored a breakthrough. e.p.a. has absolutely, categorically committed to obtain the requested scientific

information, that data from the researchers, from the institutions that did the research. they will absolutely request that and follow up on that. secondly, e.p.a. has already reached out to relevant institutions for information on how to de-eye dentify and code personally identifying information that may be in the data. none of us want personally identifying information, versions of the data that make it clear who individuals who were involved in the studies. we tonight care about that. we want that the overall data. the e.p.a. is already talking to the institutions about how to scrub the data so that they don't give was we were never interested in, personally identifying information. and third, for the first time we should be able to determine if there is any way of independently reanalyzing the

science and benefit claims for these major regulations which are moral the air regulations that the nominee, gina mccarthy, led the way on. so this really is a breakthrough because it's a path forward to get the underlying data so we can examine, independently examine, have experts look at the data and ask does it really lead to this regulation, does it really justify this regulation. the fourth category that i focused on in terms of my discussions with the e.p.a. over the gina mccarthy nomination is economic analysis. by law, e.p.a., like other federal agencies, are supposed to do a cost-benefit analysis before they do a big rule making. so part of their rule making is supposed to be a cost-benefit analysis to see if the rule is justified.