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. in my opinion, that cost-benefit

analysis is done in such a way to be laughable in some cases, to be ludicrous. it is designed to reach a particular result, not designed to be an objective cost-benefit analysis. so we wanted e.p.a. to go back to the drawing board. do a fair, do an open-ended cost-benefit analysis not designed to reach a particular conclusion, but just designed to truly objectively compare costs and benefits. as a result of our discussions, e.p.a. has committed to intervene an independent panel of economic exerts with experience in kphoel -- in whole economy modeling and they are going to review the ability to measure full regulatory impacts. that is sort of a bunch of

gobbledygook, but that is where we need to do true cost-benefit analysis to look at all the macro impacts, all the impacts of a rule on the whole economy. not very narrowly define the analysis in order to get to a certain conclusion. a good example is we need when they're doing rule making to understand impact on energy prices throughout the entire economy. that is often a huge impact of their rule making, particularly, say, in their recent air rule making, the so-called war on coal. we need to see how many jobs that really cost us in the whole economy. otherwise this idea of cost-benefit is not meaningful. and so they have committed to convene this independent pac. this manual will be tasked with

making recommendations to the agency so that the e.p.a. doesn't write, so that it is a significant, objective, meaningful cost-benefit analysis, not just an exercise they have to go through and that they design to reach a certain result. and the fifth and final category on which i focused in terms of my discussions with the e.p.a. over the gina mccarthy nomination was so-called sue and settle. sue and settle is a tool that environmentalists and their allies at e.p.a. have used with increasing frequency in the last several years, last five years in particular. when the environmental left wants to reach an objective, what they often do is sue the e.p.a. under environmental legislation and environmental statute. and so they are the plaintiff and the obama e.p.a. are the defendants. and they have a lawsuit.

and then after a few months they agree to settle the lawsuit, and the judge signs off on it. usually the judge is more than willing to do that because it gets a big and time-consuming and complicated case out of his hands, off his docket. now what's the matter with that? what's the matter with that is essentially the environmental left and the e.p.a. are on the same side of the issue. they usually agree on the fundamentals of the issue. the folks truly on the other side who often include stakeholders, landowners, businesses, state and local government, they never have a seat at the table with regard to the settlement. so this is a behind-closed-doors negotiation which is one-sided, which doesn't include anyone on the true other side of the issue. it doesn't include landowners. it doesn't include other stakeholders. it doesn't include state and local governments which are often directly affected, which

often have their role in some of these matters taken away. and so we need to make that sue and settle process more fair and we need to take the abuse out of it. and because we discussed this with e.p.a., we got the following important concessions. first, it helps resolve some of the challenges with lack of public input in closed door settlement agreements, otherwise referred to as sue and settle. e.p.a. will publish on two web sites the notices of intent to sue and petitions for rule making upon receipt. so at least the world out there will know what's going on at the front end. at least the stakeholders, the landowners, state and local government, other affected parties will know what's going on. secondly, the web address for the petitions for rule making are that and the web address for the notices of intent to sue is that.

that is very, very impornt notice with regard to potential sue and settle agreements, so that effective parties can begin to have input. they can't possibly have input if they don't even know there is a discussion going on, and they don't find that out until a final result is announced. so, mr. president, those are the results of our discussions with e.p.a.. as i said at the beginning, i don't agree with barack obama or gina mccarthy's positions on most of the big issues at e.p.a., including the war on coal. i don't agree with their actions that are costing millions of jobs around the country, that are increasing significantly the price of american energy. but i'm not going to be able to fix that given the last election. president obama was reelected. what we attempted to do is talk

to e.p.a. about things that we should be able to agree on, things that should be beyond dispute, beyond ideology, beyond argument. and that is giving the american people, including their representatives in congress, full and adequate information about what's going on, having people get the information they deserve, having that give-and-take which is supposed to be there and assured, cleaning up abuses in foia, cleaning up abuses in private and hidden and fake e-mail accounts. those are abuses that have gone on at e.p.a. for a long time and have been particularly problematic in the last five years. those are the sort of things we're going to fix through these agreements. and i think that will get us down the road to having a real discussion about the true facts behind proposed e.p.a. regulations, the true science,

the true costs and benefit, and not allowing e.p.a. to do so much that is so important behind closed doors without that full and open discussion of the true facts. i think it is an important step forward. that's why i agreed, as i promised to at the beginning of the process, to vote for cloture on the gina mccarthy nomination if we made this important progress. i set that metric. i made that commitment at the beginning of the process. i didn't think we'd get nearly as far as we did in terms of commitments out of e.p.a.. but since we did, since we made all of that substantive progress, i'm certainly going to honor that commitment with regard to the cloture vote. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked the clerk

will report the nomination. the clerk: department of labor. thomas edward perez of maryland to be secretary. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, first, i ask unanimous consent that carly rush and coby steel be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate of thomas perez. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: the senate is considering the nomination of thomas perez to be secretary of labor. it's been a long road to get here and i'm pleased we have the opportunity to consider mr. perez's nomination on its merits. tom perez's life is the story of an american dream. the child of immigrants from the dominican republic, he lost his father at a young age. he worked very hard at not very glamorous jobs to put himself through brown university.

work at a warehouse as a garbage collector and school dining hall. with such an impressive resume tom perez could have done anything with those degrees and accomplishments. he could have made a lot of money in the private sector. but instead mr. perez chose to become a public servant. and he has dedicated his career to ensuring that every american has the same opportunity that he had to pursue the american dream. from his early years at the department of justice where he helped to prosecute racially motivated hate crimes and chaired a task force to kpraoefpbt -- prevent worker exploitation, he helped struggling families avoid foreclosure, mr. perez has demonstrated unwavering commitment to building opportunity for all americans.

it is this commitment that makes tom perez an ideal choice for secretary of labor. of all the executive agencies, it may be the department of labor that touches the lives of ordinary americans the most on a day to day basis. the department of labor ensures that every american receives a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. and then can come home from work safely in the evening. it helps ensure that a working mother can stay home to bond with her newborn child and still have a job to return to. it helps workers who have been laid off, veterans returning from military service, others who face special employment challenges to build new skills and build opportunities for a lifetime. and it helps guarantee that hardworking people who have saved all their lives for retirement can enjoy their golden years with security and peace of mind. as our country continues to move down the road to economic recovery, the work of the

department of labor will become even more critical. the department will play a vital role in determining what kind of recovery we have, a recovery that benefits only a slight few or one that rebuilds a strong american middle class for everyone who works hard and plays by the rules can build a better life. now more than ever we need a dynamic leader at the helm of the department of labor who will embrace a bold vision of prosperity and help make that vision a reality for american families. and i am confident that tom perez is up to that challenge. without question, tom perez has the knowledge and experience needed to guide this critically important agency. throughout his professional experiences and especially during his work as the secretary of the maryland department of labor, licensing and regulation -- that would be maryland's equivalent of our secretary of labor -- during that time he developed strong

policy expertise on many important issues for american workers and business that come before the department of labor each day. he also clearly has the management skills to run a large federal agency effectively. perhaps most importantly, tom perez knows how to bring people together to make progress on even controversial issues. he knows how to hit the ground running, how to quickly and effectively become an agent of real change, and that's exactly the kind of leadership we need at the department of labor. the fact is, mr. president, tom perez is an extraordinary nominee to serve as secretary of labor, and i hope the senate will overwhelmingly confirm him to this vital position. mr. president, this is not the first time this body has considered mr. perez's qualifications. in october of 2009, in a bipartisan 72-22 vote, the senate confirmed mr. perez to serve as assistant attorney general for civil rights.

in more than three and a half years in that position, mr. perez has skillfully and vigorously enforced our nation's civil rights laws, has revitalized the civil rights division. as has been documented by numerous inspectors general and office of professional responsibility reports as well as congressional investigations, the bush administration had decimated the civil rights division, failed to properly enforce our most critical civil rights laws and politicized hiring and decision making. that has changed dramatically under mr. perez. as attorney general holder has said, mr. perez made it clear from the moment he was confirmed that the civil praoeuts -- rights division was -- and i quote -- "once again open for business." during mr. perez's tenure as head of the civil rights division he stepped up enforcement of civil rights laws

and restored integrity and professionalism. i want to review some of the successes under mr. per's leadership at the civil rights division. that division settled the three largest fair lending cases in the history of the fair housing act. let me repeat that. settled the three w disabilities act. reached in 2011, the settlement requires 10,000 bank and financial-related retail offices to ensure access for people with speech or hearing disabilities. imagine that. as late as 20 years -- almost 20 years after the passage of the americans with disabilities act, we had banks and financial offices that was not making their services available to people with disabilities. the division had to go after them and, as i said, obtained a settlement -- $16 million -- the

largest ever in the history of the americans with disabilities afnlgt the civil rights division handled more cases during 2012 than in any previous year ever. it increased the number of human trafficking prosecutions. mr. moran: than 40% including a number of cases in 2012. the division since 2009 brought 46 cases to protect the employment rights of service members, a 39% increase over the previous four years of the bush administration. mr. president, based on this stellar record of achievement at the department of justice alone, mr. perez deserves to be confirmed. but despite these accomplishments, some of my republican colleagues have claimed that mr. perez should not be confirmed. in fact, we had, what, 40, i guess, who voted against -- against mr. perez even having --

evening moving, even for cloture to move to it. now they're trying to say that we should not confir confirm hi. well, mr. president, as the chairman of the committee, with oversight jurisdiction, and as the chairman of the appropriations committee that funds the department of labor, i can assure you that i have looked carefully into mr. perez's background and record of service. i can assure everyone that tom perez has the strongest possible record of professional integrity and that any allegations to the contrary are totally unfounded. what is clear is that tom perez is passionate will enforcing civil rights laws and protecting people's rights. that passion makes him not only qualified by the ideal person to be secretary of labor. now, i do want to address some of the specific claims that we have heard and probably will continue to hear about mr. perez.

first, some have harped on the justice department's enforcement division involving the new black panther part. i hope my colleagues don't choose to rehash this matter. mr. perez had no involvement in this case. zero. mr. perez was not at the department of justice when the decision concerning these black panthers occurred. dismissed in may of 2009, mr. perez was not confirmed until october of 2009. second, some have questioned several enforcement actions related to the voting rights act and the motor-voter law. they have pointed to these cases to claim that mr. perez is somehow biased in his enforcement of the law. again, i hope my colleagues don't try to rehash these meritless claims. the department of justice inspector general, the independent inspector general, investigated these claims and

recently concluded, and i quote, "the decisions that the division or section leadership made in controversial voting cases did not substantiate cases of political or racial bias." end quote. the i.g. specifically noted that -- quote -- "allegations of politicized decision making were not substantiated." end quote. so anybody can make allegations, but you got to substantiate them. the allegations that he was acting in a politically motivated or biased manner were never, ever substantiated. in fact, in the election-related cases that mr. perez's critics have focused on, the courts ended up agreeing with the department of justice's conclusions that the law had been broken. this means that some opposed mr. perez's confirmation precisely because he did his job by enforcing duly enacted laws and by pursuing meritorious

cases. is our confirmation process here so broken that that -- that act, that act of enforcing duly enacted laws, becomes ground for opposing a nominee? third, mr. president, some republicans assert that mr. perez masterminded an improper deal whereby the city of st. paul dropped an appeal in a case reemented to the fair housing act. in a case called magner. and in return the department of justice decided not to intervene in a false claims act brought by a st. paul reserve dments another case called the newell case. during this debate, i expect we'll hear a lot about the alleged millions of dollars that mr. perez himself personally cost the federal government in lost damages because the government did not intervene and

prevail in the newell case. well, it's clear from all of the investigations that we have done that rather than being the scandal that some republicans claim, the evidence shows that mr. perez acted ethically and appropriately at all times. so i want to go through this, because it's important to set the record straight from these kind of phony eatles that have been made by some here about mr. perez. the magner case was a case involving the fair housing act. in 2011 the supreme court granted certiorari to consider whether that act permits a disparate impact claim. that's a claim challenging actions that are not intentionally discriminatory but, in essence, and effect have a discriminatory effect.

it is called the disparate impact claim of the case involved an unusual set of facts. instead of minorities and low-income persons using the fair housing act to challenge improper lending practices or zoning laws or real estate prayings, as is typical with the case with most fair housing act litigation, this specific case involved slum lords. not low-income renters or people being taken advantage of. this case involved slum lords in st. paul, using the fair housing act, to challenge the city's efforts to better enforce their housing codes against those slum lords. now, do those who want to take the side -- want to take the position that mr. perez acted

illegally, are they wanting to taping take the side of the slum lords in st. paul? well, let's look at this case. you know, lawyers make strategic judgments all the time about which cases should be appealed. and here it is clear why the department of justice had a strong interest in this matter. as athey've often said, as we all learned in law school, bad facts make bad law enforcement the justice department did not want the supreme court to consider the viability of the disparate impact principle in a case where slum lords were trying to abuse the law to their advantage. so there was just too much at stake here. now, the civil rights division under mr. perez had used applying disparate impact principle, a standard of law recognized under the fair

housing act by each of the 11 courts of appeal to draft issue. they had used this, as i had mentioned earlier, to reach settlements totaling $644 million against lenders who discriminated against potential home buyers in vials of the fair housing afnlgt as i said earlier, that's more money for victims under the fair housing act than in the previous 23 years imhie combined. i think it is very clear that mr. perez led his division in applying disparate impact principle to gain a lot of settlements and to help people who were discriminated against. soy it was vital to -- so it was vital to preserve this valuable enforcement. so civil rights leaders, as well as mr. perez, encouraged the city of st. paul to drop the appeal.

now, it wasn't mr. perez who was -- i it wases city of st. paul. mr. perez encouraged the city of st. paul mott to appeal the case to the supreme court, again, something entirely appropriate and entirely in the interest of united states. so when mr. perez reached out to the city, st. paul -- the city of st. paul raised the newell matter, another case. and this was the first time mr. perez had heard about this case. at that time, the city suggested -- the city of st. paul you suggested that it would drop its magner appeal if the department of justice did not intervene in newell, an unrelated, false claims act case in which a st. pull resident, mr. newell, had atled -- had alleged that the city of st. paul had not met its obligation to provide sufficient

minority job-training programs despitesserting to h.u.d. that it was doing so. as i said, this gets a little complicated here. but at this point, the evidence further demonstrates that mr. perez acted with the highest integrity and ethics. after this became known to him, mr. perez consult the two ethics and professional responsibility experts at the department of justice. it was made clear to him that because the united states is a unitary being a terks the two matters could be considered toct as long as the civil division -- the civil division, which deals with false claim act matters, retained authority over the newell cairks which was a false claims matter, not a civil rights matter. a written response mr. perez received, said, and i quote -- this again is from the ethics

people at the department of justice. they said -- quote -- ," there is no ethics rule implemented by this situation and, therefore, no prohibition against your proposed course of action." your proposed course of action, which was to get the city of st. paul to drop its appeal. at all fliems perez acted appropriately w the eth krall guidance he received -- within the ethical guidance he received. further, contrary to some republican claims, mr. perez was not responsible for the department's decision not to intervene in newell. in fact, the decision not to intervene in newell was made by career attorneys and experts on the false claims act under the clear direction of tony west, mr. tony west, head of the civil division; not by mr. perez, who was head of the civil rights

division. mr. west at all times retained the authority to make the decision regarding the newell case. now, while it is correct that at the time the supreme court agreed to hear the mag magner case both h.u.d. -- the housing and urban development -- and the minnesota attorney generals office had recommended intervening in the newell matter. they had done that because they didn't know all that was before them. as we ofnlg find, initialing considerations are not always dispositive and are often revisited in light of things that come up. so after learning of the department of justice concerns with regard to the magner appeal, the general counsel for h.u.d. -- housing and urban development, department of housing and urban development -- told the house that she reversed her recommendations, stating -- quote -- "if the decision had

been totally mine in october and there weren't any dealings with the department of justice that i needed to worry about in terms of relationship with the department of justice, we never -- we never would have recommended intervening. and if it were my decision whether to intervene or not i never would have intervened." end quote. at the same time, the person who led consideration of the case in the civil division was a very senior career attorney and an expert on the false claims act, mr. mike hertz. although mr. hertz has since passed away, colleagues testified that he'd told them after meeting with the city of st. paul, "mr. heard says this case suction." the newell case. again, this was the view of the newell matter by mr. mike hertz, the leading career expert on the false claims act.

so upon learning that h.u.d. had reversed its position, the u.s. attorney's office became concerned about the ability to proceed with the case. staff in the u.s. attorney's office told staff of the department of justice that they were also likely to change their position on intervening in the newell case, as the ultimate decision making in the newell matter, the head of the department of justice civil division, tony west, told the house, and i quote, "by early mid-january there was a consensus that this coalesced in the civil division that we were is going to decline the newell case. my understanding is that that certainly was mike hertz's view, it was joyce branders view, and that represented the branch u.s. attorneys office, the branch u.s. attorneys office out there. also i think around that time

period would be included in that consensus, it was mist view, too. it was the view of the client agency, h.u.d." engd quod. so what he's saying is that by mitt january when we looked at this, we found that this was not a very good cairks the newell case. earlier today it was suggested that mr. perez tried to "cover up" the fact that the nagner appeal played a role in the department's decision not to intervene. this is not correct. as i have just at great length gone through to show. despite indicating that they expwen-to-ed to change the recommendation, by mid-january the u.s. attorneys office memo recommending not intervening in the newell case had had not been received. mr. perez reached out to the assistant u.s. attorney leaving a voice message suggesting that the magner case should not be

dplud that formal recommendation. when he was asked about the voice mail, mr. perez explained to the house that his concern was not with the specifics of what was in the memo but was, rather, directed at trying to resov an issue he thought might be the source of the delay. mr. perez told the house that when he ultimately spoke to the u.s. attorney, "he promptly corrected me and indicated that the magner case would be part of the discussion. er i said, fine, follow the standard protocols. but my aim and my goal in that message and in the ensuing conversations was to get him to communicate so that we could bring the matter to closure. end quote. so, in early february, the civil division -- the civil division normalized the decision mott to intervene in the newell case with a written memo.

unsurprisingly, that memo is completely transparent and clearly indicates that the magner appeal was a factor in the decision not to join the newell matter. but that the decision is largely based on the flaws in the i newl case. i misspoarks that the m ravment gner case was not a factor in. but the decision is largely based on the flaws in the newell case. as mr. west noted, "declining to intervene was a view that we had all arrived to having taken into consideration the numerous factors including the magner case, as replected in our memo. i think the memo, the declination memo encapsulates what our view was. move, the final decision memo signed by mr. west that declined to interrue in the newell --

intervene in the newell case is completely transparent and clearly indicates that the manager imagner case was a finar in the decision not to join the newell matter. now, republicans claim that mr. perez single-handedly cost the united states millions of dollars. but the damage award received from a losing case is zero. zero. according to the justice department's leading expert on the false claims act, that is likely what the newell matter was worth, zero. so republicans say that we lost millions of dollars, how can you lose millions when the -- when the experts say that their chances of succeeding at it are zero. when the general counsel of the department of housing and urban development was asked about h.u.d.'s interest in recovering funds from the city of st. paul, she stated -- quote -- "as a hypothetical matter, sure. did we actually think there was the capability to do that in this case?

no." so to summarize, mr. perez consulted with two ethics and professional responsibility experts. those experts made clear that it was appropriate to advance a global resolution of the two cases as long as the civil division retained authority over the newell matter, which it did at all times. senior career civil division attorneys believed the newell case lacked merit and the lack of merit to that case was the primary reason for the civil division's decision not to intervene. so based on these facts, mr. president, i do not know what the controversy s. mr. perez acted appropriately and ethically to advance the interests of the united states. it is no surprise that experts in legal -- in the legal community have made clear that mr. perez acted appropriately. as professor steven gillers, who has taught legal ethics for nearly 30 years at new york

university school of law, wrote, the republican report issued last month suggesting that mr. perez acted improperly cites no professional conduct or rule. here it is. "the house overrite and government reform committee majority report argues that linking the two cases -- withdrawal of the magner appeal and u.s. nonintervention in the two qui tam actions, newell and ellis, was unethical. however, it cites no professional conduct rule, no court decision, no bar ethics opinion, and no secondary authority that supports this argument. in fact, no authority supports it." so, mr. president, you know, you can make all kinds of allegations and the house majority report, i might add, a republican report, made allegations but they have no

professional conduct rule, no court decision, no bar ethics opinion, no secondary authority that supports their allegation. no authority supports it. so, mr. president, the confirmation process has been thorough. mr. perez has been thoroughly vetted. he has been fully responsive, forthcoming and cooperative, including during a thorough confirmation hearing in my committee, the health, education, labor, and pensions committee. mr. president, his nomination was officially received on march 19, nearly five months ago. in contrast, mr. elaine chow was confirmed as secretary of labor the very same day her nomination was received in the senate. i might add, under democrati democratic-led committee. so again, with regard to the handling of the magner and

newell matters specifically, members received the complete set of over 1,400 documents from the department of justice. the department of housing and urban affairs made two career employees available to the house oversight committee for interviews with respect to their investigations into those cases. moreover, the department of justice inspector general made available the relevant portions of the transcript of mr. perez's interview with the i.g. as part of their investigation into the voting rights section under both president bush and president obama. so, mr. president, these allegations are simply that -- allegations made of whol whole . well, quite frankly, mr. perez has acted ethically and appropriately at all times. and perhaps that's why some are opposed to us. he's been vigorous in enforcing our civil rights laws, vigorous in going after slum landlords and lending agencies that abuse

poor people. we're tryinwho are trying to get decent housing. yeah, he's been vigilant in that, very vigilant. as i said, getting some of the biggest settlements ever in the history of this division. so perhaps they're afraid that mr. perez will be vigilant and strong in his tenure as the secretary of labor. well, we can only hope so. we can only hope that he will continue in the tradition set down by the former secretary, hilda solis, who did an outstanding job as our secretary of labor. former member of the house of representatives, hilda solis really turned that department around from a department that just had been almost moribund for eight years. and so i can assure everyone here that mr. perez will always act appropriately and ethically

but he'll always act forcefully to defend the rights of people to make sure that our laws are enforced, those laws that protect the health, the education, the labor, and the pensions of the american people. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: earlier today, my colleague, senator rubio, came to the floor to talk about the very serious matter of the nomination of thomas perez that will be before us. and in specifically his refusal to comply with a bipartisan congressional subpoena into the investigation of his orchestration of a controversial quid pro quo with the city of st. paul in a very important legal matter. senator rubio talked about that ably and eloquently, and it's a

very serious matter. i was in the department of justice for a number of years. i'm very uneasy about the way that matter was done. i don't believe that's normal business at all. in the -- in the course of his tenure, he has identified approximately 1,200, mr. perez has, personal e-mails that relate to his official duties and are responsive to the subpoena from the house, some of which reportedly disclose nonpublic information about publicly traded companies, yet he still refuses to turn them over to congress despite what appears to be a clear obligation to do so. the failure to comply with a subpoena is a very serious matter. a person who wants to go from the department of justice, who issues subpoenas all the time

and demands that people comply with them -- poor people, small businesses, whoever they issue a subpoena to, they expect them to be complied with. congress has the ability to issue subpoenas. a member of the department of justice ought to respond to th them. he has a high duty to respond this them, in my opinion, and i believe the senate was incorrect in allowing his nomination to go forward to a full vote when we've not gotten the information that we have. the failure to vote for cloture, not grant -- and moving to a vote on a nomination is not a rejection of a nomination fundamentally, it's a statement we're not ready to vote on it yet. we're not ready to have this matter brought before us because we need more information.

he's not answering a subpoena issued to him by the house of representatives. so i won't talk about that more but i think it's a big deal. but that's not the first problem mr. perez has in abusing the legal process. i want to share a few thoughts about some others, frankly. i hate to do this. i was concerned about the nomination when he came forward. i met with mr. perez at some length. senator tom coburn and i did. and i came away uneasy about it. i had a feeling that his ideological political agenda was so strong and his legal commitment was not strong enough and he would use this position in the department of justice to advance an agenda rather than enforce the law. and i'm afraid that's what's happened. many of my colleagues will recall that on election day in

2008, three members of the new black panther party stood at the entrance to a polling station in philadelphia brandishing night sticks and threatening voters what more intimidation can you have than that at a polling plate. they wore military uniforms, boots, military-style insignia and used racial slurs and insults to scare away would-be voters. one of the men was jerry jackson, a member of philadelphia's 14th ward democratic committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the democratic party on election day. now, this is not acceptable. this is clearly voter intimidation. dramatic voter intimidation. a video of the incident was widely distributed on the internet, made national news and

headlines. the justice department under the bush administration secured an affidavit from barnald bull, a longtime civil rights activist, former aide to robert f. kennedy in his 1968 presidential campaign. mr. bull called the conduct -- quote -- "an outrageous affront to american democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." none of the defendants in the case even filed a response to the complaint against them or appeared in the federal district court in philadelphia to answer the lawsuit. maybe they didn't feel like they had a defense. and it appeared almost certain that the justice department would have prevailed in their case. but according to a may 2009 article in "the washington times," the justice department had been working on the case for

months and had already secured a default judgment against the defendants by april 20 of 2009, three months after president obama took office. however, president obama's political appointee, mr. thomas per rel league, overruled career -- perelli, overruled career prosecutors and dismissed the prosecutions against two men with no penalty and obtained an order against the third preerl prohibiting him -- third merely prohibiting him -- get this, prohibiting him from bringing a weapon to the polling place in future elections, which was already against the law. what a saddened of that case. it's -- to me, it's just unthinkable. but in a 2009 memo, career appellate chief -- career attorney in the department of justice, chief of appellate

division, diana k. flinn, wrote that the justice department could have made -- quote -- "a reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants and probably should." that's what the career attorneys said about the matter. well, the justice department's highly unusual dismissal of the case of a dramatic voter intimidation was the subject of a yearlong investigation by the united states commission on civil rights. this was an i understand penalty commissioindependentcommission a commission of both parties, to ensure civil rights are protected. and they were trying to examine how it was this case was handled in this fashion. on april 1, 2010, chairman gerald reynolds sent a letter to the attorney general holder asking whether the department of

justice would fully cooperate with the civil rights commission's investigation and allow two department attorneys to testify in their investigation. the letter also pointed out that the department failed to turn over requested documents. the commission had asked for requested do you mean. they have a right to do that. according to civil rights commissioner peter kersenaw, in total, the civil rights division of the department of justice refused to answer 18 separate interrogatories, refused to provide witness statements for 12 key witnesses, refused to respond to 22 requests for production of documents, refused to produce a privileged log. this in spite of the fact that the justice department has a statutory obligation to fully comply with the u.s. commission on civil rights in their investigationmeninvestigations.

they think they're above the law now in the department of justice? i've got to tell you, i spent 15 years in the department of justice. i love the department of justice. and i've never seen some of the things that have happened, that have happened in recent years. and i believe the public needs to know more about it. i've tried not to be too critical in -- of attorney general holder and haven't. but i'm concerned about this. so later, two attorneys in the department of justice defied the department and actually agreed to testify against the department's recommendation before the commission on civil rights, at considerable risk to their careers. jay christian adams and christopher coats, the former chief of the voting rights section. mr. coats was the former chief of the voting rights section. adams and coats stated that -- quote -- "political appointees declined to prosecute the new black panther case because they

were interested only in civil rights cases that involved equality for racial and ethnic minorities and would not prosecute civil rights cases in a race-neutral way. adams called the actions in the new black panther case -- this is what the attorney in the department of justice said about the case; he was involved in it -- quote -- "the simplist and most obvious violation of federal law." he had -- that he had ever seen in his career at the justice department. and he resigned as a result of the dismissal of the obviously justified case. in his sworn testimony before the commission regarding mr. -- in his sworn testimony before the commission, mr. perez unequivocally denied the

allegations. commissioner peter kersenaw asked him this question -- quote -- "was there any political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was?" answer: mr. perez, "no." the decisions were made by justice department career attorneys, loretta king an in consultation with steve rosenbaum m, who was the acting assistant attorney general, mr. perez sa said. in a recent letter to members of the senate regarding mr. perez's nomination, commissioner kersenaw stated this. he said mr. perez's testimony -- quote -- "should be of tremendous concern to all senators, regardless of party. indeed it should. in fact, it was not until a freedom of information act lawsuit filed by judicial watch that the justice department

finally produced a privileged log identifying more than 50 e-mails all around the time of the department's otherwise bewildering decision to drop a case it had already won by default. judge reggie lawton, an african-american federal judge in d.c. here, the u.s. district court for the district of columbia, stated that in his opinion the internal documents -- quote -- "appear to contradict assistant attorney general perez's testimony that political leadership was not involved." close quote. let me repeat that.

this is a federal judge in the district of columbia -- quote - "that the internal documents -- quote -- " appear to contradict assistant attorney general perez's testimony that political leadership was not involved." close quote. indeed it does. we have got a federal judge finding this in his opinion. judge walton further said -- quote -- "surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials." close quote. he was referring to the fact that they weren't producing documents and that they ought to -- the public was entitled to have documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of the testimony of government officials. and he says and -- quote --

"representations regarding the possible politicization of the agency decisionmaking." close quote. mr. walton himself was at one time within the department of justice. i'm sure he has a high opinion of the department of justice. he is not trying to abusive them. he is just saying he has a -- department of justice officials have an obligation to tell the truth, and if they don't, they ought to be found out about. so the handling of the case was so extraordinary that the justice department's inspector general appointed by president obama initiated an investigation of the matter. the inspector general's report confirmed testimony of mr. adams and mr. coats and importantly it concludeed this -- quote -- "perez's testimony did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees in the new black panther decisionmaking.

in particular, perez's characterizations admitted that political appointees, associate attorney general perelli and deputy attorney general hersch were involved in consultations about the decision as shown in testimony and contemporaneous emails. specifically, they set clear hour of limits on what career attorneys could decide on the matter, including prohibiting them from dismissing the case in its entirety, without seeking additional approval from the office of the associate attorney general. so the department's own inspector general looked at the matter and concluded that mr. mr. perez's testimony, that the political appointees didn't have anything to do with it, it was all career attorneys that decided on the merits not to prosecute this case was not accurate. and he went on to explain why.

this isn't a house committee having a hearing on it. this is the inspector general of the department of justice, an inspector general basically appointed by president obama, selected by the attorney general himself. and basically, the political appointees put a fence around the case and said you can't take any real action on it until we get our approval. so now in his interview, mr. perez said he did not believe these incidents constituted political appointees being involved in a decision. give me a break. we believe these facts evidence involvement in -- well, let me go back, get this precisely correct. this was the inspector general's

report -- quote -- "inspector general found in his interview perez said he did not believe these incidents that i just mentioned constituted political appointees being involved in the decision. we believe these facts evidence involvement in the decision by political appointees within the ordinary meaning of that word, and that perez's acknowledgment in his statements on behalf of the department that political appointees were briefed and could have overruled his decision did not capture the full extent of that involvement." close quote. that's what the inspector general said. so to me, that sounds like a bureaucratic way of saying mr. perez did not tell the truth to the inspector general during the course of an official investigation of his conduct. so now we're going to promote

him? apparently, that's what goes on around here. true, the original decision to dismiss the case predated mr. perez's appointment to the civil rights division. he was not there at that time. that is true. but instead of reinstating the case, which would have been the correct decision, he became directly involved in and managed, according to the inspector general, what in effect was a cover-up of the processes that occurred. that in and of itself should disqualify him for this position. i mean, this is not good. to be found by your own inspector general in the united states department of justice, to not respond truthfully, to have a federal judge found there, to have the inspector general found there. we are far too blast aabout

officials -- too blase about officials, high officials in this government not telling the truth. he should not be rewarded with promotion for his work, protecting political appointees in the department of justice. the inspector general report also confirmed that mr. perez has overseen most of the unprecedented racial polarization and politicalization of the department of justice civil rights division. there has just been a lot of turmoil there over it. and the disagreement about what the right thing to do is has been a consistent theme of his, which is to advance certain political and ideological agenda, it seems to me. and i will just explain what i mean. i want to be fair to him, but

i'm not -- i have not been around a lot of litigation for a long time, and i'm not comfortable with his actions. so he has sued states for implementing voter identification laws, sued the states for that, which has been rejected by federal courts to intimidate them and stop them from saying you have to have an identification of some kind before you're allowed to walk in and say you're john jones and you're entitled to vote. what if you're not john jones? states have passed laws like that. the federal court has rejected his view, including a three-judge panel on the united states district court for the district of columbia in washington, including a judge colleen catelli, who was a clinton appointee. mr. perez's arguments have been rebuked by courts in arkansas about the civil rights for an

institutionalized persons act, in new york in an education case, u.s. vs. brennan, in a florida case where perez's team was abusively prosecuting peaceful pro-life protesters, and in a major loss in court in florida when he was trying to force the state not to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. apparently, florida in his mind was violating civil rights by saying nonvoters, noncitizens shouldn't be on the voting rolls. is this who is running the department of justice? is this the philosophy they are having in washington? the department has filed and is considering lawsuits against a growing list of states that have enacted immigration legislation including alabama, arizona, utah, indiana, georgia and south carolina.

although mr. perez was not involved in the department's lawsuit against alabama, my state, he has issued threats and engaged in intimidating tactics against alabama law enforcement officials who have reported to me shock at the nature of those events. for example, he took the unprecedented action of creating a toll-free hotline for people to report allegations of discrimination due to alabama's immigration law, although attorney general of alabama said i will prosecute anybody who violates people's right to vote. and mr. strain said tell me who have made complaints, that you say have made complaints about not being treated fairly, and i'll investigate it. and mr. perez said there were

bullying and harassment complaints out there, but when asked to produce some of them, he's refused to provide. alabama officials question whether reports of complaints were in fact true. they won't say what they are. in october of 2011, mr. perez sent a letter to the superintendent of every school district in alabama requesting the names of all students who have withdrawn from school and the date without any apparent authority to do so. he just wanted to snoop into that, i guess. in december, 2011, he sent a letter to all alabama sheriffs and police departments that received federal funds, many of them through the department of justice where he was, warning them, i think without basis, not to infringe on constitutional

rights in enforcing alabama's immigration law. no proof anybody had violated constitutional rights in enforcing that law. mr. perez actually threatened to withdraw federal funding from any of the 156 offices that implement -- quote -- "the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against latino or any other community." close quote. he also warned that the civil rights division is -- quote -- "closely monitoring the impact of the law." close quote. on january 20, mr. perez met in tuscaloosa with tuscaloosa county sheriff ted sexton who previously has held a high public safety office in the federal government in washington and several other sheriffs around the country. sheriffs sexton told mr. perez that he perceived his letter as

a threat and asked him whether he should expect any lawsuits against him or any other law enforcement officials. mr. perez wouldn't comment. sheriff sexton also pressed for examples of reports of discrimination in alabama that mr. perez had reportedly received, but he again refused to comment or provide evidence. according to sheriff sexton, a sheriff from georgia was present and asked another justice department representative who was present with mr. perez whether states like alabama and georgia were being penalized for the sins of our grandfathers, and the official reportedly responded more than likely. i received a letter from sheriff huey mack in bowen county, a fine sheriff who responded after 9/11 and new york and did forensic work there, and sheriff mack states in opposition to

this nomination -- quote -- "following the issuance of this letter, several law enforcement officers met with mr. perez in mobile, alabama. during this meeting, mr. perez made several false allegations relating to law enforcement's handling of alabama's immigration law. this continued for a short period of time during which it became evident mr. perez was not interested in the truth but wanted to rely strictly upon his biased and preconceived notions regarding the state of alabama. mr. perez should not be confirmed to any cabinet level post. in my opinion, mr. perez should be relieved of all his duties as it relates to the united states federal government and seek employment outside of serving the citizens of this nation." close quote. well, i wasn't there but i know sheriff mack, and something

really was wrong for him to write such a strong letter. and sheriff sexton was in another meeting that he's referring to. very able sheriff. when mr. perez was nominated to lead the civil rights division, i had serious concerns about whether he would work to protect the civil rights of all americans regardless of race, and whether he would ensure that the division remained free from partisanship and not be used as a tool to further an agenda or some ideology. these concerns had a basis in fact from looking at his prior record. that was the concern that i had. when he ran for montgomery county, maryland, council, he responded to a question asking what would you like the voters to know about you with -- quote -- "i am a progressive democrat, always was and always

will be" -- close quote. well, you know, that's okay. but when you get to be in the department of justice you have to put that aside. so i asked him about that in our meetings. in april 3, 2005, "washington post" article he was described as -- quote -- "about as liberal as a democrat can get" -- close quote. there's nothing wrong with that. but you got to be able to put it aside if you're going to serve in the u.s. department of justice as a councilman he expressed disdain for republicans at one point, giving -- quote -- "a five-minute speech about how some conservative republicans did not care about the poor" -- close quote." that's his opinion. but it shouldn't infect his duties as an official in the department of justice. from 1995 to 2002, while employed as an attorney in a civil rights division he served

on the board of cassetor, casa, an acronym for central american solidarity association is an advocacy with extreme views funded in part by george soreos that opposes enforcement of immigration laws. they're flat out there active about it. the department of justice, you need somebody who favors enforcing the law, not not enforcing the law. what are prosecutors supposed to do in the department of justice? undermine law or enforce law? when i was in the department of justice, we understood our job was to enforce the law, not make it. for example, this casa de maryland issued a familiar

threat urging illegal aliens not to speak to police agents. it promoted day labor sites, that's where illegal workers go out and get jobs, so they promoted that. it fought restrictions on illegal immigration -- immigrants receiving drivers' licenses and it supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. so this is the organization he was president of. i talked to him about that. and i was not convinced that he could set that aside when he became an official in the department of justice, who would be required to enforce those kind of laws passed by the congress and states. so mr. perez has spoken in favor of measures that would assist illegal aliens in skirting immigration laws and while a

councilman in 2003 he supported the use of the consular i.d. cards issued by mexico and guatemala as a valid form of identification for local residents who worked and used government services without having any u.s.-issued documents to prove they were lawfully here. notably, no major bank in mexico accepts these documents. they're not a valid identification document. unfortunately, some of my initial concerns about mr. perez's nomination have been confirmed. i hate to say. i don't feel like and i have to say i don't doubt that he will continue if confirmed as the secretary of labor to do all that he can within his power to -- to hamstring enforcement

of immigration laws and to advance his political agenda. that's what his background is, that's what he's done, as i've documented here. his misleading testimony before the u.s. civil rights commission as mr. kersenal pointed out the veracity of which was questioned by united states federal judge here in the district of columbia, his false statements to the inspector general of the department of justice month who wrote about it in his analysis and report on the incidents, his refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena by the house of representatives, and really his abysmal record at the department of justice dis qualifies him in my view for this position. and, frankly, we should not have closed debate on his

nomination and moved it forward until we got the information that's out there. what if this information is produced next month and it's very -- very incriminating or unacceptable? are we going to ask him to quit? that's not the way you should do business here. we have hearings, we ask questions of nominees. if they don't answer questions, normally they don't move to the floor for confirmation. so i think this is a legitimate concern that the american people ought to know about. i believe the american people have a right to know all the information about mr. perez's tenure in office, the criticisms of a very serious nature that he has received, and the fact that he seems to have a strong bent toward allowing his own ideological and

political views to infect his decisionsmaking process. -- decisionmaking process, all of which is unacceptable for a high position in this government of the united states of america. i would appreciate the chair's indulgence and would yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of the nomination of gina mccarthy to be this nation's next e.p.a. administrator. mr. president, you and i know gina mccarthy's work firsthand because prior to joining the e.p.a. she was our commissioner in the state of connecticut of the department of environmental protection where she served under republican governor,

worked with both parties to advance the environmental and business interests of the state. and so first i want to very briefly share with my colleagues why i support gina mccarthy. but then i frankly wasn't to talk about why i believe that my republican colleagues who may not be supportive every single day of the year of the mission of the e.p.a. should support her as well. i support gina mccarthy because for her entire career she has been a champion of public health. a lot of people who rise to lead federal agencies, they spend the majority of their career here in washington and there's nothing wrong with that but there is something special special with gina mccarthy who started her career as a local public health official in canton, massachusetts. she learned public health at the ground level. and she understood very early on that the government working

together with the business community can have an enormously positive effect on the health of our -- our nation. i support her because she's come up the right way through the grass roots of america's public health infrastructure. i support her because of the great work that she did in connecticut when she was, as i mentioned, our republican-appointed commissioner of the department of environmental protection. one of the things she did was work with states all throughout the northeast on something called reggie, which is a voluntary association of states throughout the northeast region to try to reduce carbon he emissions. there is nothing but success when you tell the story of reggie. see did this under a republican governor, a number of republican governors along with democrats who participated in this plan, but over time the

plan was to reduce carbon emissions from northeastern states by 10% moving towards 2018, but through this mechanism what we have seen is not just a reduction in carbon emissions from connecticut and the states that participate but a pretty amazing production in the amount that ratepayers are paying. why? because through this rather modest cap cap-and-trade regimee were able to take the money gleaned through the system and put it right back into efficiencies so that ratepayers were paying less, so much so that the estimates are that consumer bills will be $1.1 billion less because of the work that gina mccarthy did, an average of about $25 off the bill of a residential homeowner and about $181 off the bill of commercial consumers.

and i support her because of what she's done since she's come to the a.p.a., leading the air quality initiatives at the e.p.a. she's just made a huge difference. you take a look at just the mercury and air toxins rule alone and the estimates are almost hard to comprehend. 11,000 premature deaths will be prevented because of the work that she did. just on that one effort alone. 4,700 heart attacks will be prevented because of these toxins disa disappearing from our air. and maybe most importantly to those of us with little kids at home, 130,000 asthma attacks won't happen in this country, largely to children, because we'll have cleaner air to breathe. i support gina mccarthy because of the work that she's done her entire career to be a great steward of the environment and a resolute champion of clean air. but i want to talk for just a

few minutes about why i think our republican colleagues should support her as well. we had a breakthrough this week on the issue of how this body will treat at least this set of nominees, and i think there was agreement between republicans and democrats that the president of whatever party he may be, he or she, should get his or her team in place, and that this body should work to make sure that that occurs. and maybe with the one caveat there should be a responsibility of the president to put people with a pragmatic mind in charge of agencies that might be ones in which there's disagreement here over their mission. i might not expect my republican colleagues to support somebody going to the cfpb or to the e.p.a. that is just a rigid ideologue. but i think there is agreement

that if the president does choose a pragmatist, somebody willing to reach across the aisle and willing to build coalitions then this body should support the president's team and i want to make the case to my republican colleagues as they make their final decision how to vote on gina mccarthy, that is exactly who she is. lots has been made of the fact that she really with the exception of her appointment to the e.p.a. during her tenure under president obama has been a republican appointee. it wasn't just governor jody well a republican that i disagreed with on a lot of things in connecticut, that appointedded her, but of course got her start from mitt romney in massachusetts. and so she has clearly demonstrated she is someone who is able to work across the aisle. but what i think republicans want to know is as she presides over an e.p.a. that is going to

move forward with new regulations for proposed power plants and, we hope will move ahead with clean air regulations for existing power plants is she going to do it in a rigid fashion or willing to listen as well? i want to give you a couple of quotes that come from people that work in the industry, people, frankly, that i don't agree with, that the president doesn't agree with and that gina mccarthy isn't going to agree with all the time but people who have worked with her who have at worst a begrudging respect for the work shshe's done and at best, frankly, an admiration. william bump perks a partner at a law firm in town that represents power plants and industry clients says -- quote -- "gina mccarthy is one of these avid environmental program managers who is exceptionally competent but practical. my experience with her in the

past four years, i can meet with her, she's very forthright, there's no guile with her, while i haven't always agreed with the rules that come out of there there's never been any guesswork about what comes out of there. gloria berquist says she is a pragmatic policy motorcycle are. she has aoperational environmental goals but accepts real-world economics." charles warren, a top official in the reagan administration who now represents a lot of people in the industry says that e.p.a. as a regulator you're always asking people to do things they don't want to do but gina has made an effort to reach out to industries while the developing regulations. she's got a good reputation. and even the spokesman for the national mining association -- this might come under the category of grudging respect -- but he says "she is very

knowledgeable. i don't think anyone is questioning her understanding or ability. she will not be caught offguard in any defense of what they have done. i expect her to be well informed. she doesn't strike me as an ideologue." this is what the industry says. we know the republicans support her. that's how she got the jobs that led to her position at the e.p.a. even within industry they recognize they're going to disagree with her. they are not going to come down to the e.p.a. in a parade of support for some of the things that she may do, but they acknowledge that she is going to listen and to the extent possible she is going to work with them. i think that's who we want at the e.p.a., and i think that's who gina mccarthy will be. and i don't think that just because of speculation. i think that because, as the junior senator from connecticut, i watched her walk the walk and talk the talk in connecticut. i know that she did it in massachusetts because that's why we picked her in connecticut,

and i have certainly seen her do it in her years adding clean air policy at the e.p.a. for my friends who want a strong, passionate advocate for clean air, you got one in gina mccarthy, and for my friends who want a pragmatist who, although they may disagree with, is going to at least be practical in somehow she implements the policies of this administration, you have that voice, too. gina mccarthy will be a great pick at the e.p.a., and i urge my colleagues to support her. mr. president, i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. it's a pleasure to see both senators from connecticut here, one speaking and one presiding, and to reflect on the junior senator's comments about the e.p.a. nominee gina mccarthy

who is not only from connecticut and massachusetts. so she has surrounded my state of rhode island, and we have had plenty of, i would say, indirect exposure to her. i think she is terrific and i could not agree more with the senator's comments. i look forward to swift confirmation to get to work on her confirmation. which gets me to the issue on the floor again for the 39th time which is to try to get this body to wake up to the threat of climate change. speaking of massachusetts, i'll also welcome our new senator from massachusetts, my new england neighbor, ed markey. for decades, ed has been a passionate leader in congress on energy and environmental issues. he has been a true champion on climate change. he and i serve as cochairs of the bicameral task force on climate change, along with our colleagues representative waxman and senator cardin. so i really look forward to

continuing to work alongside now-senator markey to forge commonsense solutions to the crisis of climate change. we need common sense in a place where the barricade of special interest influence has blocked action on climate change, and where even the debate itself is polluted, polluted with falsehood and fallacy and fantasy. look no farther than the republican response to the announcement last month of president obama's national climate action plan. the president described in his speech some of the overwhelming evidence that our planet is changing. the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years, he said. last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached

record highs, and ice in the arctic sank to its smallest size on record, faster than most models had predicted it would. these are the facts. that's what the president said. here in the senate, the president's facts were challenged. those aren't the facts, mr. president, flatly replied one of my republican colleagues. it's not even true. so let's look. where were the facts and where the falsehood. well, according to nasa, the president had the facts right on warming. indeed, he may actually have understated the severity of global warming. in fact, the 15 hottest years on record, the red ones, have all

occurred in the last 15 years. the 13 hottest years on record have all been in the last 15 years. and i remind my colleagues that nasa is the organization that right now is driving a rover around on mars. we might want to consider that these are scientists who know what they're talking about. as to ocean temperatures, the other part of the the president's assertion, noaa says says -- and i quote -- sea surface temperatures in the northeast shelf large marine ecosystem during 2012 were the highest recorded in 150 years. the president's facts were right again. and this chart from the national snow and ice data center from the university of colorado shows, just as the president

said, the 2012 yearly sea ice melt in the arctic smashed previous records. furthermore, the data center confirms that -- and i'll quote them again -- ice extent has declined faster than the models predicted. so in the contest between fact and falsehood, the president was completely accurate on his facts. and facts, as john adams said, are stubborn things, not to be easily brushed aside for convenient falsehoods. so falsehoods, fallacies and fantasies, let's go on to a fallacy. my senate colleague warned against accepting what he called -- i'll quote -- the

extreme position of saying that carbon dioxide is the cause of climate change or of global warming, and he suggested that carbon dioxide can't be a threat because it's found in nature. we exhale it. well, that's a fallacy, an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity or more generally a lack of soundness. that's the definition of a fallacy. arsenic is found in nature, but in the wrong concentration and in the wrong places, it is nevertheless still dangerous, and the principle that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere dates back to the time of the american civil war. it is not late-breaking news.

it is found, solid, established science. quite simply, the position that carbon dioxide isn't causing climate change is the extreme one. the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, at least 95% of them, accept that global climate change is driven by the carbon pollution caused by our human activity. we're having a hearing this week on climate change in the environment and public works committee. even the witnesses invited by the minority to that e.p.w. hearing acknowledged the effects of carbon on our climate. in a recent interview, minority witness dr. roy spencer of the university of alabama-huntsville said, and i will quote him -- "i don't deny that there has been warming. in fact, i don't even deny that

some of the warming is due to mankind." in another interview, he said -- "i am one of those scientists who think that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere should cause some amount of warming. the question is how much." another minority witness, dr. roger pelkey of the university of colorado, these are statements by the witnesses invited by the republican side. it is simply not credible inlonger to just deny climate change. the view that carbon emissions has caused climate change is

shared by virtually every smisk association. from the geophysical union to the american meteorological society. but of course to the polluters, this isn't about the facts. it's about political power. they bought this clout and they're going to use it, facts be damned. the republican response to the president's climate plan even served up the old climategate fantasy. that's the faux scandal in which hacked emails between climate scientists were selectively quoted to try and throw doubt on years of peer-reviewed research. the scientists, my colleagues said -- quote -- "were exposed

for lying about the science for all those years." end quote. nothing of the kind is true, none of it. eight groups, because of the kerfuffle about this, eight groups, including the office of the inspector general of the u.s. department of commerce and the national science foundation reviewed those whipped up allegations against the researchers and found no evidence of fraud, none. turns out the so-called climategate scandal is pure fantasy. but even that fantasy flies in low orbit compared to the high-flying republican fantasies about what regulating carbon pollution would do. again, according to my colleague, putting a price on carbon pollution will cost, and i quote, about $3,000 a year for

each taxpayer. there is some history here. this scary, misleading number has been kicked around by republicans since 2009. as the colleague noted, the $3,000 per-year figure is derived from a 2007 m.i.t. assessment of cap-and-trade proposals. but there is more. when politifact asked one of the study's authors what he thought of the republicans' characterization of his work, here's what he said -- "it's just wrong. it's wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin." that is the assertion that's being quoted on the senate floor, one that is wrong, according to the authors, wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin.

politifact rates political statements, generally from true to false, but it reserves a special designation for fantasies. polite -- politifact all the way back in 2009 gave these comments that very special designation -- pants on fire. the fact, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, is that the cap-and-trade bill's actual costs were modest, about 48 cents per household per day. and further, it's worth noting that these environmental rules, like the clean air act -- let's use that as an example -- actually saves money overall. in the case of the clean air act, it's been documented, $40

saved for every $1 spent. 40-1 return on the cost of the clean air act for the benefit of all of us. just as fantastical are our colleagues' claim that new environmental protection agency greenhouse gas regulations would cover, i quote, every apartment building, churches, and every school, and here's another good one. i'll quote -- that e.p.a. will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its greenhouse gas regime. that may be true in fantasyland,

but in reality, e.p.a. has specifically issued a rule limiting the regulation of greenhouse gases to only the largest sources, such as power plants, refineries and other large industrial plants, while exempting smaller sources like restaurants or schools and other small buildings. in fact, e.p.a. filed a court brief, a signed court brief, a representation to the courts of the united states that regulating every apartment building, churches and every school, as my colleague put it, is wholly unrealistic. by the way, e.p.a. has fewer than 18,000 employees. it has fewer than 18,000 employees. to add 230,000 new employees, it would have to increase its work force by 1,300. by

1,300 percent. really? if e.p.a. had 230,000 employees, it would be equivalent to the 20th largest corporation in the united states. it would be larger than general motors and walgreens. and in fact, back here on earth, this claim has been evaluated when it was made by other republicans by politifact, and those similar statements received a rating of false. mr. president, i applaud the president for courageously taking the lead on protecting the american people and the american economy from the devastating effects of carbon pollution on our oceans and our atmosphere. i hope that my republican colleagues would consider the

differences between the administration's regulatory approach and the market-based solutions we could implement through bipartisan legislation. i hope that they will decide if they are content to holler from the back seat about this or whether they are willing to come forward and join with us, put hands on the wheel and design commonsense solutions for a very real problem. unfortunately, instead of seizing this opportunity, the other side of this debate can't let go of the falsehood and the fallacy and the fantasy. we were together the other night, monday night, as a senate. we joined together. we went to the old senate chamber to discuss a lot of issues relating to the filibuster and to the senate and

a lot of high-minded things were said that monday night. a lot of good things about the traditions and the institution of the senate. well, traditions of the senate worth preserving include that we don't traffic in falsehoods, in fallacies and in pants on fire fantasies. that we face even unpleasant facts squarely. that's our job. and that we do our job. we have received credible and convincing warnings. we have received compelling calls to act. the denial position has shown itself to be nonsense, a sham.

it is time to wake up. and for us to do the work necessary to hold back, to mitigate and to adapt for the climate change that our carbon pollution is causing. and yet, we sleepwalk on in this chamber, we sleepwalk on in congress. well, it's time to shelf -- shelve the falsehood, fantasy, and have an honest discussion here about how we're going to address the very real threat of climate change. mr. president, it is time to wake up. i yield the floor, and i'll note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of senate resolution 183 and the senate proceed to its consideration.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 183, commemorating the relaunching of the 172-year-old charles w. morgan by mystic -- the presiding officer: is there objection? works the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. white house: mr. president, i understand that there are three bills at the desk and i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 1350, a bill to prohibit the secretary of the treasury from enforcing the patient protection and affordable care act and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010.

s. 1316, a bill to repeal the provisions of the patient protection and a reasonable doubt for believe air act providing for the independent payment advisory board. h.r. 1911, an act to amend the higher education act of 1965 to establish interest rates for new loans made on or after july 1, 2013, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. whitehouse: i now is for a second reading en bloc and i object to my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, july 18, 2013. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that the majority

leader be recognized and that following the remarks of the two leaders, the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak ther therein for up ton minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the first half controlled by the majority and the second half controlled by the republicans. and that following morning business, the senate resume executive session to consider calendar number 99, the nomination of thomas perez to be secretary of labor, postcloture. further, that all time during adjournment, morning business, legislative session and recess count postcloture on the perez nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i am informed by the leader that we hope to confirm both the perez and mccarthy nominations on thursday. and if there's for further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

9:30 a.m. tomorrow. >> take a few minutes to talk about the president's nominee for secretary of labor tom perez.

i have already opened on mr. perez over the last few weeks and i will not repeat everything i said that it's important for my colleagues to understand the basis of my opposition. we have 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 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 am quite sure that i would disagree with mr. perez on a host of policy but i want to make clear to my colleagues those policy differences are not the reason i am vigorously opposed to this nominee. i am opposed to mr. perez 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 advance 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' 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 to false claim cases in exchange for the city of st. paul withdrawing its case before the supreme court in a case called gallagher.

mr. perez' 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 manipulated the supreme court docket so that his favorite legal theory called disparate impact theory would evade review by this high court. in the process mr. perez left a whistleblower twisting in the wind. those are the facts. even mr. perez does not dispute them. the fact that mr. perez struck 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 on that -- undercover to my investigation revealed mr. perez sought to cover up the facts that the exchange never took place. and finally let me emphasize that this should concern all of my colleagues and mr. perez testified under oath about the case. 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 could throw ." 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 is where the $200 million comes in. that is what was expected to be recovered. the career lawyers in the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota were recommending the department of justice joined the case. the career lawyers in the civil division of the department of justice were recommending that department joined the case and the career lawyers in the department of housing and urban development were recommending that justice joined 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 e-mail in october 2011 quote it looked 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. n near 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 a lawsuit 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 2011, the department announced it reached the $355 million settlement with countrywide and again in

july 2012, the department of justice announced $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 the theory were undermined by the supreme court it would likely spell trouble for mr. perez' lawsuit against the banks. so mr. perez approached the lawyers handling the magner case and quite simply cut a deal. the department of justice agreed not to join to false claims act cases. in exchange for the city of st. paul with drawing magner from the supreme court.

now you have got interfering in the agenda of the supreme court at the same time they deal that 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 saint paul and he flew there solely to finalize the deal. the next week the justice department declined to join the first false claims act called the new okc. 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 but 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 the tenth of 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 the same career attorneys that i referred to 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 declaration memo that you sent to the civil division, and i am sure it they 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 key cam context end of quote. so it's pretty clear that they didn't want anything in writing that lead 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. berger a follow-up e-mail writing quote, i left a detailed

voicemail. call me after you can after you have a chance to review the e-mail end of quote and then several hours later mr. perez sent another follow-up e-mail writing quote were you able to listen to my message? end of quote. now mr. perez' voicemail was quite clear and obvious, it told mr. berger 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 facts. 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 voicemail, 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 a closure and if the the only issue that is standing in the way is how you talk about magner then don't talk about it end of quote. anyone who actually listens to the voicemail knows that this is just plainly not what he said in that voicemail. 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 admit

the discussion of magner. now let's applaud that civil servant because he isn't going to play that game. according to mr. perez he told mr. brooker during this call to follow the normal process. again the story is just not supported by the evidence. one month later after mr. perez flew from minnesota to personally seal the deal with the city the line attorney in the civil division e-mail is superior to outline the "additional facts" about the deal. .6 red quote usa mn and that stands for u.s. attorney minnesota. select me start over again. quote usa mn considers it

nonnegotiable that its office will include the discussion of the supreme court case of the policy issues in the declination memo end of quote. if mr. perez' story were true and the issue was resolved on january the 11th, then hawaii one month later with the u.s. attorney's office lead to emphatically state that it would not hide the fact that the exchange to place? now as i just mentioned mr. perez flew to minneapolis to finalize the deal on february the third and you would think, wouldn't you, that a deal of this magnitude would be written down so that the parties understood exactly what you decide agreed to. but with this agreement written down? no, it wasn't.

after mr. perez to finalize the deal the career attorneys asked if there was going to be a written agreement. what was mr. perez' responds? he said quote no, just oral discussions, the 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 the taxpayers money in exchange for the city of st. paul with drawing the 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

with the parties agree 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. -- told congressional investigators that on january 9 approximately one month before the deal was finalized mr. perez had assured him that quote hud would be helpful end of quote if the newell case proceeded after the department of justice declined to intervene. mr. lillihad told investigators that on february 4 the day after they finalize the deal, mr. perez told him that had had begun assembling information to assist the city in a motion to dismiss the newell complaint

quote unquote on original source grounds. but according to mr. lillihad 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. noel the whistleblower 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. noel 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. is that the way you represent the american people? and you are 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 an quote. so i'm the one hand we have mr. magner -- lillihad who says mr. perez made this offer but the assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the civil division caught wind of it. on the other hand it was mr. perez who testified under oath of quote i don't recall end

of quote ever making such an offer. who should we believe? that documents support mr. sub mr. sub -- lillihad's urchin of event. it a line attorney sent an e-mail to the director of civil fraud section and relating conversation and relayed a conversation the line attorney in minnesota had with mr. mr. lillihad and according to mr. lillihad the line attorney wrote there were two additional items or part of the deal and one of those two items was this. quote hud hud will provide material to the city in support of their motion to dismiss the original source grounds end of quote. internal e-mails showed that when the career lawyers learned of this promise they strongly disagreed with it and they

conveyed their concerns to tony west, head of the civil division. during his transcribed 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 wasn't going to happen and it didn't happen" math. in other words when the lawyers of the civil division learned of this offer they shut it down. again, why is this important? is important because it demonstrates that the documentary evidence shows the events transpired exactly, exactly as mr. lillihad said it did. mr. perez offered to provide the other side with information that would help them defeat mr.

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. subseven's case and $200 million mr. perez has defended his actions in part by claiming that mr. subseven still had his day in court but mr. perez omit from his story that mr. subseven's case was dismissed precisely because the united states would not continue to be a part and would not be a

part. after the united states declined to join the case the judge dismissed mr. noel's case based upon quote unquote the public disclosure. finding that it was not the original source of information to the government. i will 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 declined to intervene which is bad enough, but in fact it shows to leave mr. 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 that 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 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 if the united states did not join the case and chose not to contest the original source they would likely get dismissed. the department traded away a

case worth millions of taxpayer dollars and they did it precisely because of the impact decision would have on the litigation. they knew as a result of their decision to hold whistleblower would dismiss based upon original source grounds since the department didn't contest it not only that, mr. perez went so far as to offer to provide documents to the other side that would help them defeat mr. mr. newell in this case on behalf of mr. perez' client. the united states. so that's really looking out for the taxpayer. how would you like to have a lawyer like that defending you in some death penalty case? and yet when the congress starts asking questions they have the guts to say quote we didn't do anything improper about

mr. newell. quote we didn't do anything improper because mr. newell still had his day in court. mr. knowles didn't have his day in court because the success of that 200 million-dollar case is dependent upon the united states staying in it. now this brings me to my last point on the substance of this matter and that has to do with the strength of the case. throughout our investigation the to hartman has tried to defend mr. perez' 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 that describes st. paul's actions as quote a particularly egregious example of false certification end of quote.

in fact the career lawyers in minnesota felt so strongly about the case that they took the unusual step of going to washington d.c. to meet with officials in the department of housing and urban development. 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 made clear that career lawyers considered it a strong case that the department has claimed that the department's experts on the false claim that considered it a weak case. in fact during his confirmation hearing mr. perez testified before my colleagues on the senate health committee that mr. kurtz smack quote had a very immediate and visceral reaction that it was a weak case end of

quote are once again the documents tell a much different story then was told to members of the senate. mr. kurtz knew about the case in november 2011. two months later a department official took notes of the meeting where the quid pro quo was discussed. the official wrote down his reactions. she wrote quote mike, odd. looks like buying off st. paul. should be whether there are legit reasons to decline as to past practice end of quote. the next day the same official e-mailed the associate attorney general and said quote mike hertz brought up the disparate impact case in which the solicitor general filed an

amicus brief in the supreme court. he is concerned about the recommendation that we decline to interview in two cases against same paul end of quote. these documents appear to show that mr. hertz's concern was not the strength of the case as mr. perez led my senate colleagues to believe. mr. hertz was concerned the quid pro quo was improper. again in his words quote it looks like dying off st. paul and quote. yet mr. perez one of my college college -- led my colleagues that it was a bad case on the merits so let me make one final point regarding why it is

premature to even be having this debate. as of today when we vote on mr. perez' 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 am 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 the department of justice admitted that mr. perez had used his private e-mail account approximately 1200 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. here you have got a person in the justice department doing all these bad things. people want him to be secretary of labor and we are supposed to confirm somebody that won't respond to a subpoena for information that congress is constitutionally entitled to. and we want him to be the secretary of labor when we have people come before congress saying yeah we will respond to letters from congress. we will come up and testify. we are going to cooperate in the spirit of checks and balances. and then we have 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 the 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 refused to comply with a congressional subpoena? why would he want somebody in the cabinet, thumbing their noses at the elected representatives of the peep hole of this country that have the constitutional responsibility of checks and balances to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed? that is 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 whistleblower protection act and my colleagues know how i feel about protecting whistleblowers who have the courage to step forward often at great risk to their careers. and this is about much more than whistleblowers, the whistleblower who was left dangling by mr. perez. this is about the fact that mr. perez manipulated the rule of law in order to get it 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 that is told is not supported by the facts. 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 a congressional subpoena -- 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 colleagues should reject this nomination. we should reject this nomination because mr. perez manipulated the levers of power available to people in order to save it a legal bearing from supreme court review. perhaps more importantly when mr. perez was called upon to answer questions about his actions 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 congressional subpoena. for these reasons i strongly oppose the nomination and i urge

my colleagues to do the same and mr. president i have completed my statement. >> next the senate foreign relations committee holds a

confirmation committee for united nations ambassador nominee samantha power. president obama nominated her on june 5 at this year. this hearing is two hours.