Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the nominations of Thomas Perez and Gina McCarthy to head the Department of Labor and the EPA. I will be voting against both of these nominees, and I…
Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the nominations of Thomas Perez and Gina McCarthy to head the Department of Labor and the EPA. I will be voting against both of these nominees, and I would like to explain why.
Tom Perez is someone who has devoted much of his career to causes he believes in. That is certainly admirable, but the duty of advice and consent is about more than just ascertaining whether a nominee has good intentions. Far more important is considering the way a nominee has gone about pursuing them. It is about what he or she would do on the job. And that--that--is where the Perez nomination begins to break down because based on the evidence, Tom Perez is more than just some leftwing ideolog, he is a leftwing ideolog who appears perfectly willing to bend the rules to achieve his ends. It is this ``ends justify the means'' approach to his work, not simply his ideological passion, that is so worrying to me about Mr. Perez.
A few examples from his past paint the picture. Media reports indicate that as a member of a county council in Maryland, Mr. Perez tried to get the county to break Federal law by unlawfully importing foreign drugs even after a top FDA official said Federal law was ``very clear,'' and that there was ``no question'' that doing so would be ``undeniably illegal.''
When the County Executive, a fellow Democrat, ultimately decided not to instruct county employees to break the law, as Mr. Perez advocated-- which could have subjected those workers to criminal prosecution--he lambasted the County Executive as ``so timid.''
``Federal law is muddled,'' Mr. Perez argued, adding, ``sometimes you have to push the envelope.'' Sometimes you have to push the envelope.
Throughout his career, however, Perez has done more than just push the envelope. He once pushed through a county policy that encouraged the circumvention of Federal immigration law. As the head of the Federal Government's top voting rights watchdog, he refused to protect the right to vote for Americans of all races in violation of the very law he was charged with enforcing. He also directed the Federal Government to sue a law-abiding woman who was protesting outside an abortion clinic in Florida.
The Federal judge who threw out this lawsuit said he was ``at a loss as to why the government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place.''
Just as troubling, when Mr. Perez has been called to account for his failures to follow the law, he has been less than forthright. When he testified that politics played no role in his office's decision not to pursue charges against members of a far-left group that may have prevented others from voting, the Department's own watchdog--their own watchdog--said ``Perez's testimony did not reflect the entire story,'' and a Federal judge said the evidence before him ``appear[ed] to contradict . . . Perez's testimony.'' Appeared to contradict Perez's testimony.
In short, Mr. Perez made misleading statements in this case, under oath, to both Congress and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Taken together, this is reflective not of some passionate leftwinger who views himself as patiently advocating policies within the bounds of a democratic system, but as a crusading ideologue whose convictions lead him to believe the law simply doesn't apply to him.
As Secretary of Labor, Mr. Perez would be handling numerous contentious issues and implementing many politically sensitive laws. Americans of all political persuasions have a right to expect the head of such an important Federal department, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, would implement and follow the law in a fair and reasonable way. I do not believe they could expect as much from Mr.
Perez, and that is why I will be voting against him today.
As for Gina McCarthy, I have no doubt she is a well-meaning public servant. We had some good conversations when she came to visit my office earlier this year. But as the head of EPA's air division, she is overseeing the implementation of numerous job-killing regulations. These regulations, along with others promulgated by the EPA, have had a devastating effect in States such as mine.
They have helped bring about a depression--depression with a ``d'' in parts of Eastern Kentucky.
And there is no reason to expect a course correction from Ms. McCarthy if she were to be confirmed as Administrator.
In fact, one assumes she would be expected to carry forward the President's plan to impose, essentially by executive fiat, even more destructive policies--policies similar to those already rejected by a Democrat-controlled Congress.
As someone sent here to stand up for the people who elected me, I cannot in good conscience support a nominee who would advance more of the same, someone who is not willing to stand up to this administration's war on coal.
And remember, this ``war'' talk that is not me saying that. ``A war on coal is exactly what's needed.'' That is what one of the White House's own climate advisors said just the other week.
All of us--Republicans especially--believe in being good stewards of the environment. But Washington officials have to be rational and holistic in their approach. They cannot, as this administration seems to think, simply do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences for people who do not live or act or think the same way they do.
I do not blame Ms. McCarthy personally for all of the administration's policies. But I believe the EPA needs an Administrator who is ready to step up and challenge the idea that the livelihoods of particular groups of Americans can simply be sacrificed in pursuit of some ivory tower fantasy. That kind of nominee--the kind of nominee I can support--is one who is willing to question the status quo and to make Kentuckians part of the solution.
Obamacare
Later today, the President is scheduled to deliver a speech on Obamacare.
He is expected to say that, because of Obamacare, Americans can expect checks in the mail.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Free money.
But, as they say, most things in life that sound too good to be true very often are.
And, in this case, it is not so much that people will be getting free money, as that most people will be paying many dollars more for their healthcare and maybe--just maybe--getting a few bucks back.
In other words, if you are a family in Covington facing a $2,100 premium increase under Obamacare, then, really, what would you rather have: a check for $100 or so or a way to avoid the $2,100 premium increase in the first place?
I think the answer is pretty obvious.
I think most Kentuckians would agree that this is just another sad attempt by the administration to spin them into wanting a law they do not want.
And there is this to consider: Even though we expect the President today to tout about $500 million worth of these types of refunds, what he will not say is that next year Obamacare will impose a new sales tax on the purchase of health insurance that will cost Americans about $8 billion. That is a 16 to 1 ratio.
So if the administration is concerned with saving people money on their health care, I have some advice for them.
Work with us to repeal Obamacare and start over--work with us to implement common-sense, step-by-step reforms that can actually lower costs for Kentuckians. Because jacking up our constituents' health care costs is bad enough, but to try to then convince them the opposite is happening--that they have actually won some Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes, well, it is just as absurd as it sounds. It is really an insult and I know Kentuckians aren't going to buy it.
I yield the floor.
Reservation of Leader Time
