WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor in which he outlined his opposition to the confirmations of Thomas Perez as Secretary of Labor and Gina McCarthy as head of the Environmental Protection Agency:

“Today, the Senate will consider the nominations of Thomas Perez and Gina McCarthy to head the Department of Labor and the EPA. I’ll be voting against both of these nominees. I’d like to explain why.

“Tom Perez is someone who has devoted much of his career to causes he believes in. That’s admirable.
 
“But the duty of advise 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’s about what he or she would do on the job.

“And that’s where Perez’s nomination breaks down. Because, based on the evidence, Tom Perez is more than just some left-wing ideologue – he’s a left-wing ideologue who appears perfectly willing to bend the rules to achieve his ends.

“And it’s this ‘ends justify the means’ approach to his work, not simply his ideological passion, that’s 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 executive as ‘so timid.’

“’Federal law is muddled’ Mr. Perez argued, adding, ‘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. And he 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 said that ‘Perez’s testimony did not reflect the entire story,’ and a federal judge said that the evidence before him ‘appear[ed] to contradict…Perez’s testimony.’

“In short, Mr. Perez made misleading statements on this case, under oath, to both Congress and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

“Taken together, this is reflective not of some passionate left-winger who views himself as patiently advancing policies within the bounds of a democratic system — but as a crusading ideologue whose convictions lead him to believe that 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 that 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’s why I’ll be voting against him today.

“As for Gina McCarthy, I have no doubt she’s 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 the EPA’s air division, she’s overseen the implementation of numerous job-killing regulations.

“These regulations, along with others promulgated by the EPA, have had devastating consequences in states like mine. They’ve helped bring about a depression – depression with a D – in parts of Eastern Kentucky. And there’s no reason to expect a course correction from Mrs. 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’s not me saying that. ‘A war on coal is exactly what’s needed.’ That’s 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 don’t live or act or think the same way they do.

“I don’t 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’s willing to question the status quo, and to make Kentuckians part of the solution.”