St. Paul hounds nominee for Labor
WASHINGTON — Thomas Perez, nominated by President Obama to be Labor secretary, clashed with Senate Republicans on Thursday at his confirmation hearing over decisions he made as the Justice Department's top civil rights lawyer.
Republicans on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee criticized Perez's role in persuading the city of St. Paul to drop a Supreme Court case that lawmakers said would have undermined a government enforcement tool in housing discrimination cases.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the panel's top Republican, said Perez engaged in “an enormous amount of wheeling and dealing” by agreeing to keep the Justice Department out of two unrelated cases against St. Paul that might have reaped as much as $200 million for the U.S. Treasury.
When Perez said the Department of Justice was acting as a guardian of civil rights in negotiating the deal, Alexander retorted: “The DOJ is a guardian of the taxpayers as well, is it not?”
Republicans focused their criticism of Perez, a child of Dominican immigrants who would be the only Hispanic in Obama's second-term Cabinet, on what they say are ideological decisions he made as head of the civil rights division. A committee vote on the confirmation will be on Thursday, Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said when the hearing ended.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has vowed to block the nomination over separate questions related to the nominee's work in enforcing voter registration laws, meaning Perez probably will need at least 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Democrats control 55 Senate seats.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.