Recent Press Releases

McConnell on the Boxer Climate Tax

‘At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills and when the price of gas seems to be rising higher and higher every day, the Democrat leadership is showing itself to be laughably out of touch by moving to a bill that would raise the price of gas even higher…There is a better way to move forward. Climate change is a serious issue, and we should continue taking action to address it’



WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding the enormous costs to the economy that would result from the Boxer Climate Tax bill:



“Having spent most of the past week in Kentucky, I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that the single most important issue to the people of my state is the fact that they’re paying about twice as much for a gallon of gasoline than they were last year.



“I’m also fairly confident that Kentuckians aren’t alone in their frustration. Gas prices are, without doubt, the single most pressing issue for Americans at the moment.



“And that’s why it’s so hard to comprehend the Majority’s decision to move to a bill, at the start of the summer driving season, that would raise the price of gas by as much as $1.40 a gallon, home electricity bills by about 44 percent, and natural gas prices by about 20 percent.



“Now, of all times, is not the time to be increasing the burden on American consumers. Now is the time to be considering overdue legislation that would send gas prices down, not up.



“Now is the time to be considering, and approving, legislation that would allow Americans to increase energy production within our own borders, and to accelerate the process of moving to clean nuclear energy. Now is the time to do something about $4.00 a gallon gasoline, not something that would give us $6.00 a gallon gas down the road.



“So the timing of this bill could not be worse. And the substance is just as bad.

“Let’s be clear on something at the outset of this debate: The Senate supports reducing carbon emissions. Just last year, we took serious, bipartisan steps to increase fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, increase the use of renewable fuels, and expand research into advanced technologies to reduce pollution and stress on the environment.



“But in everything we’ve done, we’ve kept a couple of non-negotiable principles in mind: First, any legislation that reduces carbon emissions can’t kill U.S. jobs. And second, any legislation in this area must promote innovation here at home.



“This legislation fails both tests miserably. If passed, it would have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. It is, at its heart, a stealth and giant tax on virtually every aspect of industrial and consumer life. It would result in massive job losses. And it seeks to radically alter consumer behavior, without any measurable benefit to the environment in return.



“Overall, it’s expected to result in GDP losses totaling as much as $2.9 trillion by 2050.



“If our economy were running on all cylinders, this bill would be terrible economically. At a time when the economy is struggling, when the price of gas, food, and power bills, are skyrocketing, this giant tax would be an unbearable new burden for Americans to bear.



“The Senate has already expressed its willingness to cut carbon emissions. This Congress has acted in a bipartisan way to reduce greenhouse gases by tightening automobile fuel economy standards, and by requiring increased use of alternative fuels in last year’s energy bill. But moving forward, we should agree, with gas prices as high as they are, that any further action in this area must protect American consumers and American jobs.



“This means investing in new, clean energy technologies, including clean coal technologies which can capture and store carbon emissions. This means encouraging the construction of new, zero-emission nuclear power plants, and ensuring continued domestic sources of enriched uranium. And it means developing countries must also participate — countries like India and China, which already exceeds the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions.



“Legislation that fails to address clean coal technologies would have a disproportionately negative economic effect on states like Kentucky that rely on coal-fired power plants. According to one study, this bill would eliminate nearly 55,000 jobs in Kentucky alone, and cost the average Kentucky household more than $6,000 a year.



“This is an unthinkable economic burden to lay on the citizens of my state, especially when developing nations like India and China wouldn’t be held to the same standards. The impact of this climate tax is too great to bear, for Kentuckians and the rest of the country.



“At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills and when the price of gas seems to be rising higher and higher every day, the Democrat leadership is showing itself to be laughably out of touch by moving to a bill that would raise the price of gas even higher.



“This proposed climate tax legislation would be a bad idea even if its impact were beyond dispute. The fact that experts tell us its actual impact on reducing global temperatures is hardly measurable — and will be negligible if China and India do not approve similar measures — makes the wisdom of moving to it at this time even more questionable.



“Why would we raise the price of gas, the cost of electricity, the cost of food, and put the brakes on our economy – when it will all be for nothing if China and India aren’t willing to do the same?



“And who exactly expects these developing nations to take similar action to slow their economic growth and raise prices for their consumers? No one. No one seriously expects that they will approve anything similar to this legislation.



“Which means that for American consumers, the Boxer bill is all cost and no benefit.



“There is a better way to move forward. Climate change is a serious issue, and we should continue taking action to address it, as we did in last year’s energy bill.



“But the way to proceed is to invest in clean energy technologies that allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming our economy, sending jobs overseas, and raising energy prices across the board for U.S. workers, families, farmers, and truckers.



“Republicans are eager to begin this debate, and we will have amendments that protect consumers from the price increases and job losses in the Boxer Substitute.



“Some of the problems with this bill have been explored in a number of excellent articles over the past few days. I note, in particular, an article by George Will entitled, ‘Carbon’s Power Brokers’; an article by Charles Krauthammer entitled, ‘Carbon Chastity’; an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled ‘Cap and Spend’; and an article in today’s New York Post by Jerry Taylor entitled ‘Solving Pump Pain.’ I ask that all four be submitted in the record.



“It’s my expectation that once we get on the bill, the Majority will allow for amendments, and for what I expect will be a rather robust debate on the merits of this climate tax legislation.”


‘We should remember the bravery of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country’



Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor honoring Kentucky’s veterans in recognition of Memorial Day:



“In observance of Memorial Day this year, I had the distinct honor of meeting a group of World War II veterans from Kentucky who had traveled to our Nation's Capital to see the World War II Memorial. A couple of the veterans, by the way, told me this was their first trip to Washington.



“This memorial, completed in 2004, is a fitting tribute to the millions of Americans -- some who returned home, some who did not -- who put on their country's uniform to fight the greatest and most destructive war the world had ever seen. The awe the memorial inspires reminds us all why this group of patriots is called the ‘Greatest Generation.’



“The 35 Kentucky World War II veterans I met were able to travel to Washington thanks to the nonprofit organization Honor Flight, which transports World War II veterans from anywhere in the country to see their memorial, free of charge. Many veterans, for physical or financial reasons, are unable to make the trip on their own, and so without Honor Flight they would not get the chance to visit the memorial created for them and their fellow fighters at all.



“About 36,500 World War II veterans live in Kentucky today, with about 2.5 million throughout the country. Unfortunately, that number shrinks each day as time advances for these brave warriors. Honor Flight and its volunteers, many of whom are veterans themselves, are doing a great service for our Nation by making it possible for these veterans to make this important trip.



“So this Memorial Day, I hope everyone says thank you to a man or woman who wore the uniform. We should remember the bravery of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. And while most of us will never know the heroism shown by the World War II veterans I was privileged to meet, we can marvel at the courage shown every day by our current generation of heroes serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.



“In closing, I would mention that the particular flight from Kentucky yesterday was dedicated to the memory of John Polivka, who had planned to be on the trip. He was a World War II veteran who planned to be on the trip but who passed away on Monday, May 19, just this week. So the veterans dedicated their Honor Flight to Washington to their colleague whom they had hoped would be able to join them. Even though there was great sadness over his loss, there was great joy in being able to witness the World War II Memorial which symbolizes their extraordinary contribution to our country.



“I ask unanimous consent that the names of the World War II veterans who were here this week be printed in the Congressional Record. I conclude by saying they were indeed the best of the ‘Greatest Generation.’”



###



‘In essence, the Majority decided to throw a confirmation Hail Mary to satisfy its own Democratic membership, instead of taking a bipartisan path that had every indication of success’



Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the failure of the Majority to keep its commitment to confirm three more circuit court nominees by the Memorial Day Recess:



“In the final year of President Clinton’s final Congress, two of his circuit court nominees, Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, were pending in the Judiciary Committee. They were quite controversial. For example, Judge Paez had openly defended judicial activism. He said that if the democratic branches failed to act on a political matter, it was incumbent on judges to do so, even if the matter properly belonged to the legislature.



“Not surprisingly, conservative groups and many Republican Senators opposed the Paez and Berzon nominations. The Chamber of Commerce--a business association, not an ideological group--was so troubled by the prospect of Judge Paez’s confirmation that it broke its policy of staying out of nomination disputes and opposed his nomination.



“The California senators, to their credit, were tireless advocates for Judges Paez and Berzon. Their nominations became the California senators’ cause, and their ultimate confirmations were due to our colleagues’ tireless advocacy. Their confirmations, though, were also due to then-Majority Leader Lott ensuring that his commitment regarding the Paez and Berzon nominations was kept.



“On November 10, 1999, Majority Leader Lott placed a colloquy between him and then-Democratic Leader Daschle in the Congressional Record. In it, Majority Leader Lott committed to proceed to the Paez and Berzon nominations by March 15 of the following year, which was, of course, a Presidential election year, just as this year is.



“Majority Leader Lott also stated he did ‘not believe that filibusters of judicial nominations are appropriate,’ and that if they were to occur, he would ‘file cloture’ on their nominations, and that he himself would ‘support cloture if necessary.’ He noted that then-Judiciary Chairman Hatch was consulted on this commitment.



“Given that many in our Conference and over 300 groups opposed these nominations, it would have been easier in many respects for Majority Leader Lott not to fulfill his commitment. He could have taken a hands-off approach, shrugged his shoulders, and put the onus on Chairman Hatch to make good on the Majority Leader’s own commitment. After all, Senator Lott was not the Judiciary Committee Chairman; Senator Hatch was. And he could have simply said that he didn’t control what happened in the Judiciary Committee; Chairman Hatch did.



“But Senator Lott understood that commitments in this body are not to be taken lightly, especially when they are made by the Majority Leader. So, true to his word, Majority Leader Lott worked to ensure that his commitment was kept. The Paez and Berzon nominations were reported out of the Committee, and Majority Leader Lott filed cloture on them.



“On March 8, 2000—a week ahead of schedule —he, and I, and Chairman Hatch, and a super-majority of the Republican Conference voted to give Judges Paez and Berzon an up or down vote. Most of those Republicans, myself included, then voted against them because of concerns about their records. But Judges Paez and Berzon were confirmed, and have been sitting on the Ninth Circuit for eight years because Senator Lott honored his commitment.



“Unfortunately, a similar commitment made to my Conference was not honored today. Last month, my friend from Nevada, the Majority Leader, acknowledged that the Democratic Majority needed ‘to make more progress on’ circuit court nominations.



“To that end, he committed to do his ‘utmost’; ‘to do everything’ possible; to ‘do everything within [his] power to get three [more] judges approved to our circuit [courts] before the Memorial Day recess.’ ‘Who knows,’ he even suggested, ‘we may even get lucky and get more than that [because] we have a number of people from whom to choose.’



“True, the Majority Leader gave himself an out. He could not ‘guarantee’ his commitment because ‘a lot of things can happen in the Senate.’ But when the Senate Majority Leader commits ‘to do everything in [his] power’ to honor a commitment, that should mean choosing a path that likely will yield a result.



“Well, today we learn that we are not going to get three more circuit court confirmations by the Memorial Day Recess, let alone the four or more that the Majority Leader thought might be possible. No, we are going to get one, Mr. President. Only one.



“Given my friend’s clear commitment and the numerous nominees the Democratic Majority had to choose from, the question my Republican colleagues and I are asking is this: Did the Majority really do its ‘utmost?’ Did it really do ‘everything’ possible? Did it really do ‘everything within [its] power?’ In fact, we are asking did it do anything, at all, to realistically ensure the commitment would be kept?



“When my friend made his commitment, he noted that we had circuit court nominees from all over the country in the Judiciary Committee who could be processed. He listed the States they were from. Most have been pending for a long time, and the Judiciary Committee has had ample time to study their records. Indeed, some have already had hearings; others have already been favorably reported by the Committee to other important positions. These nominees were, in effect, on the two-yard line, and could easily have been picked and confirmed.



“People like Peter Keisler. He has been pending for almost 700 days. He has had a hearing. He has been rated unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association. He has earned accolades from Republicans and Democrats alike, including an endorsement from the Washington Post. His paperwork is complete, and he’s been ready to go.



“Or people like Chief Judge Robert Conrad. He has been pending for over 300 days. The Senate has already confirmed him, on two separate occasions, to important federal legal positions, first as the chief federal law enforcement officer in North Carolina and then to a life-time position on the federal trial bench. He, too, has received the ABA’s highest rating, and has earned praise from Republicans and Democrats alike. He has the strong support of both home-state senators and is ready for a vote.



“During our colloquy, my friend did not reference the nomination of Michigan state judge Helene White as an option. That is because her nomination to the Sixth Circuit did not yet exist. It arrived here later that day, at which point there were only five and one-half weeks until the Memorial Day Recess. Or, put another way, her nomination arrived 700 days after Mr. Keisler’s, 300 days after Judge Conrad’s.



“Thirty-five days is not much time to process a nominee who, by her own admission, has participated in 4,500 cases, half of which are completely new since her last nomination. Indeed, the average time for confirming a judicial nominee in this Administration is 162 days. Now, the Majority decided to try to run Judge White through the process in just 35 days. It scheduled a hearing for her that was only 22 days after her nomination. I respect the abilities of Members on the Judiciary Committee. But even they cannot review 4,500 cases in 22 days.



“In addition, when the Majority scheduled her hearing, the ink was barely dry on the FBI’s background investigation, which had come up only the day before, and the Committee had yet to receive her ABA report. In fact, today as I speak, it still is not here.



“This matters because Chairman Leahy has made it abundantly clear that the receipt of the ABA report is a precondition for him to allow a vote on a judicial nominee, saying: ‘Here is the bottom line. . . . There will be an ABA background check before there is a vote.’ He reiterated that his rule will be observed with respect to the White nomination.



“So to honor the Majority Leader’s commitment, did our Democratic colleagues choose someone whom the Committee had ample time to vet, whose paperwork has been done for a long time, and who, in the case of Judge Conrad, the Senate had already confirmed—twice? No, they decided to rush through Judge White, someone whom several Members of the Committee are completely unfamiliar with, and whose record for most of the last decade the entire Committee is completely unfamiliar with, including thousands of her cases.



“In essence, the Majority decided to throw a confirmation ‘Hail Mary’ to satisfy its own Democratic membership, instead of taking a bipartisan path that had every indication of success and would have fulfilled the commitment, like finally processing Mr. Keisler or Judge Conrad.



“If the Majority were serious about keeping its commitment all this should have been avoided. My friend from Nevada has said he consulted fully with Chairman Leahy before making his commitment. Chairman Leahy has been the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee for over a decade. He, perhaps more than anyone, is aware of the logistical requirements for processing nominees.



“We assume he would have advised the Majority Leader of the near-certain impossibility of confirming Judge White in time to keep the commitment. Even if he didn’t, the Ranking Member and I did just that almost a month ago, when we wrote to him and the Chairman, expressing our serious concerns about this very situation arising.



“The reasons for our concern a month ago have proven to be correct. Anyone could have seen this problem coming—anyone, except evidently, our Democratic colleagues who must have chosen not to.



“Which brings me back to the question I and my Republican colleagues are asking: Is it consistent with a commitment to do ‘everything within [your] power’ to confirm three more circuit nominees by Memorial Day, to then chose the one nominee who, for logistical reasons alone, is the least likely to be confirmed in time to keep the commitment? Mr. President, chasing the impossible, and then blaming others or expressing surprise when it eludes your grasp is not a good excuse, and will be remembered for a long, long time.



“So today is a sad and sobering day for me and my colleagues. There are now well-founded questions on our side about the Majority’s stated desire to treat nominees fairly and to improve the confirmation process. And there is frustration that will manifest itself in the coming days, and will persist until we get credible evidence that the Majority will respect Minority rights and treat judicial nominees fairly.”



###