News

Recent Press Releases

Republicans Recognize the Importance of Thorough Review

June 10, 2009

‘But in the rush to complete the questionnaire in order to garner a talking point, you are prone to these sorts of mistakes. This of course counsels the Senate to have a thorough, deliberative process, not a rush to judgment in order to meet an arbitrary deadline’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the proposed hearing date for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor:

“Senator Leahy’s decision to rush Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing is puzzling. It risks resulting in a less-informed hearing, and it breaks with years of tradition in which bipartisan agreements were reached and honored over the scheduling of hearings for Supreme Court nominees. And it damages the cordiality and good will the Senate relies on to do its business. These kinds of partisan maneuvers have always come with consequences. This time is no different.

“The explanations that some of our friends offered yesterday to justify a rushed hearing were almost as remarkable as the decision itself and the partisan way in which it was handled. Some said Republicans had proposed unreasonable hearing dates.

“Yet no one can cite the time or the place when any of these supposed requests were made.

“But blaming Republicans for statements they never made wasn’t nearly as ludicrous as the claim that Judge Sotomayor’s long judicial record is somehow reason to rush the review process. Not only is this counterintuitive — why should it take less time to read more cases? — it also flies in the face of every statement our Democrat friends made on the topic after the nomination of the last two Supreme Court nominees.

“Time and again, they told us that the Senate was not a ‘rubber stamp,’ and that hearings for Judge Alito and Judge Roberts couldn’t be rushed. As Senator Leahy put it at the time, ‘We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast.’

“Republicans respected those requests because we recognized the importance of a thorough review. On the Alito nomination, for instance, senators had 70 days to prepare for a hearing on a nominee who, as Senator Leahy noted at the time, had handled some 3,500 cases on the federal bench. Judge Sotomayor has handled over 3,600 cases, so it stands to reason that we’d have as much time to review her record. But for some reason the old standard has suddenly been thrown out just as new reasons have emerged for rushing the process on this particular nominee.

“As Senator Sessions informed us yesterday, the questionnaire Judge Sotomayor filled out suffers from several significant omissions. For example, she failed to produce numerous opinions from cases in which she was involved as a district attorney. In addition, she failed to produce a memorandum from her time with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund that opposed the application of the death penalty. When this omission was brought to the judge’s attention, I understand that the White House then provided this memorandum, saying it was an ‘oversight.’ But in the rush to complete the questionnaire in order to garner a talking point, you are prone to these sorts of mistakes. This of course counsels the Senate to have a thorough, deliberative process, not a rush to judgment in order to meet an arbitrary deadline.

“When it came to Republican nominees, like Judge Roberts and Judge Alito, our Democrat friends wanted time to review the record. And Republicans worked in a bipartisan fashion to come to a consensus on a fair process that respected the minority’s rights. Yet when it comes to a Democrat nominee our friends want to deny Republicans the same rights. They want the shortest confirmation timeline in recent memory for someone with the longest judicial record in recent memory. This violates basic standards of fairness, and it prevents senators from carrying out one of their most solemn duties — a thorough review of the president’s nominee to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. The decision to short-circuit that process is regrettable and unnecessary.”

###

The Need for Reform is Not the Question

June 10, 2009

‘All of us want reform, but not reform that denies, delays, or rations health care. Instead, we need reform that controls costs even as it protects patients’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Americans are increasingly frustrated with the U.S. health care system as we know it — and they expect real reform, not just the promise of a reform that never comes, or the illusion of a reform that ends up destroying what’s good about the current system and replacing it with something worse.

“Americans don’t think basic medical procedures should break the bank, and they don’t understand why millions of Americans have to go without basic care in a nation as prosperous as our own. Still, many Americans are quite happy with the health care they currently have, and they don’t want to be forced onto a government plan they don’t like.

“So the need for reform is not in question. The real question is what kind of reform — the kind that makes care more affordable and accessible; or the kind that makes existing problems worse.

“One thing most people like about health care in the U.S. is the quality of cancer care that’s available here. Far too many Americans die from cancer. Yet for all the problems we have, the fact is, America boasts some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world. And that’s not the kind of thing Americans want to see change. But it could very well change if the U.S. adopts a government-run health care system along the lines of the one some are proposing.

“A recent study comparing U.S. cancer survival rates with other countries found that, on average, U.S. women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis compared to a 54% rate for women in Britain. As for men, 66% of American males survive at least five years while 45% of British men do.

“Just as important as treatment is early detection. And here again, the U.S. routinely out performs countries with government-run health care systems. According to one report, 84% of women between the ages of 50 and 64 get mammograms regularly in the United States — far higher than the 63% of women in the United Kingdom. Access to preventative care is extremely important and, frankly, when it comes to breast cancer, preventative care is something we do quite well in the U.S.

“These are the kinds of things Americans like about our system, and these are the kinds of things that could change under a government plan. Americans don’t want to be forced off their existing plans, and they certainly don’t want a government board telling them which treatments and medicines they can and cannot have.

“It’s no mystery why Americans have higher cancer survival rates than their counterparts in countries like Great Britain. Part of the reason is that Americans have greater access to the care and the medicines they need. And they don’t want that to change. All of us want reform, but not reform that denies, delays, or rations health care. Instead, we need reform that controls costs even as it protects patients.

“Some ways to do this would be by discouraging the junk medical liability lawsuits that drive up the cost of practicing medicine and limit access to care in places like rural Kentucky; through prevention and wellness programs that reduce health care costs, such as programs that help people quit smoking, fight obesity, and get early diagnoses for disease; and we could control costs and protect patients by addressing the needs of small businesses without imposing mandates or taxes that kill jobs.

“All of us want reform. But the government-run plan that some are proposing for the U.S. isn’t the kind of change Americans are looking for. We should learn a lesson from Canada. At a time when some in the U.S. want government-run health care, Canada is instituting reforms that would make their system more like ours.

“According to Canadian-born doctor David Gratzer, the medical establishment in Canada is in revolt, with private sector options expanding and doctors frustrated by government cutbacks that limit access to care. And the New York Times reported a few years ago that private clinics were opening in Canada at a rate of about one a week. Dr. Gratzer asks a simple question: ‘Why are [Americans] rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?’ Many Americans are beginning to ask themselves the same thing.”

###

Unanswered Questions on Guantanamo

June 10, 2009

‘These kinds of questions are not insignificant. They involve the safety of the American people. And that’s precisely why Congress demanded a plan before the administration started to move terrorists from Guantanamo. The American people don’t want these terrorists in their communities or back on the battlefield’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday regarding the questions surrounding the transfer of Guantanamo detainees, including Ahmed Ghailani, to the United States for trial in civilian courts:

“It wasn’t that long ago that the Senate voted almost unanimously to oppose bringing any terrorists at Guantanamo to the United States. But earlier this week, the administration ignored the will of the American people as expressed through that Senate vote by transferring a Guantanamo detainee named Ahmed Ghailani to New York. The purpose of the transfer is to try Ghailani in a U.S. civilian court for his role in the African embassy bombings of 1998. The administration’s decision raises a number of serious questions. “First, Ghailani has already admitted that he attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and assisted those who planned and carried out the embassy attack, but says he did so unintentionally. In a U.S. civilian court, if you’re found not guilty, you’re allowed to go free. So if we’re going to treat this terrorist detainee as a common civilian criminal, what will happen to Ghailani if he’s found not guilty? And what will happen to other detainees the administration wants to try in civilian courts if they are found not guilty? Will they be released? If so, where? In New York? In American communities? Or will they be released overseas, where they could return to terror and target American soldiers or innocent civilians?

“Second, if Ghailani isn’t allowed to go free, will he be detained by the government? If so, where will he be detained? Would the administration detain him on U.S. soil, despite the objections of Congress and the American people?

“Third, why does the administration think a civilian court is the appropriate place to try Ghailani? Congress enacted the Military Commissions process on a bipartisan basis as a way to bring terrorists to justice without disclosing information that could harm national security. Some have complained that the previous administration moved too slowly on Military Commissions, but a lot of that delay was due to the constant legal challenges that were leveled against the process, including by some in the current administration. In fact, Ghailani’s case was already being handled by the Military Commissions process – to the point that a judge had established a trial schedule for him. This schedule would be well underway if the administration had not suspended all military commission proceedings several months ago. Now we will have to start the process for Ghailani over again in civilian court.

“The administration made the right decision by reconsidering its position on Military Commissions and deciding to resume their use. So why did the administration decide to stop the Military Commission proceedings against Ghailani that were being conducted in the modern, safe, and secure courtroom at Guantanamo and move him to the U.S. to try him in civilian court? Is it because the administration doesn’t think that by deliberately targeting innocent American civilians Ghailani violated the Law of War? Does it think he should be treated as just another domestic civilian defendant?

“Fourth, how will the administration ensure that trying Ghailani in a U.S. court doesn’t damage our national security? As we’ve seen in the past, trying terrorists in the U.S. has made it harder for our national security professionals to protect the American people.

“During a previous trial of suspects in the African embassy bombings, evidence showed that the National Security Agency had intercepted cell phone conservations between terrorists. According to press reports, this revelation caused terrorists to stop using cell phones to discuss sensitive operational details.

“And during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, testimony given in a public courtroom tipped off terrorists that the U.S. was monitoring their communications. As a result, these terrorists shut down that communications link and any further intelligence we might have obtained was lost.

“On the question of Guantanamo, it became increasingly clear over time that the administration announced its plan to close the facility before it actually had a plan. If the administration has a plan for holding Ghailani if he’s found not guilty, then it needs to share that plan with the Congress. These kinds of questions are not insignificant. They involve the safety of the American people. And that’s precisely why Congress demanded a plan before the administration started to move terrorists from Guantanamo. The American people don’t want these terrorists in their communities or back on the battlefield. But that’s exactly where Ghailani could end up if he’s found not guilty in a civilian court. Before it transfers any more detainees from Guantanamo, the administration needs to present a plan that ensures its actions won’t jeopardize the safety of the American people.

“Finally, earlier today, the Senate Majority Whip came to the floor and claimed there is evidence that al Qaeda may be recruiting terrorists within Guantanamo. I am glad to see that the Majority Whip appears to be acknowledging the FBI Director’s concerns that Guantanamo terrorists could radicalize the prison population if they were transferred into the United States. The fact that these terrorists might be able to recruit new members and conduct terrorist activities from behind bars is an important one. I also find it preposterous that the Majority Whip would assert that because I and others—including, by the way, Members of his own Conference—want to keep dangerous terrorist detainees away from American communities, we will enable terrorists to escape justice. Keeping these terrorists locked up at Guantanamo, and trying them using the Military Commissions process, is the best way to deliver justice while protecting the American people.”

###
« First < Prev Next > Last »