Recent Press Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C.U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor regarding the need for an all-of-the-above strategy to energy production instead of a targeted War on Coal that will spell disaster for the economy:

“Yesterday morning, I made a prediction about a speech the President was expected to give later in the day.

“I said that we could expect him to announce a plan to impose the will of some of his most radical backers on the American middle class.

“I said that he’d be undeterred by Congress’ rejection of his national energy tax, even when Democrats held commanding majorities in both houses.

“I said that he’d announce his intention to push through job-crushing regulations anyway – but this time largely through the back door, over the objections of many working-class Americans, rather than through the regular democratic process. And, lo and behold, that’s essentially what he did.

“I was surprised by one thing, though – and that was his continued effort to play politics with the Keystone Pipeline jobs.

“Remember: we all know that the oil this pipeline would carry is coming out of the ground either way – whether he approves it or not.

“The only question is whether that energy and those jobs will go to America, or whether they will be allowed to travel across the Pacific to governments that harbor terrible environmental records to begin with.

“That’s just one reason why the Keystone Pipeline has enjoyed such broad bipartisan backing here in the Senate. And even among Big Labor, a sector that’s usually supportive of the President. And yet, yesterday, when the President had the opportunity to side with working-class families across the country by approving the pipeline – he took another pass.

“Sometimes you just have to wonder if this Administration, in making decisions like these, truly understands the worries that most Americans have to contend with in the Obama Economy.

“I’ve long warned, for example, that the White House was determined to wage a War on Coal. They denied it, of course, but only just long enough to get through the election.

“So it’s not a coincidence that the President didn’t give his speech before the election—or that he gave it at a university that symbolizes the D.C. elite, rather than somewhere in coal country: at a place like Morehead State University, or the University of Pikeville. 

“Now the President’s supporters seem all too happy to admit that there’s a War on Coal. Just yesterday, an advisor to the White House said that ‘a War on Coal is exactly what’s needed.’ He didn’t just admit it. He said it was ‘exactly what’s needed.’

“The quote is right here on the chart behind me.

“Look: Republicans are all for developing the fuels and the energies of the future. We just think that it all should come about as part of an all-of-the-above strategy, which is exactly what the White House said it supported too – before the election. But now, with the election over, the truth comes out. And in truth, the Administration seems to adhere to a dogma that could best be described as ‘none of the above, except a couple things that make our base happy.’

“I’d note that such an approach is basically nonsensical, since it ignores what’s necessary to keep our country’s growing energy needs met as we move toward a future where renewables look set to play a greater role. Because it simply tries to pretend that it will not take years, if not decades, for these other types of energy to come online in a way that will truly meet our energy needs.

“In a phrase, it’s a strategy that subordinates almost everything to politics. That’s why Republicans believe a true all-of-the-above strategy means developing wind and solar – and natural gas, and oil, and coal – and embracing the American jobs that come along with more American energy. And here’s what we believe it absolutely does not mean: picking out a class of vulnerable people and declaring ‘war’ on them.

“Sometimes, people in Washington seem to forget that the decisions made here actually affect the lives of others. And I’m often left to wonder: do they just not care?  Of course, coal is an important industry to my state, and I’m going to defend Kentucky workers from out-of-touch Washington attacks. But it’s pretty naïve to think this is just about Kentucky, or West Virginia, or Pennsylvania. As I said yesterday, a ‘War on Coal’ is a war on jobs.

“Coal is important to our entire country – it’s critical to the growth of manufacturing, and it’s important to our national economy.

“One could say that a coal miner in Kentucky relies on coal for her well-being just as a line worker at a manufacturing plant that uses coal relies on it too. And pretty much anyone who lives or works in a building with electricity relies on coal in some way.

“That’s why even some in the President’s party are trying to distance themselves from his approach. As one of my Senate Democrat colleagues put it yesterday: ‘The fact is clear: our own Energy Department reports that our country will get 37 percent of our energy from coal until 2040. Removing coal from our energy mix will have disastrous consequences for our recovering economy.’

“I couldn’t agree more, and it’s time for the White House to stop ‘pivoting’ from job-destroying policies to campaign-style PR pitches for jobs right back to job-destroying policies. It’s time for this Administration to get serious about pursuing a truly workable strategy for this country – for energy, for the economy, and for jobs.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor regarding the need for the President to focus on common-sense policies to make energy cleaner and more affordable, not a national energy tax and a ‘war on coal’ that would hinder economic growth:

“In advance of the President’s big speech today, I read this morning that one of the White House’s climate advisors finally admitted something most of us have long suspected anyway. He said ‘a War on Coal is exactly what’s needed’ in this country.

“Exactly what’s needed – that’s really what he said.

“It’s an astonishing bit of honesty from someone that close to the White House. But it really encapsulates the attitude this Administration holds in regard to states like mine, where coal is such an important part of the economic well-being of so many middle-class families.

“And it captures the attitude it holds in regard to middle-class Americans across the country, where affordable energy is critical to the operation of so many companies and small businesses – and to those businesses’ ability to hire Americans and help build a ladder to the middle class for their families.

“Declaring a ‘War on Coal’ is tantamount to declaring a war on jobs. It’s tantamount to kicking the ladder out from beneath the feet of many Americans struggling in today’s economy. And I will be raising this issue with the President at the White House today.

“One of the sectors the President’s war on jobs would hit is manufacturing. Ironic, perhaps, because just a few months ago it was President Obama himself who said: ‘I believe in manufacturing, I think it makes our country stronger.’

“Well he’s right. Manufacturing does make our country stronger. Just look at Kentucky. We’re the first in the nation in aluminum smelting. We’re third in the production of auto parts. And Kentuckians know these types of industries strengthen not just the Bluegrass State, but our entire nation – they provide well-paying jobs, economic growth, and tickets to prosperity for workers and their families.

“And yet, in the global economy of the 21st Century, retaining – much less expanding – our manufacturing core has never been more challenging. We face relentless competition from all corners of the globe. So policymakers have to be careful about the types of policies they enact. Obviously, American success in a hyper-competitive world is strengthened when we keep taxes low and regulations smart.

“And, perhaps most importantly, it’s strengthened when we ensure energy is abundant and affordable. These are energy-intensive industries, after all. If the White House moves forward with this war on jobs and raises the cost of energy, that would almost assuredly raise the cost of doing business – and that would likely put jobs, growth, and the future of American manufacturing at risk.

“That’s one of the many reasons why Americans rejected the President’s attempt to impose a national energy tax in his first term. Even with overwhelming majorities in Congress – including a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate – Washington Democrats were unable to pass the President’s energy tax. Here in the Senate, the Democrat majority wouldn’t even bring it up for a vote.

“Think about that: they could have pushed it through on their own, without a single Republican vote. And yet they couldn’t.

“Why? Well, for one, the constituents we serve are a lot smarter than some here in Washington might like to believe. They know you can’t impose a national energy tax without cutting jobs and significantly raising energy costs – not just on their families, but also on their employers. And the data seem to bear out such concerns. I remember some projections showing that, by 2030, the Waxman-Markey proposal could have decreased the size of our economy by about $350 billion and reduced net employment by 2.5 million jobs – even after taking ‘job creation’ into account.

“So Americans made their opposition to this tax clear to members of Congress. And, in the 2010 midterm elections, they ousted a good number of those who voted for it in the House. And because of concerns about job losses, higher utility bills, and reduced competitiveness, Congress today is even less inclined to vote for an energy tax than when the President commanded such massive majorities in his first term. It’s fairly self-evident to say there is no majority for such an idea in the 113th Congress.

“But the President still wants to push ahead and ignore the will of the legislative branch, the branch closest to the people. Whether the American people want it or not, he says he’ll do it by presidential fiat. I’m sure we’ll find out more details in his speech later today. But, if I’m right – and I think I am – he’s going to lay out a plan to do what he wants through executive action. In other words: more czars, more unaccountable bureaucrats.

“The message this sends should worry anyone who cares about constitutional self-government. That the President can simply ignore the will of the representatives sent here by the people because he wants to. Because special interests are lobbying him. Because he wants to appease some far-left segment of his base.

“Well, what I’m saying is this: he cannot declare a war on jobs and simultaneously claim to care about manufacturing. And he cannot claim to care about states like mine, where an energy tax would do great damage to the countless Americans employed in energy sectors like coal.

“Look: For many, wages are already failing to keep pace with rising costs. Many families have seen their real median income decline in recent years. And a survey released yesterday showed that three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

“This is the reality of the Obama Economy. Even in the best of times, imposing an energy tax would be a bad idea. But in an era of unacceptably high unemployment – an era when Americans are desperate for the President to finally focus on growing the middle class, rather than throwing scraps to his wealthy supporters – ideas like this border on the self-defeatingly absurd.

“He may as well call his plan what it is: a plan to ship jobs overseas.

“Basically, it’s unilateral economic surrender. And to what end? Many experts agree that a climate policy that does not include massive energy-consumers like China and India is essentially meaningless – but the damage to our economy would be anything but. And, ironically, those are the very type of countries that stand to benefit economically from our loss. So nations like these will probably just take our jobs, keep pumping more and more carbon into the air – and what will we have to show for it?

“That’s a question the President needs to answer today.

“Americans want common-sense policies to make energy cleaner and more affordable. The operative phrase being common-sense, because Americans are also deeply concerned about jobs and the economy. That’s what the President should be focused on. Incredibly, it appears to be the furthest thing from his mind.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell released the following statement on the cloture vote and the need for Congress to prove to its constituents that the border would finally be secured:

“From the outset of this debate, I have been clear about the fact that in order for a reform bill to succeed we would have to be able to prove to our constituents that the border would finally be secured. If we can’t guarantee that, anything else we do won’t be worth much. Unfortunately, the amendment we’re voting on today does not include that guarantee. Despite the hard work and best efforts of our colleagues, I remain concerned that when it comes to the threshold question of border security, today’s assurances may well become tomorrow’s disappointments. And that’s to say nothing of the process that got us here.

“When I called for a debate on immigration earlier this month, a massive bill, pushed up against an artificial deadline, without any real opportunity for review or amendment isn’t what I had in mind. Since what we do here is far more important than how many votes we do it with, there is simply no reason we need to end this debate now in order to meet some artificial deadline determined by the Majority Leader’s summer schedule.

“It continues to be my hope that we can do something lasting and important about our broken immigration system. Living up to our commitments to our constituents, particularly with respect to border security, has long been of critical importance for me. Sadly, I’m not convinced that this amendment solves that problem, and I see no good reason why we would need to vote on it so hastily. The American people deserve effective reform, but they will not get it without a full and open debate.”