News

Recent Press Releases

Senate Democrats Block McConnell Effort to Stop President’s Job-Killing Energy Regulations

‘Opposing this bill, or blocking its consideration, means you must believe that the President’s rules will cause job loss, or utility rate hikes, or brownouts.’

June 4, 2014

**Sen. McConnell asked consent to proceed to the Coal Country Protection Act. Leader Reid objected.**

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate Floor regarding the Coal Country Protection Act:

“President Obama’s new energy regulations would ship Middle Class jobs overseas, splinter our manufacturing base, and boost energy costs for struggling families.

“The regulations could also lead to a reduction of nearly a half million jobs, according to an AFL-CIO union estimate. The union’s leader characterized the job loss as ‘long-term and irreversible.’ He noted that the President’s regulations would not achieve ‘any significant reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.’ In other words, lots of pain for minimal gain.

“The President’s energy regulations would hurt the poor, the unemployed, seniors, and especially families in Kentucky.

“Kentucky coal-sector employment has collapsed by 7,000 jobs since President Obama took office. Eastern Kentucky just saw a 3-percent reduction in coal jobs in the first quarter of 2014.  At least three additional Kentuckians lose their paychecks indirectly for every mining job that’s lost.
“As one coal leader noted, the Administration’s proposed regulations would only ‘add to the economic challenges facing Kentucky — especially in Eastern Kentucky, which is 'Ground Zero' for what's happening’ in Coal Country.

“The Coal Country Protection Act is co-sponsored by several Senators, including Rand Paul, and is supported by the Kentucky Coal Association.

“It would require that simple but important benchmarks be met before the President’s new rules could take effect:

  • Number one, the Secretary of Labor would have to certify that the regulations would not generate a loss of employment.
  • Number two, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office would have to certify that the regulations would not result in any loss in American gross domestic product.
  • Number three, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration would have to certify that the regulations would not increase electricity rates.
  • And number four, the Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the President of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation would have to certify that electricity delivery would remain reliable.

“So the Coal Country Protection Act is just common sense.

“Opposing this bill, or blocking its consideration, means you must believe that the President’s rules will cause job loss, or utility rate hikes, or brownouts.

“The President’s regulations will increase electricity prices and create job loss.

“Opponents of this bill would be supporting job loss in Kentucky, our economy being hurt, and seniors’ energy bills spiking – for almost zero meaningful global carbon reduction.

“So the Majority Leader and his Democrat colleagues need to listen.

“And even if they won’t, Kentuckians should know this: I won’t stop fighting for them.”

McConnell Supports Eastern Kentucky Employment Initiative Helping Coal Miners and Their Families

June 4, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced Wednesday the Department of Labor (DOL) has approved nearly $7.6 million for the Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program (EKCEP) to continue its services to help laid-off coal miners in eastern Kentucky. The funding will be used for EKCEP’s Helping Our Miners Everyday (H.O.M.E.) initiative.

Senator McConnell is a strong supporter of this program and has -- on several occasions -- urged the DOL to approve this grant on behalf of Kentucky’s laid-off coal miners. Currently nearly 2,000 Kentuckians are participating in H.O.M.E. and nearly 900 laid-off miners have already gained employment through this successful program, and this continued assistance will enable additional laid-off coal miners to participate.

“Our coal miners and their families, especially in eastern Kentucky, continue to struggle under President Obama’s War on Coal and his latest regulations, if enacted, could lead to a reduction of nearly a half million jobs, according to an AFL-CIO union estimate. I encouraged DOL to approve this request and assist my constituents in eastern Kentucky – an area experiencing a severe economic depression despite being rich in natural resources,” Senator McConnell said. “EKCEP and the H.O.M.E. initiative are doing great work assisting Kentucky miners and their families seeking employment and training opportunities while we continue to fight the War on Coal and restore the industry that is so vital to our state.”

"We are extremely grateful for the support of Senator McConnell toward the additional NEG funding we have been awarded," said EKCEP Executive Director Jeff Whitehead. "This funding will allow us to continue to meet the workforce needs of our region's unemployed miners in a time of unprecedented need, and we applaud the senator for his recognition of this plight and our ongoing efforts to address it."

Kentucky coal-sector employment has collapsed by 7,000 jobs since President Obama took office. Eastern Kentucky just saw a 3-percent reduction in coal jobs in the first quarter of 2014.  At least three additional Kentuckians lose their paychecks indirectly for every mining job that’s lost.

McConnell Testifies in Defense of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Protections

June 3, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Washington Democrats’ efforts to restrict free speech:

“Americans from all walks of life understand how extraordinarily special the First Amendment is. Like the Founders, they know that the free exchange of ideas and the ability to criticize their government are necessary for our democracy to survive.
 
“Benjamin Franklin noted that ‘whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.’ The First Amendment is the constitutional guarantee of that freedom, and it has never been amended.
 
“Attempts to weaken the First Amendment—such as the proposal before this Committee—should therefore pass the highest scrutiny. Senate Joint Resolution 19 falls far short of that high bar.
 
“It would empower incumbent politicians in Congress and in the states to write the rules on who gets to speak and who doesn’t. And the American people should be concerned—and many are already—that those in power would use this extraordinary authority to suppress speech that is critical of them.
 
“I understand that no politician likes to be criticized — and some of us are criticized more often than others. But the recourse to being criticized is not to shut up our fellow citizens. It’s to defend your ideas more ably in the political marketplace, to paraphrase Justice Holmes. Or it’s simply to come up with better ideas.
 
“The First Amendment is purposefully neutral when it comes to speech. It respects the right of every person to be heard without fear or favor, whether or not their views happen to be popular with the government at a given moment.
 
“The First Amendment is also unequivocal. It provides that ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.’ The First Amendment is about empowering the people, not the government. The proposed amendment has it exactly backwards. It says that Congress and the states can pass whatever law they want abridging political speech—the speech that is at the very core of the First Amendment.
 
“If incumbent politicians were in charge of political speech, a majority could design the rules to benefit itself and diminish its opponents. And when roles reversed, you could expect a new majority to try to disadvantage the other half of the country. And on it would go.
 
“You can see why this is terrible policy. You can also see how this is at odds with the First Amendment.

“That’s why the last time a proposal like this was considered, in 2001, it was defeated on a bipartisan basis, with Senator Kennedy, Senator Feingold, and several other Democratic colleagues voting against it. A similar proposal was likewise defeated in 1997.
 
“Our colleagues who voted against those proposals were right then. And I respectfully submit that they would be wrong now to support the latest proposal to weaken the First Amendment. That is especially clear when one compares the language of the amendments.
 
“Senate Joint Resolution 4 in the 107th Congress would have empowered the government to set ‘reasonable limits’ on political speech. The same was true of Senate Joint Resolution 18 in the 105th Congress.

“As bad as those proposals were, they at least limited the government’s power to setting ‘reasonable limits’ on speech. By contrast, the amendment we’re discussing today would drop that pretense altogether. It would give the government complete control over the political speech of its citizens, allowing it to set unreasonable limits on their political speech, including banning it.
 
“Not only would S.J. Res. 19 allow the government to favor certain speakers over others, it would guarantee such preferential treatment. It contains a provision, not found in prior proposals, which expressly provides that Congress cannot ‘abridge the freedom of the press.’ That’s great if you’re in the business of buying ink by the barrel; it’s not so great for everyone else. The media wins and everyone else loses.

“Now, everyone on this Committee knows this proposal will never pass Congress. This is a political exercise.
 
“The goal here is to stir up one party’s political base so they’ll show up in November and to do it by complaining loudly about certain Americans exercising their free speech and associational rights, while being perfectly happy that other Americans—those who agree with the sponsors of this amendment—are doing the same thing.
 
“But the political nature of this exercise should not obscure how shockingly bad this proposal is.
 
“When it comes to free speech, we shouldn’t substitute the incumbent-protection desires of politicians for the protection the Constitution guarantees to all Americans.
 
“That’s something we should all be able to agree on.
 
“So I urge the Committee to reject this dangerous proposal to dramatically weaken one of our most precious freedoms.
 
“And I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to testify.”

« First < Prev Next > Last »