Click HERE for Senator McConnell’s Coronavirus Response Portal

Recent Press Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Kentucky Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul and Congressman Ed Whitfield (KY-01) today released the following statement regarding General Electric’s (GE) request for offer (RFO) submittal being selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) at the Paducah DOE Site.  The announcement follows the delegation’s November 14th meeting with DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz in which they pressed for a final decision to be made.

“When it became clear that DOE would ultimately close the Gaseous Diffusion Plant, we aggressively sought out partners with Paducah’s long-term economic interests in mind.  Specifically, we worked to ensure the Paducah community would be the benefactor of any future development using the DOE-owned depleted uranium tails.  GE made a commitment to Paducah early on, and we are pleased that Global Laser Enrichment has been chosen to lead Paducah – our proud Atomic City – into an exciting chapter involving state-of-the-art laser enrichment technology.

“We have been encouraged by GE’s commitment to Paducah.  It is our understanding that GE proposes to invest over $1 billion to create a state-of-the-art laser enrichment facility at the DOE site that will create thousands of construction jobs, and hundreds of permanent jobs at a future GE facility.  From a national perspective, the proposal seeks to save the federal government money in cost reduction and revive the U.S. domestic nuclear supply chain while likely generating billions of dollars in new tax revenues for the local, state, and federal government.

“Paducah is a proud city, and we are thrilled GE has placed its confidence in the people of Paducah to host this new state-of-the-art facility.  Paducah has a bright future ahead, and we are genuinely grateful to be a part of it.”

Timeline of the Kentucky delegation’s efforts for background:

May 15, 2012: The delegation announces a plan to extend the life of the gaseous diffusion plant by one year, extending 1,200 jobs while saving the taxpayers money.

May 13, 2013:  The Kentucky delegation calls on the Department of Energy to develop a long-term solution for the Paducah DOE site.  

May 24, 2013:  Upon learning that United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) would not be continuing operations at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the delegation requests a meeting with Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to express the urgency of developing a long-term solution for the Paducah DOE site.  They also express their disappointment with the Obama Administration’s inability to come up with an agreement to extend operations at the Paducah Plant.

June 4, 2013:  The delegation meets with Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz and Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman to discuss the long-term future of the DOE site. The delegation, on behalf of the community, which was still reeling from the DOE’s recent announcement not to extend the United States Enrichment Corporation’s (USEC) operation, stressed the importance of DOE's commitment to cleanup and utilizing the tails and other assets located in Paducah to secure a long-term future for the site.

September 12, 2013: Paducah community leaders meet with Secretary Ernest Moniz. The main topics of discussion were finding a long-term solution for private sector development and accelerating cleanup activities at the Paducah Department of Energy (DOE) site.

November 14, 2013: The delegation meets with Secretary Ernest Moniz to obtain an update on DOE’s efforts to utilize the depleted uranium tails for economic development in Paducah. We are encouraged by Secretary Moniz’s comments today that using DOE’s depleted uranium assets for development in Paducah ‘remains a very important criteria’ to the Department of Energy as they finalize their decision on the request for offers process.

 

###

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced today that he and 44 of his Senate colleagues filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in a challenge (NLRB v. Noel Canning) to the constitutionality of President Obama’s so-called “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012.
 
Earlier this year a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled that the President’s so-called 2012 “recess” appointments to the NLRB are invalid, and the Supreme Court is hearing the Administration’s appeal of that decision. The Supreme Court argument has been scheduled for January 13, 2014.
 
As they contended in an earlier amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit, the 45 senators argue in their brief that by declaring the Senate to be in a continual period of recess when it had determined to be in session regularly, the President usurped the Senate’s authority to determine the rules of its own proceedings. By purporting to “recess appoint” political allies to the NLRB without the Senate’s advice and consent, the senators argue, the President took away the Senate’s right and responsibility to review executive nominations—claiming to himself the unilateral appointment power that the Framers deliberately withheld from the Office of the Presidency.
 
“Last year, the President made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even trying to obtain its advice and consent,” Sen. McConnell said. “The President was dismissive of the Constitution’s constraints on his power, saying he would ‘refuse to take no for an answer.’  Three federal appeals courts have rejected this and similar abuses of power.  They have reaffirmed what Republicans and job creators around the country have been saying: the President’s attempt to circumvent the Senate with supposed ‘recess appointments’ to the NLRB was unconstitutional. It will now be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the President’s recess appointments violated the Constitution, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and two other federal appeals courts have found.”
 
The challenge to the recess appointments is being brought by Noel Canning, a local, family-owned business in Washington State that bottles and distributes soft drinks. The company is challenging the NLRB’s determination that it must enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union.
 
In its January 2013 ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court said, “Allowing the President to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers.” The Court determined that: “An interpretation of ‘the Recess’ that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction. This cannot be the law.”
 
Senate Republicans retained former Assistant to the Solicitor General Miguel Estrada to file the amicus brief in the Supreme Court as he did in the D.C. Circuit in this case. Mr. Estrada is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and serves as Co-Chair of the firm's Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group.

Washington, D.C.U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor regarding the Senate Democrats’ attempt to focus on changing Senate rules rather than addressing the consequences of Obamacare:

“Over the past several weeks, the American people have been witness to one of the most breathtaking indictments of big-government liberalism in memory. And I’m not just talking about a web site.

“I’m talking about the way in which Obamacare was forced on the public by an administration and a Democrat-led Congress that we now know was willing to do and say just about anything to pass it into law.

“The President and his Democrat allies were so determined to force their vision of health care on the public that they assured them up and down that they wouldn’t lose the plans they had, that they’d save money instead of losing it, and that they’d be able to keep using the doctors and hospitals they were already using.

“But of course now we know that rhetoric just doesn’t match reality.

“And the stories we’re hearing on a near-daily basis now range from heartbreaking to comic.

“Just yesterday I saw a story about a guy getting a letter in the mail saying his dog had qualified for insurance under Obamacare. So yeah, I’d probably be running for the exits too if I had supported this law.

“I’d be looking to change the subject just as Senate Democrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations. If I were a senator from Oregon, which hasn’t enrolled a single person yet for its Obamacare exchange, I would probably want to shift the focus too.

“But here’s the problem with this latest distraction. It doesn’t distract people from Obamacare. It reminds them of it. It reminds them of all the broken promises. It reminds them of the power grab. It reminds them of the way Democrats set up one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else.

“It’s basically the same debate.

“And rather than distract people from Obamacare, it only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way. Because that’s just what they’re doing all over again.

“Once again, Senate Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate. And over what? Over a court that doesn’t even have enough work to do.

“Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law Washington Democrats forced upon them – and what do they do about it? They cook up some fake fight over judges that aren’t even needed.

“Look: I get it. As I indicated, I’d want to be talking about something else too if I had to defend dogs getting insurance while millions of Americans lost theirs. But it won’t work. And the parallels between this latest skirmish and the original Obamacare push are just too obvious to ignore.

“Think about it: The Majority Leader promised over and over again that he wouldn’t break the rules of the Senate in order to change them. On July 14 he went on ‘Meet the Press’ and he said: ‘We’re not touching judges.’

“He may as well just have said ‘If you like the rules of the Senate you can keep them.’

“Then there are the double standards.

“When Democrats were in the minority, they argued strenuously for the very thing they now say we will have to do without, namely the right to extended debate on lifetime appointments. In other words, they believe that one set of rules should apply to them, and another set to everyone else … just the way so many Democrats in the Administration and Congress now believe that Obamacare is good enough for their constituents, but that when it comes to them, their political allies, and their staffs – well, that’s different.

“And let’s not forget about the raw power at play here.

“On this point, the similarities between the Obamacare debate and the Democrat threat to go nuclear on nominations are inescapable. They muscled through Obamacare on a party-line vote and didn’t care about the views of the minority. And that’s just what they’re doing here too.

“The American people decided not to give Democrats the House or to restore the filibuster-proof majority they had in the Senate back in 2009, and our Democrat colleagues don’t like that one bit. So they’re trying to change the rules of the game to get their way.

“They’ve said so themselves.

“Earlier this year the Senior Senator from New York said they want to ‘fill up the D.C. Circuit one way or another.’

“And the reason is clear. As one liberal activist put it earlier this year, President Obama’s agenda ‘runs through the D.C. Circuit.’

“In short, unlike the first two years of the Obama Administration, there’s now a legislative check on the President. And the Administration doesn’t much like checks and balances. So it wants to circumvent the people’s representatives with an aggressive regulatory agenda, and our Democrat colleagues want to facilitate that by ‘filling up’ a court that will rule on his agenda — a court that doesn’t even have enough work to do. Especially if it means changing the subject from Obamacare for a few days.

“And get this: they think they can change the rules of the Senate in a way that benefits only them. They want to do it in such a way that President Obama’s agenda gets enacted, but that a future Republican president couldn’t get his or her picks for the Supreme Court confirmed by a Republican Senate using the same precedent our Democrat friends want to set. So they want to have it both ways. But this sort of gerrymandered vision of the nuclear option is really just wishful thinking.

“As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee put it yesterday: ‘If [the Majority Leader] changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court.’

“Look: I realize this sort of wishful thinking might appeal to the uninitiated newcomers in the Democratic Conference who’ve served exactly zero days in the minority. But others in their conference should know better.

“Let’s remember how we got here.

“Let’s remember that it was Senate Democrats who pioneered the practice of filibustering Circuit Court nominees, and who’ve been its biggest proponents in the past. After President Bush was elected, they even held a retreat in which they discussed the need to change the ground rules by which lifetime appointments are considered. Then they started holding hearings to justify doing it. They made a big deal about it.

“It was all a prelude to what followed: the serial filibustering of several of President Bush’s Circuit Court nominees, including Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit was filibustered by Senate Democrats a record seven times. And now they want to blow up the rules because Republicans are following a precedent they set themselves – and, I might add, we’re following that precedent in a much more modest way than Democrats did.

“So how about this for a suggestion: How about instead of picking a fight with Senate Republicans by jamming through nominees to a court that doesn’t even have enough work to do, how about taking yes for an answer and working with us on filling actual judicial emergencies, as I’ve repeatedly suggested.

“Yet rather than learn from the past precedents on judicial nominations that they themselves have set, Democrats now want to set another one. I have no doubt that if they do, they will come to regret that one as well. Our colleagues evidently would rather live for the moment, and try to establish a story line that Republicans are intent on obstructing President Obama’s judicial nominees — a story line that’s patently ridiculous in light of the facts. And here are the facts: before this current Democrat gambit to ‘fill up the D.C. Circuit one way or another,’ the Senate had confirmed 215 of the President’s judicial nominees and rejected a grand total of 2. That’s a confirmation rate of 99%.

“Clearly, Republicans have been willing to confirm the President’s judicial nominees. And on the D.C Circuit, we just confirmed the President’s last nominee to that court by a vote of 97 to 0.

“So I suggest our colleagues take a time-out, stop trying to jam us, and work with us instead to confirm vacancies that actually need to be filled.

“This rules change charade has gone from being a biennial threat, to an annual threat, to now a quarterly threat. It’s become a threat every time Senate Democrats don’t get their way.

“And their repeated promises at the end of every crisis, that they won’t threaten it again, just don’t seem to be worth any more than their promises on Obamacare.

“And this Democrat strategy of distract, distract, distract is getting old. Because the American people aren’t fooled.

“If our colleagues want to work with us to fill judicial vacancies that actually need to be filled, then let’s do it.

“If our colleagues want to work with us to spare the American people from the pain of Obamacare, then let’s do that.

“But if they want to play games and set yet another precedent that they will no doubt come to regret, well…that’s a choice only they can make.

“Let me be clear: the Democrat playbook of broken promises, double standards, and raw power…the same playbook that got us Obamacare…it has to end.

“That’s why Republicans are going to keep their focus where it belongs: on the concerns of the American people.

“It means we’re going to keep pushing to get back to the drawing board on health care – to replace Obamacare with real reforms that do not punish the middle class. And we’ll leave the political games to our friends on the other side.”