Mitch McConnell
RWon the General, 2020 Kentucky U.S. Senate
Majority Leader, United States Senate (2015 - Present)
Kentucky U.S. Senate, Sr (1985 - Present)
To be claimed
Former Member, Conservation, Forestry, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, United States Senate
Former Member, Livestock, Marketing, and Agriculture Security Subcommittee, United States Senate
Former Chair, Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate
Former Member, Select Committee on Intelligence, United States Senate
Member, Tennessee Valley Authority Caucus
Member, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Member, Appropriations
Member, Rules and Administration
Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Member, Subcommittee on Commodities, Risk Management and Trade
Member, Subcommittee on Defense
Member, Subcommittee on Energy nd Water Development
Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Member, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Member, Subcommittee on Nutrition, Agricultural Research, and Specialty Crops
Member, Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy
Member, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Astrological Sign:
Pisces
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-life
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- No
2. Do you support expanding federal funding to support entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare?
- No
Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- No
Do you support increasing defense spending?
- Yes
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- No
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, geo-thermal)?
- Yes
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- No
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- No
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- Yes
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- Yes
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- Unknown Position
1. Should the United States use military force to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a weapon of mass destruction (for example: nuclear, biological, chemical)?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support reducing military intervention in Middle East conflicts?
- No
Do you generally support removing barriers to international trade (for example: tariffs, quotas, etc.)?
- Yes
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-life
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- No
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
1. Do you support requiring states to implement education reforms in order to be eligible for competitive federal grants?
- No
Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline?
- Yes
Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- No
1. Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
- No
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act?
- Yes
1. Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- Yes
Do you support same-sex marriage?
- No
1. Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?
- Yes
Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts?
- Yes
Latest Action: 06/24/2019 Amendment SA 867 proposed by Senator McConnell to Amendment SA 866. Of a perfecting nature.
Latest Action: 06/24/2019 Amendment SA 866 proposed by Senator McConnell to Amendment SA 865 (the instructions of the motion to recommit). Of a perfecting nature.
Latest Action: 06/24/2019 Amendment SA 865 proposed by Senator McConnell. To change the enactment date.
By U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell "The legislative filibuster is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House," one of my colleagues said a few years ago. "Without the 60-vote threshold for legislation, the Senate becomes a majoritarian institution, just like the House, much more subject to the winds of short-term electoral change. No senator would like to see that happen." That was the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, in April 2017. When President Trump pressed Republicans to kill the filibuster, our Democratic colleagues cried foul. When our Republican majority stood on principle and refused to wreck the rules, our Democratic colleagues happily used the filibuster themselves. In some cases, they blocked legislation like Sen. Tim Scott's police-reform bill. Other times, they simply did what minority parties always do--used the mere existence of the filibuster to influence must-pass legislation long before it got to the floor. There's so much emphasis on the most extreme bills that either party might pass with a simple majority that people forget the Senate's 60-vote threshold is the only reason that any routine, must-pass legislation is bipartisan when government is united. Big funding deals, appropriation bills, farm bills, highway bills, the defense authorization bill--the 60-vote threshold of Senate Rule 22 backstops all of it. The Senate Democrats who are pressuring our colleagues from Arizona and West Virginia to reverse their commitments are arguing for a radically less stable and less consensus-driven system of government. Nothing in federal law would ever be settled. That may be what a few liberal activists want, but does anyone believe the American people were voting for an entirely new system of government by electing Joe Biden to the White House, a narrow House majority, and a 50-50 Senate? Some Democratic senators seem to imagine that breaking the rules on a razor-thin majority would be a tidy-trade-off. Sure, it might damage the institution, but then nothing would stand between them and their entire agenda, a new era of fast-track policy-making. But anyone who really knows the Senate knows that's not what would happen. Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like. None of us have served one minute in the Senate that was completely drained of comity and consent. This is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon, to proceed with a garden-variety floor speech, to dispense with the reading of lengthy legislative texts, to schedule committee business, to move even uncontroversial nominees at faster than a snail's pace. Imagine a world where every single task requires a physical quorum of 51 senators on the floor--and, by the way, the vice president doesn't count. Everything that Democratic Senates did to Presidents Bush and Trump, everything the Republican Senate did to President Obama, would be child's play compared with the disaster that Democrats would create for their own priorities, if they broke the Senate. Even the most mundane tasks of our chamber--and therefore of the Biden presidency--would become much harder, not easier, in a postnuclear 50-50 Senate. If the Democrats break the rules to kill Rule 22 on a 50-50 basis, then we will use every other rule to make tens of millions of Americans' voices heard. Perhaps the majority would come after the other rules in turn. Perhaps Rule 22 would be only the first of many to fall, until the Senate ceased to be distinct from the House in any respect. Even so, the process would be long and laborious. This chaos wouldn't open up an express lane for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books. The Senate would be more like a 100-car pileup--nothing moving as gawkers watch. And then there's the small problem that majorities are never permanent. The last time a Democratic majority leader was trying to start a nuclear exchange-- Harry Reid in 2013--I offered a warning. I said my colleagues would regret it a lot sooner than they thought. A few years and a few Supreme Court vacancies later, many of our Democratic colleagues admitted publicly that they did. If the Democrats kill the legislative filibuster, history would repeat itself, but more dramatically. As soon as Republicans wound up back in control, we wouldn't stop at erasing every liberal change that hurt the country. We'd strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side. How about a nationwide right-to-work law? Defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one? A whole new era of domestic energy production. Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn? Concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Massive hardening of security on our southern border? Even now, we saw during amendment votes days ago that certain common-sense Republican positions enjoy more support in the current Senate than some of the Democratic committee chairmen's priorities--and this is with them in the majority. The pendulum would swing both ways, and it would swing hard. My Republican colleagues and I refused to kill the Senate for instant gratification. In 2017 and 2018, a sitting president lobbied me to do exactly what Democrats want to do now. I agreed with many of his policy goals, but I said no. Becoming a U.S. senator comes with higher duties than steamrolling any obstacle to short-term power. Less than two months ago, two of our Democratic colleagues said they understand that. If they keep their word, we have a bipartisan majority that can put principle first and save the Senate.
By Sen. Mitch McConnell Jan. 6 was a shameful day. A mob bloodied law enforcement and besieged the first branch of government. American citizens tried to use terrorism to stop a democratic proceeding they disliked. There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world's largest megaphone. His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended. I was as outraged as any member of Congress. But senators take our own oaths. Our job wasn't to find some way, any way, to inflict a punishment. The Senate's first and foundational duty was to protect the Constitution. Some brilliant scholars believe the Senate can try and convict former officers. Others don't. The text is unclear, and I don't begrudge my colleagues their own conclusions. But after intense study, I concluded that Article II, Section 4 limits impeachment and conviction to current officers. Everyone agrees that "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" exhaust the valid grounds for conviction. It follows that the list of persons in that sentence--"the president, vice president, and all civil officers"--likewise exhausts its valid subjects. If that list of current officers is not exhaustive, there is no textual limit. The House's "sole power of impeachment" and the Senate's "sole power to try all impeachments" would constitute an unlimited circular logic with no stopping point at former officers. Any private citizen could be disqualified. This is why one House manager had to argue the Senate possesses "absolute, unqualified" jurisdiction. But nobody really accepts that. I side with the early constitutional scholar Justice Joseph Story. He observed that while disqualification is optional, removal is mandatory on conviction. The Constitution presupposes that anyone convicted by the Senate must have an office from which to be removed. This doesn't mean leaving office provides immunity from accountability. Former officials are "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice." Criminal law and civil litigation ensure there is no so-called January exemption. There is a modern reflex to demand total satisfaction from every news cycle. But impeachment is not some final moral tribunal. It is a specific tool with a narrow purpose: restraining government officers. The instant Donald Trump ceased being the president, he exited the Senate's jurisdiction. I respect senators who reached the opposite answer. What deserve no respect are claims that constitutional concerns are trivialities that courageous senators would have ignored. One House manager who lauded the Constitution when the trial began now derides it as "a technicality." Another called this pivotal question "a loophole." Talking heads fumed that senators had let legal niceties constrain us. I even heard that only senators who voted for conviction had any right to abhor the violence. That's antithetical to any notion of American justice. Liberals said they condemned the former president's rules-be-damned recklessness. But many apparently cannot resist that same temptation. Consider the claim that I could have steered around the jurisdictional issue by recalling the Senate between Jan. 14 and Jan. 20, while Mr. Trump was still in office. The salient date is not the trial's start but the end, when the penalty of removal from office must be possible. No remotely fair or regular Senate process could have started and finished in less than one week. Even the brisk impeachment process we just concluded took 19 days. The pretrial briefing period alone--especially vital after such a rushed and minimal House process--consumed more than a week. President Biden, who knows the Senate, stated as early as Jan. 8 that his swearing-in was the "quickest" possible path to changing the occupant of the White House. Especially since the House didn't vote until Jan. 13, any legitimate Senate process was certain to end after Inauguration Day. Here's what the scheduling critics are really saying: Senate Republicans should have followed a rushed House process with a light-speed Senate sham. They think we should have shredded due process and ignited a constitutional crisis in a footrace to outrun our loss of jurisdiction. This selective disregard for rules and norms is a civic disease that is spreading through the political left. Senate Democrats relished the legislative filibuster and used it frequently when they were the minority party. Now only two of them pledge to respect it. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has threatened Supreme Court justices by name, and other Democrats submitted a brief demanding the court rule their way or be "restructured." As recently as September, fewer than half of Democrats professed confidence that elections are free and fair. In November, that number shot up to more than 90%--because they liked the result. The nation needs real constitutional champions, not fair-weather institutionalists. The Senate's duty last week was clear. It wasn't to guarantee a specific punishment at any cost. Our job was to defend the Constitution and respect its limits. That is what our acquittal delivered.
By Sen. Mitch McConnell Our country recently observed National Nurses Week, honoring the dedicated men and women who work around the clock to heal our loved ones. The annual tribute was even more powerful in the midst of the global coronavirus crisis. Health care heroes in Kentucky and across the country are rushing toward danger -- often at personal risk -- to care for the sick and to beat this virus. I introduced the CARES Act, which became the largest economic rescue package in history, to send emergency funds to these front line workers. Kentucky medical professionals have so far received more than $900 million to support their inspirational efforts. The coronavirus threatens more than just our health, however. The resulting economic shutdown has left Kentuckians facing layoffs, mounting debts and an uncertain future. As a former Jefferson County judge-executive, I understand the discipline it takes to balance a local budget. I've remained in close touch with city and county officials across Kentucky about challenges facing their communities. As Senate majority leader, I'm delivering substantial resources to help. The CARES Act set aside $150 billion for states and local governments' response to the coronavirus. Kentucky was sent more than $1.7 billion for this purpose alone. Because of the city's population, Louisville Metro Government has received more than $133 million directly from this fund to cover a broad list of expenses. After hearing from state and local leaders, I'm glad U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recently provided even more flexibility for using these dollars. The Trump administration is giving local leaders every ability to get assistance into the hands of Kentucky families. Now, Louisville Metro Government can spend its $133 million to pay the salaries of first responders, health care professionals and others fighting this pandemic. It can cover the costs of testing and contact tracing, which are key to slowing the spread and re-opening our economy. Some of the funding could be sent to Louisville families to cover the costs of rent, utilities and health insurance. And these federal resources could support small businesses or cover hazard pay. I hope the Metro Government uses this flexibility to help keep families healthy and support Kentucky jobs. Other local governments are also eligible to access a portion of Kentucky's remaining $1.6 billion to cover the same wide range of expenses. In recent calls with city and county leaders, I encouraged them to work with Gov. Andy Beshear as they protect local health and critical public services. Across Kentucky, the CARES Act is already adding up to an $11 billion impact. In addition to the vital funding for our health care providers and the state and local governments, my bill has invested billions of dollars into our families, workers, small businesses and infrastructure. Students at the University of Louisville and other local universities were sent urgent relief while their studies are interrupted. Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport received more than $20 million to continue its operations. The city was also given more than $12 million in housing assistance for vulnerable communities. And the CARES Act directed millions to a local substance abuse treatment provider for its comprehensive care. The CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program is helping save jobs and small businesses. More than 44,000 Kentucky job creators have been approved for $5 billion in federally guaranteed loans. From preserving 171 jobs at the iconic Louisville Slugger to a local homebuilder who kept eight workers on payroll, the PPP is helping Kentuckians get paychecks instead of pink slips. If the recipients use the money to pay workers, rent or other certain expenses, the loans can be forgiven. Billions more have been sent directly to Kentucky families to help them make ends meet. Federal assistance is clearly on the way to Kentucky. As Senate majority leader, I'm proud our families are receiving support to overcome these unprecedented challenges. If Congress considers further legislation in response to the coronavirus, I'll continue working with city and county officials to keep Kentucky's priorities at the center of the discussion. For example, I'm glad we share a common interest in a narrowly crafted liability protection for hospitals, small businesses and universities. These commonsense safeguards will keep overzealous trial lawyers from profiting off our recovery. Kentuckians of all backgrounds have stepped up to meet this pandemic. I'm inspired by those who are finding creative ways to help their neighbors and communities. These champions will continue to lead us through this crisis and back to normal. It's my privilege to join them in protecting Kentucky families. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, is the Senate majority leader. His Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act is making a more than $11 billion impact in Kentucky. Kentuckians can access his Coronavirus Response Portal at mcconnell.senate.gov to find information about available federal assistance.