Press Conference with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) - Wrapping up the Year in the Senate

Interview

Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Good morning, everyone.

Q Good morning.

SEN. MCCONNELL: I'm sure you're sad to see us all leaving town. I hope -- let me just say at the outset I hope you all will be following us shortly to wherever you're going for the holidays and have a great time with your families, wherever they may be. I guess most of you actually have them here, but wherever you're headed, get there safely and get back safely.

This is a good time to wrap up the year. At the beginning of the year I said -- at the risk of boring some of you by saying it again -- that divided government really does present an opportunity to do important things, controversial and difficult things. In that sense, obviously I'd have to say I'm disappointed in the first session of the Congress because I do think we missed an opportunity to challenge -- to take up a big challenge, something important. And I recall recommending Social Security as something that could have been done on a bipartisan basis.

Having said that, our strategy -- the Senate Republican strategy was essentially to use our robust minority of 49 for one of two purposes; either to shape things that we thought were headed in the right direction and there was a possibility of meeting in the middle, or if we thought it was completely inappropriate for the country, to stop it altogether. And of course, that has been the pattern in the Senate over the years.

To give you an example of legislation that we shaped, the minimum wage would have passed without a small-business tax relief package but for Senate Republicans. But for Senate Republicans, the TSA collective bargaining in the 9/11 bill would have stayed in. We got it out.

Just last night, I think, is a good example of the impact we could have by upholding the president's top line on the omnibus appropriation. We usually look at these spending figures over a 10- year period. And I know many on the other side depicted a $22 billion difference as inconsequential, but if you multiply that out over 10 years, you know, you're well above $200 billion in additional spending saved as a result of meeting the president's top line on the omnibus.

Back on the tax issue, in the energy bill Senate Republicans were able not only to prevent a tax increase being a part of the energy bill, but also to prevent a rate increase for those of us in the Southeast who cannot, would not have been able to meet the wind mandate.

It would have been a significant rate increase for consumers all across the Southeast.

On the AMT, it, as you know, has been our view that the AMT fix, the AMT relief that needed to be provided, should not trigger a tax increase for other Americans. This is a tax that is levied on a few now but could well end up being levied on a great many Americans. We all know we're never going to do that, so why should we used extending relief, that we know we're going to grant, as an excuse for making permanent tax increases for others? We prevailed on that issue.

The Internet tax moratorium: The people who supported the Internet tax moratorium thought that four years was the most that would be achievable. And we were able to get seven, thanks to the tenacity and leadership of Senator Sununu.

There were other issues where we felt the ideas that were being promoted were just simply terrible for the country, and we stopped them altogether. At the top of the list, I would put getting rid of the secret ballot in labor union elections, something that 80 percent of union members think is a bad idea. They don't want management looking over their shoulders while they decide whether or not to have a union. And they certainly don't want the union organizer looking over their shoulders either. Price fixing and rationing, in the Medicare prescription drug program, we were able to eliminate.

And finally the issue that dominated the year, as of last night, we had 34 votes on Iraq this year, 34 votes. Senate Republicans were able to hold together to prevent the Congress from either telling the generals how to conduct the war and providing a date certain for surrender. We were also able to get funding to the troops on every occasion. And we're particularly proud of last evening, where 20- some-odd Democrats joined us in providing $70 billion to continue the effort in the global war on terror, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, without micromanagement from Congress, which should take us well over into April.

So let me make a prediction. The -- you've watched the approval ratings of Congress tumble over the year. And I've said -- somewhat tongue-in-cheek but maybe not totally tongue-in-cheek -- that the new majority ought to be in the Guinness Book of Records for squandering approval faster than any new majority in history. And as you know, earlier this fall, I believe all the pollsters were agreeing that these were the lowest approval ratings -- maybe in polling history, but certainly in the last 20 years since the House banking scandal -- for a Congress. I will predict that those numbers are going to begin to pick up some as a result of the efforts that you've seen here in the last two weeks where we really have met in the middle, we really have made compromises, we really have showed we could govern -- you know, we did that on Iraq, we did it on the omnibus, we did it on the energy bill -- so I would predict that the numbers -- the approval ratings of Congress may begin to tick up some.

That doesn't bother me at all. Recall what I said a moment ago and what I said at the beginning of the year: my preference is to accomplish things for the American people. They cast their votes in November of '06 and expected us to do something, and I think a large part of the disapproval of Congress was related two issues. They were either the people on the very far left who were motivated only by the war and wanted the war to end tomorrow, but a much larger group of citizens who did vote for the Democrats in November of '06 who simply wanted us to do something, wanted us to meet in the middle, wanted us to solve problems. I think we've done that pretty well over the last couple of weeks, and I would predict that the approval ratings of Congress may actually begin to move up some.

Maybe that would be a good place for me to stop and throw it open for whatever you all would like to ask about.

Q One question that's left lingering for today. Any idea whether the -- (off mike) -- on the FEC nominations?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Senator Reid and the White House and I as well will be talking about nominations today. I will tell you the view of Senate Republicans. The tradition of the Federal Elections Commission has been that -- as you know, it's three-three, three Democrats, three Republicans. I think that's the right way to structure an agency like that that could have an huge and adverse partisan impact on one party or the other. The Democrats have picked their nominees and we've picked ours. What we have here -- once again it happened with one of our nominees toward the end of the Clinton administration, the Democrats trying to veto one of our nominees. That isn't going to happen. They're all four going to go together or none of them will be approved, and that I'm sure will be discussed among a lot of other nominations between Senator Reid and the White House.

Yeah?

Q The number one issue for the Democrats was to bring the Iraq war to a close, at least start down that road, cut off funding, et cetera, and they pretty much have not achieved those objectives. Why do you think, with the majority -- (off mike) -- not able to achieve -- (off mike)?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I've already said I think Senate Republicans held together in the tough times when people were skeptical about the surge, skeptical about the war. In fact, my counterpart, I think, declared the war lost last March.

The American people are noticing and all of you are noticing, and even the most skeptical outlets that some of you may work for are also noticing and writing about the fact that things have improved. It's an undeniable fact, or should I say an inconvenient truth, that things are getting better in Iraq. And I think the American people are noticing. I'm not saying that we're totally out of the woods. I don't think they believe that. But I think the American people are aware that things have improved. And most Americans are not pulling for us to lose. So they're happier about the situation; not cheering it, but feeling that things are getting better.

I think Congress does reflect in many ways the American mood, and I think one of the reasons we were able to succeed in getting the additional funding without strings is the fact that it doesn't any longer look like a kind of hopeless venture, which I think a lot of Americans had concluded that it might be and a lot of members had concluded it might be.

Yeah?

Q You said that there were 34 votes on Iraq --

SEN. MCCONNELL: In the Senate.

Q -- here in the Senate. How many do you see coming in the coming year? And -- (off mike)?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, that will be up to the majority. As a result of getting the $70 billion without a stipulation, I believe that we would not be dealing with a funding issue again until April or so. As you know, the number of troops are declining. It really will be up to the majority as to whether or not they want to continue. We had a number of Iraq votes, as you know, that were just sort of sense- of-the-Senate resolutions and that sort of thing. In fact, I said at one point this year all we did was have Iraq votes and investigations around here. It's gotten a lot better the last couple of weeks.

I don't know; that will be up to the majority. We think that General Petraeus is doing quite well. I noticed that he -- I would have picked him myself as the Time Man of the Year, or Person of the Year, but he was on the list. He came in fifth. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin beat him out. But I think General Petraeus has been an incredibly successful general so far.

I think the tactics are working, and we'll see whether the majority wants to continue to beat that, you know, have those kind of votes or move on to something else.

Yeah, Emily.

Q (Off mike) -- lot more cooperation and whatnot. I wonder, what has changed? I mean, did the Democrats change their approach, you know, with you, with the Republican Conference in general -- (off mike) -- idea of what brought this on?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, you'd have to ask them. But I think if I had to speculate about, I think it's the low approval ratings of Congress. I think the Democrats are feeling like they haven't done anything. And when you have heard them make arguments about what they had done, it was pretty thin gruel by any objective standard.

So I think there was a growing feeling on the other side of the aisle in both the House and Senate that, you know, maybe they needed to actually accomplish some things. And you all know how the Senate in particular works. The way you accomplish things in the Senate is in the middle. Neither side totally dominates the Senate, no matter who may be up or down in the numbers. And you really have to meet in the middle to do something. And we've been doing that the last couple of weeks, which is why I predict the ratings of Congress are likely to inch up.

Q But did you feel like there was more accommodation of Republican viewpoints?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah.

Q I mean, what -- can you be more specific about, you know --

SEN. MCCONNELL: I don't know how I could be any more specific. We reached the middle.

Take the energy bill for example. Once it became clear that there were not enough votes to raise taxes and raise rates in the Southeast, rather than taking the bill down and making a political issue out of it, they chose to pass a bill that could become signed. Senator Reid was just down at the White House for a signing ceremony. I think it would be great to have the majority leader of the Senate down at the White House for more signing ceremonies. What that would mean is that we worked out our differences and we passed something worth passing and actually made a law, as opposed to just sort of sparring, which we spent much of the year doing and wasted an enormous amount of time on things that were going nowhere.

Yeah.

Q (Off mike) -- in Congress in the next year, if Democrats continue with the same tactic, with amendment after amendment, do you think Republicans can hold them off? And even if the American people realize, as you said, that there is progress in Iraq, do you think that's going to change the debate --

SEN. MCCONNELL: You know, you're asking me a whole lot of hypotheticals and asking me to make a whole lot of predictions. What we know as a matter of fact is that so far, the strategy of General Petraeus has been successful.

This is not time to dance in the end zone or, you know, say that it's over. It's -- none of those things are the case. But the strategy is working. We should let it continue.

And we know that he has said he's going to draw down the 30,000 plus-up -- referred to by all of us as the "surge" -- by next June, and we'll see what happens then. We know that refugees are going back. I even hear that the Iraqi government, which to many of us has seemed largely dysfunctional, or at least the central government, you know, may be on the verge of finally dealing with some of the big issues, like the oil law and the local elections, the de- Ba'athification process. We'll see. They haven't done it yet.

But all the signs of progress are there, and I don't know how that'll play out back here in Congress when people witness that.

Q Senator?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Paul?

Q On the political terrain, you've had sort of a tough year in that you've had several longtime veterans retire in vulnerable seats. Last night Senator Lott officially retired. How do you pivot off of what you consider legislative success in trying to turn this into something that would be successful for you in November '08? Are things that bad for you politically?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, there's no question that if you just look at the numbers, we have a daunting task in '08. We have 23 seats up. They only have 12.

I think, Paul, that most of these Senate races, to the extent that they're impacted by the national presidential election, should benefit us. I mean, I think that the Democratic nominee, whoever it ends up being, is going to be a hard sell in most of the competitive states. Now in the states where the Democratic nominee has a good chance of carrying the state, some of the blue states, we have our strongest incumbents -- in Oregon, in Minnesota, in Maine, in New Hampshire. The rest of the states -- the turf is less friendly for the likely Democratic nominee, and I think the presidential election is likely to help us.

And a lot of these Senate races are custom-crafted to the state anyway. It ends up not being totally about national issues and many times focuses on the state.

So I think -- look, I think the chances of you-all calling me the majority leader a year from now are rather slim just because of the number situation. I do think we have a good chance of staying roughly where we are. And I don't want to sound boastful in any way, but I think we've demonstrated in the course of the last year that we're not anywhere near irrelevant in the governing process here on Capitol Hill. With a robust minority and north of 45, or 46 or 47 -- we're at 49 at the moment -- Senate Republicans will be able to have an impact on public policy.

Senator, a question on earmarks. Both parties have talked about wanting to cut sort of excess spending, but there's a lot of earmarks still in this omnibus spending bill. Why is that? Where -- (off mike) -- come from? And is there any hope for the situation regarding earmarks to change in the future?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I think the thing to focus on in the omnibus is how much are we going to spend? And we decided the president's recommendation, you know, 933 (billion dollars) was the appropriation amount of spending, and we succeeded in eliminating the -- what I would call the $250 billion plus up, that is getting the extra 22 (billion dollars) this year and putting that at the baseline and keep on churning that out over 10 years. The issue of whether members of Congress are going to turn over to any administration 100 percent of the discretion about how funds are going to be spent is an interesting debate, and we have it around here all the time.

But I think there are a substantial number of members who are reluctant to not advocate causes for their state. And I think you saw that reflected in the final product. But the thing to focus is on is, how big was the pie? How much are we going to spend? Not where it's going to be spent, but how much is going to be spent? And I think it was -- I mean, if we'd been having this press conference last January and I had suggested that a Republican minority in Congress would be able to meet the president's top line, you all would have laughed at me. That's an extraordinary success by any objective standard, and I think that's what we ought to focus on.

Q Senator McConnell, can I ask about wiretapping, your outlook for January on that coming debate, and whether you think that the --

SEN. MCCONNELL: Are you talking about the FISA debate?

Q Yeah, FISA.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah. Well, there are two things that must be in a FISA bill that needs to be extended, because it expires. We need retroactive liability for the communications companies that stepped forward and helped their country as they were requested to do in the wake of 9/11, and we need to make clear, abundantly clear, that terrorist-to-terrorist communications overseas are not subject to some kind of warrant procedure here in the United States.

I mean, those are the two bottom-line concerns. There are differences of opinion about that. As you know, the law expires -- is it the 1st of February or the 5th? Can somebody tell me?

Q/STAFF (?): The 1st.

Q/STAFF (?): (Off mike.)

SEN. MCCONNELL: One said the 1st and one said the 5th. Anyway, near the beginning of February. And we have time to resolve these differences. We were unable to finish the work in the Senate on this bill prior to going out for the holidays, but we will have time to do that when we get back. Senator Reid indicates we're coming back in on the 22nd. I know this will be a top priority.

Q Senator?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Carl?

Q One thing we haven't mentioned which was a big issue this year is immigration, and it's sort of the one area where the Senate Republicans broke with the president.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah.

Q The Democrats and the president were more aligned. How do you account for that? And where do you see that issue?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I think we all know, because you all covered it, that it went on the rocks over the issue of whether or not there should -- there would be preferential treatment toward citizenship for people who entered the country illegally. And that ended up spoiling the whole issue. In other words, it dominated the discussion. The insistence of the majority on including that kind of provision is what guaranteed that we couldn't get a comprehensive package.

So I think the message is very clear from the American people. If we bring up the subject of immigration again and preferential treatment toward citizenship for people who got here illegally is part of the process, it isn't going to pass. So my recommendation to the majority, and one I would be helpful in, is let's take the pieces of it that are less controversial, and important, and deal with them.

For example, the H-2A issue -- that's agricultural workers, an important issue in my state -- is a mess. It's really hard to work with if you're a farmer and you're trying to get your crops in and you're trying to do it in the right way, and it's a mess.

H-1B, the high-tech visa program -- you all already know this, but the quotas are gone on one day every year. Why is that? Unfortunately, the public school system in America is not producing enough youngsters who are proficient in math and science, so we have to bring them in from somewhere else. Why is that a good idea? If we don't bring them in, the businesses will go over there. And I'm sure everybody would agree we want to have the businesses in America. We need a bigger H-1B quota until, hopefully, someday in our lifetimes, the American educational system is producing enough mathematicians and scientists to meet that need.

Business right now is in a heck of a position, really a Hobson's choice. They refuse to hire someone and run the risk of being sued for discrimination, or they hire someone who's illegal and have the government down on their back.

I mean, if we're going to have the right kind of workplace verification, and that's what you have to have to make this work, we need a biometric tamper-proof ID that employers can depend on.

All of these things, Carl, you could do kind of on separate tracks. But I think the message is, you ball all of this up into one, try to use it to achieve some political goal -- like making a lot of people who came here illegally citizens as quickly as possible, presumably for some kind of voting advantage -- and you ruin the whole process.

So I would be very open to dealing with these sort of issue by issue. I'm not open to balling it all back up into one big -- one big comprehensive bill, because I know we'll just have a rerun. One of my favorite sayings, sort of country sayings in Kentucky is there's no education in the second kick of a mule.

Q So do you think that's radioactive, though, pretty much, for next year?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, I think so. But we might be able to do some of the pieces, but I don't think we should go back and have the second kick of the mule by trying to deal with comprehensive again.

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. MCCONNELL: What did you say?

Q The president has only one year left in his term. And I wondered if you think he might be open to -- (off mike) -- compromises on legislation next year.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, he's going to be signing a lot of bills here at the end of the year that are the product of bipartisan negotiation and agreement. And my view is the president's always ready to sign a bill that enjoys bipartisan support. And there are going to be good examples of it. One was this morning when he signed the energy bill, and you're going to see him sign the omnibus.

So, yeah, I think his preference is the same as mine. He'd rather do things than not. But you have to meet in the middle. This effort to kind of constantly score political points by putting up measures that are going nowhere, making no compromises, taking them down and accusing the other side of obstruction, is not going to work.

And I think that they may have figured it out. I don't know this for sure. It would be a good question for y'all to ask the other side. They may have figured it out here at the end. The American people are more likely to be grateful for accomplishment. And in order to have accomplishment, you need to meet the Republicans in the Senate and you need to meet the Republican president, at least for another year. And I'm more optimistic than many people are that they may still be dealing with a Republican president after next year. So we'll see.

I'm going to take one more, according to my handler.

Q (Off mike) -- the Republicans. I'm wondering how much of a --

SEN. MCCONNELL: What was the first thing you said?

Q The S-CHIP bill that --

SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah.

Q -- (inaudible) -- Republicans. Given the popularity of that program, how much of a liability do you think the issue of health care will be -- (off mike)?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, you may have missed that we yesterday did an 18-month extension of the existing law. It's out of the Senate, and I don't know whether it's out of the House yet or not.

So that's a good example. After a big controversy, we came together and made a bipartisan decision to extend existing law for 18 months. So that's an -- just a perfect example of what I'm talking about. That's the way you accomplish things around here.

Hey, thanks, everybody. I hope you have a wonderful holiday, and I'll see you on January 22nd.

Q Merry Christmas.

Source