Graham Criticizes Senate Confirmation Process In Announcement Of Support For Kagan

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to approve Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The approval was widely expected; only Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) broke with his Republican colleagues to vote for Kagan. All the Democrats on the committee voted in favor of Kagan’s nomination.

Senator Graham chastised the other committee members and the Senate as a whole for the politicization of the nomination process, noting that only 21 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Congress. Graham said that the Senate has a role in protecting the independence of the the Judicial Branch, since the Supreme Court does not have a “political voice.”

Graham read a portion of a letter Kagan had written in favor of Miguel Estrada, whose 2001 nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals had been filibustered by Senate Democrats. Estrada, a conservative, had written a letter in support of Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and during Kagan’s confirmation hearings earlier this month Graham asked Kagan if she would write a letter in support of Estrada. Graham said that he was not sure if the cross-ideological support meant something, “but it makes me feel better.”

Graham said that criticism by senators of specific Supreme Court decisions was the cause of the increased politicization of the nomination process and therefore the cause of the increased politicization of Supreme Court decisions. “Are we living in an age of legislative activism?,” Graham asked, before repeating that “elections have consequences” and announcing his support for Kagan’s confirmation.

Kagan’s nomination will go to the Senate floor where it is expected to be approved, likely next week.

Graham Endorses GOP Alternative To Kerry-Lieberman Energy Bill

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) Wednesday endorsed a Republican alternative to the Kerry-Lieberman energy bill, a piece of legislation he initially helped write.

Graham said during a press briefing that he “thoroughly enjoyed” working with Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), but that the new legislation, introduced earlier in the day by Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), “lowers emissions, creates jobs and cleans the air ... without putting a cap on carbon.”

“It rewards low carbon technology,” Graham explained. “It gives an economic incentive for a company to replace coal fired plants with new technology.”

Added the South Carolina Republican, “the carrot-stick approach is the basis of cap and trade. This is a carrot-stick approach where there are more carrots than there are sticks.”

According to Lugar, the new legislation will reduce green house gas emissions 20 percent and oil dependence by 40 percent within the next twenty years.

Republicans Say EPA Is Overreaching Boundaries

By Robert Hune-Kalter
Talk Radio News Service

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were joined by other GOP members for a press conference on the upcoming vote on the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding disapproval resolution. Murkowski is putting forth a resolution that would prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon emissions.

“The overreach that we see by the EPA is truly unprecedented in terms of overreach into the legislative branch by the executive. The EPA intends to take control of climate policy, take it away from Congress,” said Murkowski.

Alexander said he was not happy that the EPA wants to impose regulations on any emitter of more than 250 tons of carbon.

“This means one-fifth of our restaurants, one-fourth of all of our schools, two-thirds of all hospitals and doctors offices, one-tenth of our churches, and millions of small businesses, in effect such a broad rule would run millions of jobs overseas looking for cheap energy,” said Alexander.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he believes that the EPA regulating carbon output by businesses would be a disaster because the agency does not have the tools Congress has for regulation. While he said carbon regulation would be a job killer, he added that it is a goal to work towards.

“When it comes to carbon pollution, I am in the camp that believes all the stuff being spewed out of the cars and trucks and the plants is not good for you, but I would like to find a business-friendly way to regulate carbon,” he said.

Murkowski’s resolution will be debated in the Senate on Thursday.

Kerry, Lieberman Unveil Climate Bill Without Graham

Joined by over a dozen stakeholders, but absent the presence of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put forth their much-anticipated energy bill today, the American Power Act (APA).

After months of delay, the duo decided they could no longer wait for Graham, an original co-author of the bill, to move forward with them. Graham has expressed displeasure over the Obama administration's calls for Congress to take up work on immigration reform. Earlier in the day, however, Kerry told MSNBC that Graham will support the bill, which If enacted, he said, would leave a positive print on just about every aspect of American society.

"The bill that we are introducing today...will restore America's economy and reassert our position as a global leader in clean energy technology," he said. "It will create millions of jobs, move us towards energy independence and strengthen America's security. And it will give us cleaner air."

The Kerry-Lieberman bill is being framed as somewhat of a compromise between the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), passed by the House last year, and the broad energy proposal laid out by President Obama. On a controversial item known as cap and trade, a system by which companies are provided with economic incentives for limiting their emissions, the APA would gradually implement the policy, first on utilities and industries, and then on the broader economy by 2025. The President's plan calls for the imposition of an economy-wide system of cap and trade, while the House bill would mandate cap and trade for utilities, industries and big oil starting in 2012.

Similar to both the White House plan and the House bill, the APA aims to lower emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by the year 2050. Yet unlike them, the APA contains support for nuclear energy and natural gas, items that could win the support of conservative Democrats and Republicans. In addition, its price tag is slightly lower than both its counterpart in the House and the administration's plan. Another key difference is its inclusion of language that would allow states to opt out of offshore drilling within 75 miles of their coast.

But although the bill attempts to usher in a new era of clean energy usage in the U.S., many of its provisions already face legions of criticism. For starters, opponents say it will ration energy use for Americans by increasing the cost of everyday consumption for businesses and individuals.

Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and environment policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Talk Radio News Service that the APA amounts to nothing more than a giant energy tax.

"The only way to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels is to raise the cost of energy," he said. "They have to raise costs high enough so that people are forced to use less, that's how this works."

In addition, there are concerns about the bill's impact on the nation's coal industry, which has lately been the focus of an intense debate in Washington over energy safety due to the tragic deaths of dozens of miners in West Virginia earlier this year. Though the APA contains weaker financial restrictions on coal production than the House bill, critics believe the administration favors moving completely away from coal. In fact, days before he was elected President in 2008, Mr. Obama said "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

According to Lieberman, the net effect of smaller investment in coal and natural gas will be increased unemployment.

'Sure, there's a few 'make-work' jobs created in specialized industries that will deal with reducing emissions," he said. "But overall the impact is negative; higher cost of energy and fewer jobs."

Click here for more on the American Power Act

GOP Doesn’t Mind Being ‘Party Of No’ On Spending

With Democrats in the Senate getting set to put forth a jobs bill, perhaps as early as Monday, their counterparts across the aisle are saying ‘no’ to more spending.

“We have a situation now that’s just too serious to continue to handle that way,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on Thursday. “It’s not an exaggeration to say our country is on the edge of a financial cliff.”

DeMint and fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and George LeMieux (R-Fla.) unveiled their party’s latest attempt to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, calling on Congress to support a one-year moratorium on earmarks along with a Constitutional Amendment to balance the federal budget.

“What we’re doing here today, is to try and challenge everyone in the Senate -- Republican and Democrat -- to join us in those steps that we can take...to address our growing deficit,” said DeMint.

“Everything is gonna get cut...it’s gonna be painful, but I guarantee you that we can cut the agencies of government...by 20 percent even, maybe 30 percent,” added LeMieux.

McCain, a noted opponent of federal earmark spending, blasted President Barack Obama for supporting using unspent Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) funds to fuel a jobs bill which could total over $100 billion.

“The President says he’s gonna have a spending freeze next year, and in the very next breath proposes a hundred billion dollars in new spending called a ‘jobs bill.’ It’s out of control.”

The hard part now for the 11 cosponsors of the measures will be to actually practice what they preach. Graham, for example, has a known record of not being averse to requesting earmarks. As recently as 2009, he helped secure nearly 10 million dollars to fund construction of a fitness center inside Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina.

Graham, however, said he’s willing to bite the proverbial bullet in the short-run.

“It would be tough for us all, but it’s the right thing for the future. So I don’t mind an earmark system in the future that’s transparent, that’s logical and fits within a balanced budget.”