WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, spoke on the Senate floor about the need for more plutonium pits in the U.S. to bolster America’s national security and promote peace among nations.

Key excerpts of Kennedy’s statement are below:

“Here’s where the United States finds itself today: The United States must now counter nuclear superpowers in both China and Russia while also deterring the itchy trigger fingers of unstable dictators like Kim Jong Un and the Ayatollah in Iran. We should be innovating and preparing our nuclear arsenal for this new global dynamic, but instead, our nuclear stockpile remains stuck in the Cold War.

“Simply put: America’s nuclear stockpile is old and shrinking. And while modernizing our nuclear arsenal should be a top priority, our effort to restart nuclear weapon production has been riddled with delays and poor planning. And we don’t have time to waste.”

. . .

“Today, we are so far behind in our nuclear revitalization that we cannot even produce plutonium pits—an essential component of every nuclear weapon.”

. . .

“During the Cold War, Mr. President, the United States could produce more than 1,000 plutonium pits per year—and without plutonium pits you can’t have a nuclear weapon—but the United States has not regularly manufactured plutonium pits since 1989. In fact, the United States has not produced a single warhead-ready plutonium pit since 2012.”

. . .

“Our ability to deter unstable nuclear powers and maintain a peaceful world relies on our ability to continue innovating in ways only freedom-loving Americans can. But these vital projects rely on our plutonium pit production. And failing to produce pits at full capacity is just not acceptable.”

Kennedy’s full statement is available here.

Watch Kennedy’s full statement here.

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), today bid Michael Wong a farewell from the Senate floor. Wong served Louisiana as a staff member in the U.S. Congress for over 16 years, and most recently, as State Director for Kennedy.

Key excerpts of Kennedy’s statement are below:

“I say it's a sad day for me because Michael is stepping down from government. It's a happy day because he's going to pursue some very exciting opportunities in the private sector.

“Michael has been working for the American people and the people of Louisiana for 16 years.”

. . .

“Michael has been my state director every single day that I've been a United States Senator, and let me tell you it's a tough job, and it's one of the most important jobs, as you know, Mr. President. 

“We are here in Washington. Our people are back home. A state director has got to make sure that their needs are being addressed back home, their concerns are heard.”

. . . 

“In Michael's case, he's also a valuable source of policy advice. I'm going to miss that every day. Michael has one of the best, maybe the best, political minds in Louisiana.” 

. . . 

“I've talked about his policy expertise. I've talked about his political acumen. I've talked about the fact that he cares about people, and, as an aside, a wise person once told me, ‘People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care’—Michael understands that.

“I mentioned Michael's beautiful family. He's also always made time for his kids and for Jamie, and I know there have been times when it's been difficult. But let me tell you one particular attribute, among many, with respect to which I most respect Michael: He'll do the right thing.”

. . .

“I'm going to miss Michael. I’m going to miss him every single day. I mean, he's not dying or anything. He's going to be around, okay? And, I know that, and I'm still going to call him and say, ‘What do you think about this? What's going on?’”

“But I wanted to rise today, Mr. President, and thank Michael Wong and thank Jamie, and thank Thomas and thank Julia for their years of service to the people of Louisiana. And, I wish them godspeed.” 

Kennedy’s full statement is available here.

Watch Kennedy’s full statement here.

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, today delivered an opening statement in the committee’s hearing about the federal judiciary.

Key excerpts of Kennedy’s statement are below:

“Americans may be poor under the Biden administration, but they are not stupid. They know what's going on here. I remember the Democratic leader’s words of March 4, 2020 on the steps of the United States Supreme Court like they were yesterday.

“‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch,’ he said—not Justice Gorsuch—'Gorsuch.’

“‘I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

“Wow. Just wow. I think Matthew 12:36 is correct, ‘For by thy words you shall be justified, and by thy words you shall be condemned.’

“Now, the sad truth is that some—not all—some of my Democratic colleagues have been on a crusade to undermine the United States Supreme Court's legitimacy and the credibility of the federal judiciary for years. Today’s hearing is just the next chapter in their federal power grab, and they’ve invited cameras.

“It's worth remembering the very real persecution that some Democrats have levied on very good people. It started with the savage destruction of Judge Robert Bork’s nomination, which even the Washington Post . . . said was a case of ‘sentencing first—verdict afterward.’ In other words, they gave him a fair and impartial firing squad. Then we saw the ‘high-tech lynching’ of Justice Clarence Thomas. Then—for the first time in history—they weaponized the filibuster to kill Miguel Estrada’s nomination, and they also demonized [Janice] Rogers Brown, a very fine person.

“When the United States Senate confirmed three new Supreme Court justices, which the loon wing of the Democratic Party loathed, the campaign of threats ratcheted up. You remember the shouts. ‘Let’s pack the Court,’ they said. . . . The political threats from the highest officials in our government fueled physical threats against the justices.” 

. . .

“’You have released the whirlwind,’ the Democratic leader said. Incensed protestors took to the streets, not outside Congress, not outside the Court, but outside the homes—the homes—of Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Barrett. Federal law prohibits this intimidation, but the Biden Justice Department allowed it.

“‘You will pay the price,’ the Democratic leader said.  In that spirit, angry protestors publicized the location of the school that Justice Barrett’s children attend.” 

“‘You won’t know what hit you,’ the Democratic leader said. A man with a gun, ammunition, knife, pepper spray and zip ties went to justice’s home to assassinate him. Actually, his stated goal was to murder three justices.

“Not so suddenly, the ends justified the means for activists, even inside the Court itself: The Dobbs decision wasn’t leaked by a left-wing blogger.

“Why? You don’t need to be Einstein’s cousin to figure it out. They aren’t getting their way. So, they want to change the rules, but the Constitution isn’t a game, folks. And now, some Democrats want Congress to override the Supreme Court of the United States and apply rules to its justices.

“The constitutional separation of powers means that no branch of the federal government can dictate how another should govern itself. . . . This is to protect the people from abuse. The framers insulated the federal judiciary from political control to ensure that the justices would decide cases impartially, impartially—without fear of the kind of retaliation that fills the pages of some—not all, but some—left-of-Lenin Democrats’ playbook.” 

. . .

“Even if Congress wrote a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, the court could rightly rule that code unconstitutional. None of the laws we make here can trump the United States Constitution.

“What’s more, Democrats want to use the lower courts as a cudgel against the highest court in the land by giving circuit judges the power to rule on whether justices should recuse themselves. Consider the conflicts of interest and the confusion that that would breed.” 

. . .

“The absence of an ethical code in statute doesn’t mean that justices lack guidance or accountability. Judges and judges routinely consult the existing code of conduct, and federal law already requires recusal in certain circumstances, like bias or financial interest. . . . The justices are also subject to strict financial disclosure rules, just like my colleagues here.

“Not only is this Democratic proposal unconstitutional, it is unnecessary. The attacks on conservative justices are targeted. They’re exaggerated. The alarmism is affected. The danger isn’t that rogue justices are operating without ethics. It’s that Democrats aren’t winning every fight and they find that reality intolerable.”

. . .

“Today’s hearing is an excuse to sling more mud at an institution that some—not all—some Democrats don’t like because they can’t control it 100 percent of the time. . . . Until they get the outcome they want in every case, I fear they are going to continue to slander it in an effort to take control of it.” 

Kennedy’s full statement is available here.

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, introduced the Transparency in CFPB Cost-Benefit Analysis Act to ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) does not establish regulations that would foist unreasonable costs or harms onto taxpayers, financial entities or consumers.

The legislation would amend the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to require a thorough cost-benefit analysis for all rules proposed by the CFPB. That would stop many misguided bureaucratic rules that could hurt hardworking Americans in their tracks.

“Now more than ever, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau must make sure that it doesn’t hamstring a struggling economy with burdensome regulations. The CFPB needs to put taxpayers before Washington bureaucrats, and this bill would help ensure that,” said Kennedy.

The bill would require the CFPB to:

• Conduct a qualitative and quantitative assessment of all direct and indirect costs and benefits of the proposed regulation. This includes compliance costs; effects on economic activity, efficiency, competition and capital formation; regulatory and administrative costs; and costs imposed on state, local and tribal entities.
• Identify alternatives to the proposed regulation and compare the benefits and costs of those alternatives.
• Consult with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy if a proposed rule would increase costs on small businesses.
• Assess the regulatory burden that the proposed regulation would impose on regulated entities.
• Provide a probability distribution of potential cost and benefit outcomes.
• Ensure the proposed rule is not duplicative, inconsistent or incompatible with an existing rule.
• Disclose the source material for any assumptions and identify any studies or data the rulemaking used.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Independent Community Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association and the Credit Union National Association support this legislation.

Full bill text is available here.