Conservative Senators Compare Lieberman-Warner to New Deal, Oppose "Expansion of Government"

Posted by Wonk Room Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:36:00 GMT

From the Wonk Room.

Conservative Senators Against New DealOn May 27, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about the Climate Security Act (S. 3036):

Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

A week later, Sen. Jim Inhofe changed “reorganization” to “expansion,” writing in the Wall Street Journal that the climate legislation “will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal.”

Conservative senators have been coordinated on the Senate floor in repeating the Wall Street Journal-Inhofe message:

Judd Gregg (R-N.H.):

These allowances which really are a consumption tax in my opinion will essentially be used to greatly expand the government.

John Cornyn (R-Tex.):

This is the kind of huge expansion in government power over our lives and over the economy that is really unprecedented in our country, and I suggest is the wrong solution – is a – is a wrong answer to the – to what confronts us today.

George Voinovich (R-Ohio):

I feel it is overly aggressive, outpacing what technology can provide and thus assuring economic pain on the country and it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an unprecedented expansion of government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion in American lives that will have a profound effect on businesses, communities and families.

The right wing is still upset with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, and wants to go back to an era without the system of labor, health, economic, and environmental protections that built the American middle class. They fear that the American public will realize that a New Green Deal of progressive policies could restore our economic future. Yesterday, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) complained:
The bill before us creates a raft of new government spending programs.

He and his fellow conservatives have put us on a sinking ship, are burning the life preservers, and won’t even let us build a “raft.” As David Roberts writes, “Unless we want to go down with the ship, we need to start building an ark.”

Post-cloture consideration of the motion to proceed to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 3036)

Posted by Brad Johnson Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:30:00 GMT

The Senate will convene at 9:30 am.



  • Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
  • Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
  • John Cornyn (R-Texas)
  • Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
  • Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
  • Tom Carper (D-Del.)
  • George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
  • Kit Bond (R-Mo.)
  • David Vitter (R-La.)
  • Pete Domenici (R-N.Mex.)

11:30 AM: Other business.

Morning business resumes at 12:15 PM.

  • Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
  • Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)

Senate Votes to Proceed to Debate on Lieberman-Warner

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:37:00 GMT

In a 74-14 roll call vote, the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036). Republicans refused to allow Majority Leader Harry Reid dispense with the thirty hours of debate permitted under Senate rules before official consideration of S. 3036 begins, thus ensuring another full day of debate on the issue.

The senators voting against the motion were Byrd (D-W. Va.), and Republicans Bunning, Shelby, Craig, DeMint, Hatch, Enzi, Barasso, Sessions, Coburn, Kyl, McConnell, Allard, Inhofe.

USCAP Offshoot Announces Support For Lieberman-Warner

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:24:00 GMT

A coalition of corporations, labor, religious and environmental organizations has announced its support of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) manager’s mark of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. Several are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which called for mandatory climate legislation in January 2007, but more recently has been wrapped in internal conflict.

The letter begins:
The undersigned companies and organizations urge you to vote in favor of the Climate Security Act, S. 3036 (formerly S. 2191), which is expected to be considered by the full Senate beginning June 2. This is a very important vote on a bipartisan plan to address climate change. Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America’s economy, security, quality of life and natural environment.

USCAP signatories are Alcoa, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Exelon Corporation, FPL Group, General Electric, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, NRG Energy, Inc, and PG&E Corporation. Non-USCAP signatories are Calpine Corporation, Interfaith Power and Light Campaign, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Izaak Walton League of America, National Grid, National Parks Conservation Association, Pew Environment Group, Public Service Enterprise Group, Trout Unlimited, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting (UA).

Full text is below:

Alcoa * Calpine Corporation * Environmental Defense Action Fund * Exelon Corporation * FPL Group * General Electric * Interfaith Power and Light Campaign * International Brotherhood of Boilermakers * Izaak Walton League of America * National Grid * National Parks Conservation Association * National Wildlife Federation * Natural Resources Defense Council * NRG Energy, Inc. * Pew Environment Group * PG&E Corporation * Public Service Enterprise Group * Trout Unlimited * UAM

Dear Senator:

The undersigned companies and organizations urge you to vote in favor of the Climate Security Act, S. 3036 (formerly S. 2191), which is expected to be considered by the full Senate beginning June 2. This is a very important vote on a bipartisan plan to address climate change. Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America’s economy, security, quality of life and natural environment.

The Climate Security Act, as revised in the manager’s substitute amendment released last week, sets forth a sound overall framework for reducing America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Most notably, it establishes an emissions cap that steadily reduces greenhouse gas emissions from current levels at a rate of about 1.8% annually. The bill creates a flexible cap-and-trade system to achieve these reductions at lower cost by tapping the power of free markets. It includes an unprecedented national investment in zero- and low-carbon technologies, and includes important policies to advance energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. The bill provides assistance to small energy consumers, including low-income families, to ease the transition to a low-carbon economy. And the bill protects American industry to ease the transition to a cleaner future.

We all support the framework and approach contained in the Climate Security Act. However, we also recognize that there is continued work to be done to refine the details of the legislation through the amendment process in the Senate and as a bill is taken up in the House. Some of the undersigned groups have already communicated with you on amendments and will continue to do so and others may do so later.

However, we think it is notable and a testament to the work of the bill’s sponsors and contributors that such a diverse group of interests are united on the following essential issue: A “yes” vote for the Climate Security Act represents historic leadership to advance bipartisan solutions to climate change; a “no” vote will slow progress and maintain the status quo, which only increases the risks of unavoidable consequences and potentially greater economic costs that could result from the need for even steeper reductions in the future. Sincerely,

Lee Califf Director, Government Affairs

Alcoa Yvonne A. McIntyre Vice President, Federal Legislative Affairs Calpine Corporation

Elizabeth Thompson Legislative Director Environmental Defense Action Fund

Betsy Moler Executive VP, Government and Enviro Affairs and Public Policy Exelon Corporation

Chris Bennett Executive Vice President FPL Group

Ann R. Klee Vice President Corporate Environmental Programs General Electric

The Rev. Canon Sally G. Bingham Founder and President The Regeneration Project Interfaith Power and Light Campaign

Newton B. Jones International President The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers

Scott Kovarovics Conservation Director Izaak Walton League of America

Thomas B. King Executive Director of Electricity Distribution and Generation National Grid

Mark Wenzler Director, Clean Air and Climate Programs National Parks Conservation Association

Jeremy Symons Executive Director, Global Warming Program National Wildlife Federation

David Hawkins Director of Climate Programs Natural Resources Defense Council

Steven Corneli Vice President Market and Climate Policy NRG Energy, Inc.

Phyllis Cuttino Director, US Global Warming Campaign Pew Environment Group

Melissa Lavinson Director, Federal Environmental Affairs and Corporate Responsibility PG&E Corporation

Eric Svenson VP of Environment, Health and Safety Public Service Enterprise Group

Steve Moyer Vice President for Government Affairs Trout Unlimited

William P. Hite General President United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada

Vote to Proceed to Consideration of Climate Security Act (S. 3036) 1

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 3036, Climate Security Act, and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed at approximately 5:30 p.m.

White House Threatens Veto of Lieberman-Warner

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:40:00 GMT

The White House has issued a Statement of Administrative Policy (SAP) on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036), indicating that President Bush will veto the bill, citing fundamental differences with its approach, including mandatory emissions reductions and carbon pricing. The full text of the SAP is below.


S. 3036 – Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act

(Sen. Boxer (D) CA)

The Administration believes that climate change is an important issue and is taking significant domestic and international actions to address it. As Congress debates this important issue, it must recognize that bad legislation would raise fuel prices and raise taxes on Americans without accomplishing the important goals the Administration shares. This debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a right way and a wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The right way is:
  • to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring growth in our economy;
  • to adopt policies that spur investment in new technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without unreasonable burdens on consumers and workers;
  • to expand emission-free nuclear power generation and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air;
  • to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement;
  • to lower trade barriers and create a global free market for clean energy technologies, making advanced technology more affordable and available in the developing world; and
  • to prevent the misapplication of other environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, not designed to address greenhouse gases as part of any new GHG specific framework.
The wrong way, as reflected by S. 3036 and the Boxer Amendment, is:
  • to sharply raise the price of gas, raise taxes, or demand drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy;
  • to impose burdensome new mandates on top of ones that were enacted just last year;
  • to leave limitations on nuclear power generation and waste disposal unaddressed;
  • to establish unrealistic timeframes for massively restructuring the economy that assume the use of technologies not yet developed or demonstrated to be economically feasible;
  • to create a system that will squeeze household income, cost many jobs, reduce growth in the economy, impose a huge new tax, and create uncontrolled spending;
  • to take unilateral action that will undercut efforts to get developing countries to limit their emissions while having negligible effect on GHG concentrations and global temperatures;
  • to impose counterproductive provisions that could ignite a carbon-based trade war; and
  • to allow the misapplication of a patchwork of 30-year-old laws that were not designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
For these and other reasons stated below, the President would veto this bill.

The Administration is taking serious steps to address climate change. By the end of this Administration, the Federal government will have spent almost $45 billion to support climate change-related programs, with $40 billion in loan guarantees made available to support investments in technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases. Further, the recently enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which generally followed the President’s “Twenty in Ten” Initiative, will reduce GHG emissions by billions of tons. Additionally, the Administration is working with all major economies and through the United Nations negotiation process to ensure a new international climate change framework is both environmentally effective and economically sustainable.

At the outset, S. 3036 fails to address the misapplication to GHG emissions of statutes that clearly were not designed specifically to regulate these global emissions, such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. It also fails to align its new mandates with those enacted just five months ago governing fuel economy, alternative fuels production, and energy efficiency. The bill would add to, rather than substitute for, a 30-year patchwork of environmental laws that would impose a great cost on the economy, and would create misallocations of economic resources, statutory conflict and confusion, and perpetual litigation. The bill also permits a State, without any precondition, to impose more stringent GHG emission restrictions, thereby rendering the bill potentially a mere floor to fifty separate regulatory regimes, in which one state could seek to regulate the economies of others.

Hurts Consumers

Legislation on this important issue should balance three goals: address climate change, increase energy security, and facilitate economic growth. This legislation lacks this balance and sacrifices consumer welfare and economic growth for marginal reductions in future global GHG concentrations. Consequently, the impact on consumers from the combination of the high compliance costs and the new tax and spend programs would be enormous. The current national average gasoline price is nearing $4 per gallon. This bill would increase gasoline prices another $0.53 per gallon relative to the expected price in 2030 and another $1.40 per gallon relative to the expected price in 2050. Furthermore, it would increase electricity prices 44 percent in 2030 and 26 percent in 2050. The combined effects of this bill would diminish household disposable income – EPA estimates this bill would reduce a typical American household’s purchases by nearly $1400 in 2030 and as much as $4400 in 2050.

Shrinks the Economy

S. 3036 is likely to severely damage the economy and drive jobs overseas. As an example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Information Administration have estimated, respectively, that the bill as reported could reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product by as much as seven percent (over $2.8 trillion) in 2050, and reduce U.S. manufacturing output by almost 10 percent in 2030 – before even half of the bill’s required reductions have taken effect.

Imposes Excessive Regulatory Costs

S. 3036’s approach to reducing greenhouse gases would force drastic and costly emission cuts. EPA estimates the costs necessary to achieve this GHG abatement are on the order of $10 trillion through 2050. This would make S. 3036 by far the single most expensive regulatory bill in our Nation’s history. These costs would be passed on to consumers through higher electricity and heating bills and increased gasoline costs. In fact, the abatement costs for this bill are estimated to be approximately three times as much as previous Senate climate bills analyzed by EPA.

Implements a Tax and Spend System

S. 3036 and the Boxer Amendment would, in effect, constitute one of the largest tax and spend bills in our Nation’s history, costing Americans dramatically more than the BTU energy tax proposals rejected by the Congress in 1993. Furthermore, the bill’s inefficient allocation scheme for emission allowances would create arbitrary winners and losers and inefficiently distort economic incentives for production and innovation.

Based on EPA’s recent analysis, the bill would raise approximately $6.2 trillion in constant dollars ($11.8 trillion with inflation) through the auction of GHG emission allowances to owners and operators of utilities and factories who would have to purchase allowances to stay in business. In addition, the bill gives away allowances valued at $3.2 trillion for auction by States, foreign governments, and private entities. The cost of purchasing these allowances also would be passed on to consumers as higher prices. This would amount to a regressive “stealth” tax that would hit low and middle income working families hardest.

Expands Mandatory Spending Irresponsibly

This new tax would take funds out of consumers’ wallets to add $2.6 trillion through 2050 in new mandatory, automatic spending, which already consumes 62 percent of the Federal budget. For example, the bill includes $346 billion in entitlement spending on new training and income support programs at the Department of Labor, and $750 billion in new mandatory foreign aid financed by auction revenue and emission allowance giveaways to foreign countries, without any control or oversight through the annual appropriations process.

Creates New Bureaucracies

The bill creates a new Climate Change Technology Board, as a so-called independent agency, with the authority to distribute $750 billion worth of funding and emissions allowances through 2050 to finance various energy efficiency programs. The bill also creates a new International Climate Change Commission, which would have the authority to determine whether foreign countries are taking sufficient action to prevent climate change and to undertake enforcement actions, such as the prohibition of certain imports, as a penalty for countries that do not take sufficient steps. The establishment of these unaccountable entities raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly with respect to the restrictions placed upon the President’s authority to both appoint and remove members of these entities.

Risks Trade Conflicts

The provisions for international reserve allowances would harm efforts to persuade major developing countries to take action to limit their GHG emissions. Reserve allowances effectively impose an import surcharge which would lead to higher prices for U.S. consumers and could lead targeted countries to impose similar restrictions on U.S. exports based on their own unilateral definitions of comparable action. That would result in serious trade conflicts and impose significant costs on the U.S. and global economies. Major developing economies would be less, not more, amenable to make hard choices in international climate negotiations. Thus, these provisions would be counterproductive to U.S. efforts to ensure that all major GHG emitting developing countries commit to concrete national actions to limit emissions. Rather than relying on the prospect of punitive trade sanctions, an effort should be made to foster trade liberalization to promote economic growth and the deployment of clean technologies.

Fails to Achieve Stated Goals

The bill’s unilateral approach would jeopardize American competitiveness and drive jobs abroad, often simply relocating greenhouse gas emissions to other countries, rather than reducing them. These steep domestic costs would thus be accompanied by only minuscule changes in global concentrations of greenhouse gases – between 7-10 parts per million (ppm),or 1-2 percent, in 2050, and 25 – 28 ppm, or 3-5 percent, in 2095, as estimated by EPA. For comparison, an increase of 90 ppm would result in roughly a one degree Celsius increase in the global temperature, based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates.

Expands Davis-Bacon Act

The substitute would expand Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements to cover several new programs of grants and “rewards” for projects relating to renewable energy, low or zero carbon generation technology, and carbon capture technologies that are authorized under the bill. Such an expansion is contrary to the Administration’s longstanding policy of opposing any expansion of the application of the Davis-Bacon Act’s prevailing wage requirements.

Creates Legal Problems

Several provisions in the bill purport to direct or burden the conduct of foreign relations relating to climate change in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional authority of the President to conduct foreign policy and to safeguard sensitive diplomatic information. In addition, the bill, as amended, would authorize the President to modify any requirement of this bill, for a specified time period, if he determines that a national security, energy security, or economic security emergency exists and that doing so is in the paramount interest of the United States. However, the bill raises practical and constitutional concerns by making the President’s decision subject to legislative and judicial oversight.

Bush Criticizes Lieberman-Warner Bill

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:58:00 GMT

In an address calling on Congress to make all his tax cuts permanent, Bush made the following statement:
Today the Senate is debating a bill called the Warner-Lieberman bill, which would impose roughly $6 trillion of new costs on the America economy. There’s a much better way to address the environment than imposing these costs on the job creators, which will ultimately have to be borne by American consumers. And I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans.

We’ll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by taxes – increases – isn’t the right way to proceed. And the right way for Congress to proceed on taxes in general is to send a clear message that the tax relief we passed need to be made permanent.

Al Gore Praises Boxer, Lieberman-Warner Bill

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:10:00 GMT

Former Vice President Al Gore’s statement on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036):
I want to commend Senator Boxer for her leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Thanks to her vision and dedication, we have the first global warming bill in history that is comprehensive, bipartisan and that enjoys support across the country – from labor and agriculture to the business and the environmental communities. Of course the bill needs to be stronger, but it’s vital that Congress begin to act. While it’s important that people change their light bulbs, it’s even more important that we change the laws.

Boxer Delivers Democratic Radio Address On Global Warming

Posted by Brad Johnson Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:47:00 GMT

On Saturday, May 31st, Senator Boxer gave the Democratic Radio Address on this week’s upcoming debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036).

Right now, many of our states, including my home state, are leading. They have the will. Our mayors are leading. They have the will. Religious leaders have urged us to act now as well. They reminded me of a wonderful quote that motivates me to work as hard as I can for as long as it takes to responsibly address global warming. These words stay with me: “When God created the first man, he took him around to all the trees in the Garden of Eden and said to him ‘see my handiwork, how beautiful and choice they are. Be careful not to ruin and destroy my world, for if you do ruin it, there is no one to repair it after you.’”

The full text of the address is below.

The text of the radio address, as delivered, is below:

Good morning. I’m Senator Barbara Boxer from California and Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Next week, the Senate will begin debate on one of the most important issues of our time – global warming.

Senators have come together across party lines to write a law that will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs and put us on the path to energy independence. Other benefits of our legislation will be cleaner air, energy efficiency, relief for consumers and the alternative energy choices that American families deserve. And, by acting wisely, America will regain the leadership we have lost these past seven years.

There are some in the Senate who insist that global warming is nothing more than science fiction. These are the same kind of voices who said that the world was flat, cigarettes were safe and cars didn’t need airbags – long after the rest of us knew the truth.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now. They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now. They’ve told us of more intense weather events if we don’t act now. Health experts have told us that infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters. And military leaders have told us that unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees.

I hope you will help us convince the negative voices that we must act now to avert these dangers. Tell the Bush administration to help us, not fight us. Tell your Senators that action now will have positive results for our families and our nation. Tell those skeptics who say “wait for China and India to act” that the America we know and love doesn’t hide from a challenge and wait for others to lead.

Right now, many of our states, including my home state, are leading. They have the will. Our mayors are leading. They have the will. Religious leaders have urged us to act now as well. They reminded me of a wonderful quote that motivates me to work as hard as I can for as long as it takes to responsibly address global warming. These words stay with me: “When God created the first man, he took him around to all the trees in the Garden of Eden and said to him ‘see my handiwork, how beautiful and choice they are. Be careful not to ruin and destroy my world, for if you do ruin it, there is no one to repair it after you.’”

I truly hope that you will support our efforts on the Senate floor. Please join our fight, and thanks for listening.

Club for Growth, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Launch Dueling Lieberman-Warner Campaigns

Posted by Brad Johnson Thu, 29 May 2008 13:40:00 GMT

The conservative Club for Growth has launched a $250,000 radio and television campaign targeting several coal-state senators in opposition to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191/3036). The Environmental Defense Action Fund, the C(4) side of the Environmental Defense Fund, has also begun a much larger $4 million campaign that comes on top of the estimated $8.5 million already spent this year in support of the cap-and-trade legislation.

The text of the Club for Growth ad running in Tennessee:
Congress is at it again. This time they’re pushing massive new taxes and regulation in the name of global warming. But let’s ask ourselves, are the unproven benefits of legislation worth the major job losses, new taxes and increased energy costs that could result?

Call Senator Lamar Alexander and tell him to vote “no” on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. Tennesseans just can’t afford another huge, costly government program.

Club for GrowthEnvironmental Defense
Club for Growth:
  • Tennessee (Republican Bob Corker)
  • North Carolina (Republican Elizabeth Dole)
  • West Virginia (Democrats Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller)
  • Montana (Democrats Max Baucus and John Tester)
  • Arkansas (Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor)
  • Colorado (Republican Wayne Allard and Democrat Ken Salazar)
  • Florida (Republican Mel Martinez)
  • Indiana (Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh)
  • Missouri (Republican Kit Bond and Democrat Claire McCaskill
  • Nebraska (Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Ben Nelson)
  • New Hampshire (Republicans Judd Gregg and John Sununu)
  • New Mexico (Republican Pete Domenici and Democrat Jeff Bingaman)
  • North Carolina (Republican Richard Burr)
  • North Dakota (Democrats Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan)
  • Ohio (Republican George Voinovich and Democrat Sherrod Brown)
  • Pennsylvania (Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Robert Casey)
  • Tennessee (Republicans Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker)
  • Virginia (Democrat Jim Webb)

E&E News:

The Environmental Defense Fund ads also are running in the districts of several influential House members, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

Older posts: 1 2 3 ... 6