Capito, S Sen 18%
https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/shelley-moore-capito
26* 18%
LCV 6/19%
===-
-=-=
-=-=
AN 10 26
Rural West Virginia town voted 76 percent for Trump — now it’s starving
BITE ASS
The Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill" ushered in such significant budget cuts that one rural West Virginia town is experiencing a hunger crisis.
Dunlow, West Virginia, has been hit particularly hard by cuts to two programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and federal food-purchasing cuts.
The GOP's budget bill mandated new eligibility and work-reporting requirements that have been particularly difficult in rural coal country, where jobs and training programs are scarce. While Trump claimed he'd bring back coal jobs during the 2024 campaign, he hasn't delivered. So, those who counted on those jobs are still struggling. Then Congress cut whatever safety net was left.
NBC reported Friday that approximately 24,000 West Virginians, including 8,000 children, have lost food-stamp benefits since last summer. Those are statewide figures, not counts specific to Dunlow or Matewan, but GOP Rep. Carol Miller, who covers that district, voted in support of the cuts. The state's senators, Jim Justice (R) and Shelley Moore Capito (R), also supported the legislation.
In fact, Wayne County, where Dunlow is located, voted 76 percent for President Donald Trump in 2024.
The second problem comes from the food-purchasing cuts. The GOP eliminated a $400 million program that purchased food from local farmers and put it in food banks to ensure that the needy could have access to healthy food. It also helped American farmers. The hit was twofold, hurting the food banks and farmers, who are also now suffering under tariffs and high diesel prices.
Facing Hunger told NBC News that its federal food supply has fallen by one-third. In Dunlow, that means the food pantry only has 2.5 pounds of USDA food per household in the entire month of August, said Bill Likens, who runs the pantry. A few years ago, that number was closer to 20 pounds a month.
The report noted that it isn't entirely the fault of the federal officials, however. Separate reporting by Mountain State Spotlight reported that West Virginia’s state allocation for food banks fell from $10 million annually under a previous funding to just $1.4 million in the current budget.
At a time when folks have less money for groceries because fuel costs and grocery prices have spiked, families are also losing programs designed to support them.
Speaking with residents, NBC News highlighted Washington D.C.'s distance from these kinds of communities and the struggles that they face. Dr. Mehmet Oz fumed at Molly Martinez of Gray Media's Washington News Bureau in an interview this week when she cited sweeping Medicaid spending cuts totaling $911 billion over the next 10 years. That includes $137 billion for rural America.
Now that hospitals and clinics are starting to close, the government is rushing to throw in $50 billion, but it hardly makes up for the $87 billion shortfall. The only response from the celebrity doctor was to allege the reporter was "deliberately duplicitous."
Retired school bus driver Bonnie Newsome told NBC News she remains affectionate toward Trump but admitted he has disappointed her. Without the food pantry, she said, couldn't survive.
Joanne Girvin, 73, told NBC that she has lost 20 pounds so far because she cannot afford enough food. She has started relying on eggs from backyard chickens and deer meat.
In an economically depleted region with limited jobs, significant disability and persistent child poverty, neighbors are sharing milk and redistributing pantry supplies.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly claimed, “President Trump is strengthening SNAP for the Americans who need it by ensuring these programs are sustainable for future generations." Thanks to him, she said, they can "crack down on waste, fraud and abuse.”
===
---
an 2 24
in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, numerous Republican lawmakers publicly denounced the insurrection and its participants. But now, four members of the House of Representatives and US Senate have done a complete 180 and endorsed former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign despite his role in the attack.
CBS News first reported on the lawmakers' about-face on the capitol siege and their support of the man at the forefront of it, and compared their past remarks to their 2024 endorsements. Two members of Congress listed below are running for reelection this November, and two are up for reelection in 2026.
1. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia)
READ MORE:Michigan elections chief: 'Direct line' between Trump's Detroit call and Jan. 6 riot
After the deadly attack on the capitol, Capito said "I think the president does own this" in an interview with WV Metro News. However, she has since endorsed Trump's bid for a second term in the White House, and said "history will make that judgment" on whether Trump does, in fact, own what happened three years ago.
2. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana)
Daines, who is now the chair of Senate Republicans' campaign arm, was unequivocal in his condemnation of the January 6 attack. He stated "the focus must be to arrest and prosecute the domestic terrorists who broke into our Capitol, attacked law enforcement officers, sought to cause harm, and tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power," and called for rioters to be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
However, Daines has since walked back those comments, saying that the people who stormed the halls of Congress on January 6 "were not domestic terrorists." He gave a full-throated defense of the former president, saying he accomplished more "than any president I've seen in my lifetime," and that he "can't wait to see President Trump back in the Oval Office."
READ MORE:Elise Stefanik caught deleting statement calling for January 6 rioters to be prosecuted
3. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pennsylvania)
Smucker (who served as president of the Smucker Company for 25 years before his election to Congress) initially published a statement in the days following the January 6 attack that condemned rioters and praised law enforcement, saying it was "simply unacceptable" and "not who we are as a nation." He added that he "support[s] the prosecution of the insurrectionists to the fullest extent of the law" and that Trump was "wrong" for Trump to give "false hope" to his supporters about overturning the election.
But now, Smucker has flipped, telling CBS he would be "happy to have Trump as president again." And in regard to the rioters who ransacked the capitol, he falsely asserted that "never called them insurrectionists" despite his 2021 statement.
4. Rep. William Timmons (R-South Carolina)
Like Smucker, Timmons loudly condemned the January 6 insurrection, calling it "mob violence" in a statement posted to his congressional website two days after the attack.
READ MORE:GOP congressman commemorates Jan. 6 by defending vote against honoring US Capitol police
"The actions yesterday by those who breached the U.S. Capitol are the very definition of domestic terrorism. There are no excuses for attacking law enforcement, breaking barricades, shattering windows, and busting down doors to gain entry," he stated. "Anyone who was complicit in these acts of domestic terrorism should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This act of insurrection cannot go unpunished."
But the congressman has made efforts to separate Trump from the violence carried out by his supporters, while also standing alongside the former president with other South Carolina Republicans at a campaign event in New Hampshire. He told CBS that "President Trump bears no responsibility for the small number of individuals who broke laws on Jan. 6," even though Trump told supporters during his January 6 speech that they should "fight like hell or you're not gonna have a country anymore."
---
soth coal conf 619
A speaker from the grid operator PJM, which serves 13 eastern and Midwestern states, acknowledged fuel security is important but said a stress test had found no threats to its grid reliability through at least 2023 as it shifts to more renewable energy and gas and less coal.
Kenneth Nemeth, executive director of the energy board, argued that coal-related jobs, security and reliability aren't being factored into decision electric utilities and regulators are making when they allow coal plants to close or approve new power sources. That needs to change, he said.
The Trump administration has tried to use those same arguments to bail out coal by suggesting that grid operators be required to buy power from uneconomical coal power plants in the name of national security. So far, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has rejected that idea.
Mini Coal Plants and Carbon Capture?
West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, was there, raising the alarm about the "Green New Deal," an idea supported by some Democrats to launch a 10-year mobilization of investments intended to reach the science-based climate goal of cutting net emissions of greenhouse gases to zero as rapidly as possible. It "gets rid of coal, natural gas and nuclear," she said, even though its supporters have said they have not yet settled on any single strategy.
With Donald Trump's agenda, some coal jobs have come back in West Virginia, she said, but she warned of "tough headwinds" in Washington, D.C.
Coal advocates at the convention decried federal tax breaks for solar and wind power systems, but Capito said she expects they will keep getting extended because Democrats won't give them up.
U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, speaks at the conference. Credit: James Bruggers
U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, warned the conference of “tough headwinds” in Washington, D.C. Credit: James Bruggers
==
6/15
her dad arch moore settled 100M$ coal slurry spill for 1 mil 3 days before he left office
==
3/18 omni sponsor
2 Ways Bills Would Influence Money in Politics
The Senate version of the massive "omnibus" appropriations legislation that Congress must pass by March 23 to avoid a government shutdown includes a measure that would relax the limits on how much money national parties may spend in coordination with presidential campaigns. This would make it easier for mega-donors to get around the current limits on direct donations to candidates.
The House version of the bill includes language to open the door to campaign spending by churches. President Donald Trump called for Congress to take such action last year when he signed a "religious liberty" executive order.
During a failed attempt to attach the provision to the GOP tax overhaul billlast year, lawmakers expanded it to allow political activity not only by churches but all public charities, including private family foundations like those favored by the Koch brothers and other wealthy donors, and public interest advocates fear that could happen again. The
at the time estimated such a measure could result in$1 billionbeing diverted into churches and charities for political giving—since such contributions would be tax-deductible, unlike giving to political organizations.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY2018-FSGG-CHAIRMEN-MARK-BILL.PDF
11.15
Even as new data suggest that October of 2015 was a record-breaking hot month — with a 1.04 degree Celsius global temperature anomaly, the biggest monthly departure from average ever seen in NASA records — Senate Republicans led a vote to block President Obama’s flagship climate policy, theClean Power Plan, and also another major EPA energy regulation of new power plants.
*[Record crushing October heat keeps Earth on track for hottest year in 2015*]
The largely symbolic votes, which have prompted strong resistance from environmental groups, took place on Tuesday evening after debate and speeches throughout the day.
There were two related resolutions under consideration. One, advanced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), was a resolution of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act, saying that the Clean Power Plan “shall have no force or effect.” The bill has 48 co-sponsors, including Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The measurepassed Tuesday evening:
Passed, 52-46: S.J.Res.24, a joint resolution of disapproval of EPA carbon emissions rule on existing power plants.
— Floor Monitor (@SenGOP_Floor) November 17, 2015
The second, sponsored by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would similarly disapprove of and repeal a rule governing emissions from new power plants. It also relies on the Congressional Review Act, which lets the body review major regulations issued by executive agencies and, potentially, block them. It passed by exactly the same margin.
The twin votes were unlikely to actually hobble the Clean Power Plan or other power plant regulations — the White House promptly announced Tuesday Obama would veto the resolutions. But they sent a strong message of resistance at a time when Obama, having just rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, is trying to project climate leadership just weeks before a crucial summit in Paris.
on the Senate floor Tuesday, Capito invoked a “war on coal” and called the Clean Power Plan “the most expensive environmental regulation that the EPA has ever proposed on our nation’s power sector.”
Democrats had objected to the vote and, particularly, its timing.
“We are not here on the floor to discuss national security. We are here on the floor right now because the Republican leadership is taking a run at the president’s Clean Power Plan,” said Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse in a
earlier Tuesday, objecting to the planned votes. “Paris has not recovered from the devastation of the other day, and we have important bills…that would improve the capacity of our Department of Justice, of our FBI, of our Department of Homeland Security to address these threats. And are we on those bills? No.”
In announcingthat Obama would veto the resolution opposing the Clean Power Plan, the White House noting that “by nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J.Res. 24 seeks to block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded the planned votes, however, as did the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
The overall message is that as Obama and his negotiators head to Paris for COP-21, there is considerable resistance at home to the key policy by which the U.S. itself promises to reduce emissions.
==
http://www.alternet.org/environment/fighting-epa-rules-congress-thinks-your-life-worth-less-3800
Since they were first proposed nearly a year ago, Republican lawmakershave relentlessly attacked the EPA’s new power plant emissions standards.
Even this week, Senate Republicans introduced legislation that would not only roll back the new standards but,according to The Hill, would make it nearly impossible for the EPA to rewrite the rules for power plants. Though they claim the new legislation is “bipartisan,” only one Democrat signed onto it: Senator Joe Manchin from the coal state of West Virginia.
To put the EPA’s rules succinctly, these health and safety measures require existing power plants to reduce emissions with carbon capture technology, or by reducing total output. New power plants will be required to be built with technology that reduces emissions.
The Republicans object to these standards because they claim that they will destroy the coal industry and put thousands of Americans out of work, causing a devastating ripple effect throughout the national economy. It's an age-old industry argument that never comes true, from the days when we abandoned whale oil, removed lead from gasoline or required seat belts in cars.
And a new report turns the Republicans' “job killing EPA regulations” argument on its head. Think Progress explains:
Researchers at private consulting firm Industrial Economics and the University of Maryland-based Interindustry Economic Research Fund credit efficiency improvements and lower electricity bills with adding about 273,000 jobs over the next 26 years. The analysts project that the plan will add 74,000 jobs by 2020. The findings support the EPA’s contention that the Clean Power Plan will not hurt the economy.
The real reason for the objection from the GOP is that it will cost the coal industry a little bit of money. And if the industry has to spend money making their power plants less lethal, it might not be able to match the $5.6 million in campaign contributions that they gave to Republicans in 2014, or even the $7.7 million that they gave to Republicans in 2012.
Those campaign contributions come to a little more than $13.3 million in the last four years, and apparently that amount of money is worth more to the Republican Party than the collective lives of more than 3,500 American citizens. That’s how many lives a new study claims can be saved by implementing the new standards.
The New York Times has more on the new study, which was a joint effort between Harvard University and Syracuse University:
The health benefits of the rule would be indirect. While carbon emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, which contributes to a warming planet, they are not directly linked to health threats. Emissions from coal-fired power plants, however, also include a number of other pollutants, such as soot and ozone, that are directly linked to illnesses like asthma and lung disease.
Researchers calculated that the changes in the EPA rule could prevent 3,500 premature deaths a year and more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations from air-pollution-related illness.
The Republican Party has put the value of an American life at less than $3,800. That’s the total amount of their recent campaign contributions from the coal industry divided by the number of lives that could be saved by these new rules. If you happen to live near a power plant, you should know how much your life is worth to your elected officials.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/241952-senate-gop-aims-to-overturn-epa-climate-rules
Senate Republicans introduced a bill Wednesday that would overturn the Obama administration’s landmark climate regulations for power plants and make it nearly impossible to rewrite them.
The bill is the GOP’s first major legislative push against the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions limits since Republicans seized control of the Senate in November.
The rules have drawn intense criticism from Republicans and industry groups, who warn they will cost billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of jobs and have negligible environmental benefits.
“Our bipartisan legislation would empower the states to protect families and businesses from electricity rate increases, reduced electrical reliability and other harmful effects of the president’s Clean Power Plan,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Wednesday.
“Our bill would also require that any greenhouse gas standard set by the EPA for new coal-fired power plants are able to be achieved by commercial power plants operating in the real world,” she said.
Twenty-five Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), signed into the bill as co-sponsors, as did Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
The bill, dubbed the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, would prevent the EPA from writing rules that are “significantly similar” to its current proposals unless it follows specific parameters that the bill outlines.
The measure sets out different standards for the two separate regulations the EPA proposed last year on newly built power plants and existing ones. The latter regulation, which aims to cut the power sector’s carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030, is by far the most controversial.
Environmental groups immediately criticized the Republican bill as an attack on clean air and the most significant effort yet to fight climate change.
Republicans say the bill is a necessary step toward protecting states and electricity customers from the rules.
“I’ve never seen anything quite this universally opposed,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
“This is going to go down probably as, probably, the most significant thing we will do in the Environment and Public Works Committee this year,” he said. Inhofe chairs that committee.
The legislation would immediately overturn both regulations and prevent the EPA from reissuing them without taking specific steps.
For the existing plant rule, the EPA would have to submit to Congress reports on the rule’s effects on greenhouse gases and climate change, and would have to write individual sample compliance plans showing how each state could abide by the regulations.
Still, that would not take effect until all court challenges are exhausted, and governors would be able to opt out of complying with it if they believed it would bring any of a wide range of negative impacts.
If the EPA wants to regulate new plants, it would have to develop different standards for plants that use coal and those using natural gas, and technology to achieve the standards would have to be commercially available and in use on multiple existing power plants.
That provision goes directly to GOP complaints that the EPA’s proposal would mandate carbon capture technology not currently on the market.
“The facts are that coal’s going to be used to supply power to the United States for many, many years,” said Manchin, who famously shot cap-and-trade legislation with a rifle in an ad for his 2010 Senate campaign.
“If you’re going to use it, you should use it as clean as possible. And all we’ve asked for is for the federal government to be our partner and work with us.”
The court delay and state opt-out provisions are similar to, though stronger than, ones in a bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Manchin and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) sponsored legislation similar to the provisions for new plants last year.
Capito’s bill also modifies the Clean Air Act to say power plants already regulated under one provision of the statute would not be eligible for further regulation under another.
Some opponents of the rule say the Clean Air Act already says that, though there are conflicting interpretations of the law.
That provision of Capito’s legislation would effectively make the Obama administration’s main climate rule moot.
Green groups are sharply criticizing the bill.
“Senator Capito’s radical legislation reads like a polluter’s wish list, with attacks aimed directly at the heart of the Clean Air Act,” Sara Chieffo, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement.
“Not only does this bill allow power plants to continue spewing unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air, it will prevent us from ever putting in place common sense limits,” she said.
EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said the senators’ concerns are on EPA officials’ minds.
“EPA continues to work toward completing the proposed Clean Power Plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from power plants,” she said.
“The plan will be affordable, will drive innovation and American jobs, and will demonstrate our leadership in the international community.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget is currently reviewing the EPA’s final rule for new power plants. The Obama administration plans to make both rules final in the summer.
==
http://legalnewsline.com/issues/global-warming/256209-u-s-sen-capito-introduces-bill-to-roll-back-epas-proposed-clean-power-plan
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – West Virginia’s U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito has introduced legislation aimed at rolling back President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
Capito, a Republican and chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, introduced the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, or ARENA, Wednesday.
Capito said ARENA will ensure reliable and affordable energy, put jobs and the economy first, and curb federal overreach.
“President Obama’s misguided ‘Clean Power Plan’ threatens to drastically reduce coal-related jobs, increase energy prices and reduce reliability,” she said. “After carefully considering the economic and legal implications of this unprecedented proposal, the need for action is clear.
“The Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act enables us to fight back against the assault on coal, and the broader threat to affordable, reliable energy nationwide. I am proud to lead the charge against the Clean Power Plan’s sweeping regulations and look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to move this very important legislation forward.”
Under the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal, new large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.
New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, and would have the option to meet a somewhat tighter limit if they choose to average emissions over multiple years, giving those units additional operational flexibility.
The agency expects to finalize the rules this summer.
However, under ARENA, before the EPA can set a technology-based standard for new power plants, the standard must first be achieved for at least one year at several separate power facilities throughout the country.
The bill also prevents the EPA from using any demonstration projects — projects that are reliant on federal support — from being used to set the standard.
In addition, Capito’s proposed legislation:
- Extends compliance dates: The bill would extend the rule’s compliance dates pending final judicial review, including the dates for submission of state plans;
- Holds the EPA accountable: This bill would require EPA to issue state-specific model plans demonstrating how each state could meet the required GHG emissions reductions under the rule;
- Enables states to protect ratepayers: The bill would provide that no state shall be required to implement a state or federal plan that the state’s governor determines would negatively impact economic growth, negatively impact the reliability of the electricity system or negatively impact electricity ratepayers; and
- Protects highway fund dollars: The bill would prevent the EPA from withholding highway funds from any states for noncompliance with the Clean Power Plan.
ARENA also would require the federal agency to submit to Congress a report describing the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions the Clean Power Plan is expected to reduce, and to conduct modeling to show the impacts of the rule on the climate indicators used to develop the rule.
The bill is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas; Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune, R-S.D.; Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Roger Wicker, R-Miss.; Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; John Hoeven, R-N.D.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Dan Coats, R-Ind.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Jim Risch, R-Idaho; Deb Fischer, R-Neb.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; John Boozman, R-Ark.; David Perdue, R-Ga.; Steve Daines, R-Mont.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Tom Tillis, R-N.C.; Mike Rounds, R-S.D.; and Bill Cassidy, R-La.
“I applaud Sen. Capito for introducing legislation that would allow states to better protect middle class families from the ramifications of the Obama Administration’s regressive, and likely illegal, energy regulations,” McConnell said.
==
sierra
...the EPA’s clean air and climate safeguards and whiffing on clean energy. What’s worse, she hasn’t been able to make up for it in the field, where her sloppy efforts have left families back in the Mountaineer State scratching their heads. She’s been caught daydreaming big polluter fantasies in the outfield — like the idea that changes in the weather disprove the climate crisis — causing her to botch some pretty easy plays. QUOTED: “Is the climate changing? Yes it’s changing, it changes all the time, we heard it raining out there.”42 SEASON LOWLIGHTS: « Even with over 180,000 West Virginians suffering from asthma,43 Senator Capito has helped lead the attack on efforts to cut asthma-inducing smog pollution by co-sponsoring legislation to block a strong smog safeguard. « Senator Capito has voted wrong across the board on all critical votes for climate action, clean air, and clean energy solutions. SPONSORSHIPS: « Oil & Gas: $704,961 « Mining: $895,585 « Utilities: $299,900 STATS: « Climate: « Clean Air: « Clean Energy: « Energy Efficiency: WH
thehill
Shelley Moore Capito: Too Liberal for West Virginia” was launched this week.
The group’s Facebook page reads “Pro-abortion, pro-bailout and pro-debt: Shelley Moore Capito is just too liberal for WV.” More than 100 people had “liked” the page as of Friday.
Moore Capito is running for the seat of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who’s retiring next year. She’s been elected to the House for seven terms.
In July, the National Republican Liberty Caucus, which has endorsed Tea Party candidates in the past, endorsed another Republican challenger in the race. It backed Pat McGeehan over Moore Capito.
Secretary of State Natalie Tennant has been rumored as a candidate for the Democratic ticket.
A recent poll found that if Tennant were to enter the race, Capito would receive 45 percent support and Tennant would get 40 percent.
Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, has represented the Second Congressional District of West Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2001. (map)
Contents [hide] |
Record and controversies
General information about important bills and votes for can be found in Congresspedia's articles on legislation. You can add information you find on how Shelley Moore Capito voted by clicking the "[edit]" link to the right and typing it in. Remember to cite your sources!
Iraq War
Capito voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that started the Iraq War.[1]
For more information see the chart of U.S. House of Representatives votes on the Iraq War.
Environmental record
For more information on environmental legislation, see the Energy and Environment Policy Portal
Oil
Shelley Moore Capito has voted in favor of big oil companies on 82% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007, according to Oil Change International. These bills include Iraq war funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and emissions.[2] See below for oil money in politics.
ARMPAC money
Capito was the largest recipient of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ARMPAC campaign contributions. DeLay is being prosecuted on charges of felony money laundering of campaign finances and conspiracy to launder money. As of December 2005, Capito had not offered to return any of the $48,500 she received.[1]
Immigration
On July 12, 2007, Rep. Capito sponsored an amendment to the housing bill, which House Republicans successfully added in a procedural tactic, that would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to receive housing assistance. The measure was attached to the bill through a "motion to recommit," which passed 233-186. The procedure "essentially amended the bill by sending it back to committee, changing it, and instantaneously bringing it back to the floor. The underlying bill passed 383-83." The added provision would "require recipients of public housing assistance to provide proof of legal residency, such as a Social Security card or passport."
Main article: U.S. immigration legislation in the 110th Congress
Congressional page board resignation
Capito, along with Rep. Ginny Brown Waite (R-Fla.), resigned from the board governing the House page program on December 6, 2007, alleging the House clerk did not inform her properly about page infractions. Two pages were dismissed after being caught shoplifting, while two others were dismissed for sexual activity. Capito said there had been "numerous occurrences" in 2007 in which board members had not received timely information about incidents involving pages. She noted the "failed leadership of the clerk of the House and the continued lack of oversight" as prompting her resignation. Capito said she had no other alternative to show her serious concerns about the page program’s management problems.[3]
Main article: 2007 House Page Board Resignations
Bio
Capito was born November 26, 1953. A resident of Charleston, Capito is the daughter of Arch A. Moore, Jr., who twice served as that state's Governor (1969-1977; 1985-1989). She was educated at Duke University and at the University of Virginia and served two terms in the West Virginia House of Delegates.
When 2nd District Congressman Bob Wise decided to make what turned out to be a successful run for governor in 2000, Capito won the Republican nomination and subsequent general election. She was the first Republican to represent West Virginia in Congress since 1983, as well as the first woman elected to Congress from West Virginia in her own right. She was reelected in 2002 against Humphreys and in 2004 against former newscaster Erik Wells by surprisingly large margins, becoming the first West Virginia Republican to win reelection to Congress since her father, who represented the First District in the state's northern region from 1957 to 1969.
Her voting record has been moderate by Southern Republican standards. She is the only pro-choice member of West Virginia's House delegation, despite the fact that the West Virginia Republican Party is strongly pro-life. She also has strong ties to organized labor, a rarity among congressional Republicans.
2006 election
In 2006, the Democrats nominated Mike Callaghan to challenge Capito in her bid for reelection. (See U.S. congressional elections in 2006) Capito retained her seat.
Money in politics
This section contains links to – and feeds from – money in politics databases. cid=N00009771&cycle=2006
Links to more campaign contribution information for Shelley Moore Capito from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site. | Links to more campaign contribution information for Shelley Moore Capito from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site. | Links to more campaign contribution information for Shelley Moore Capito from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org site. |
|---|---|---|
| Fundraising profile: | 2006 election cycle | Career totals |
| Top contributors by organization/corporation: | 2006 election cycle | Career totals |
| Top contributors by industry: | 2006 election cycle | Career totals |
- Revolving door profile for Shelley Moore Capito from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.
- 2006 privately funded travel profile for Shelley Moore Capito from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.
- Personal finance profile for Shelley Moore Capito from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.
Oil Money in Politics
Shelley Moore Capito has received $71,350 in oil contributions during the 110th congress. $22,250 of those dollars were from industry PACS. In total, Capito has accepted $280,595 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes her one of the top recipients of oil money.[4]
Committees and Affiliations
Committees
Committee assignments are not yet available for the 110th Congress.
Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)
- House Committee on Rules
- Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
Coalitions and Caucuses
- Member, Republican Main Street Partnership
- Member, The Wish List a group of pro-choice Republican women.
- Chairwoman of the Congressional Woman's Caucus.
More Background Data
Wikipedia also has an article on Shelley Moore Capito. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.
Contact
DC Office:
1431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2711
Fax: 202-225-7856
District Office- Charleston:
4815 MacCorkle Avenue, Southeast
Charleston, WV 25304
Phone: 304-925-5964
Fax: 304-926-8912
District Office- Martinsburg:
300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 102
Martinsburg, WV 25401
Phone: 304-264-8810
Fax: 304-264-8815
2008 Campaign Contact Information
Official Capito for Congress campaign website
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 11519
Charleston, WV 25339
Physical Address:
164 Court Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-342-1094
Fax: 304-342-5020
capito@capitoforcongress.com
Articles and resources
References
- ↑ Roll call vote, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
- ↑ Vote Tracker, Oil Change International.
- ↑ Susan Crabtree, "Two GOP lawmakers resign from page board," The Hill, December 6, 2007.
- ↑ See "Follow the Oil Money," "Follow the Coal Money," and vote tracker from Oil Change International and Appalachian Voices.
External resources
Local blogs and discussion sites
Corresponding article on Wikipedia and Cause Caller. (If Cause Caller link does not work, pick from its list of senators and representatives.)
BLOG ››› June 21, 2012 2:14 PM EDT ››› BRIAN POWELL
On Wednesday, The Hill turned an undiscriminating spotlight on a new Republican effort to, as The Hill put it, "block the EPA from using drones." From the article:
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and 11 other House members introduced a bill Tuesday that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from conducting aerial drone surveillance of farms to enforce the Clean Water Act, or using any other overhead surveillance.
"Unemployment has been at or above 8 percent for 30 consecutive months. Is conducting flyovers of family farms across the country really the best use of taxpayer money?" Capito asked on Tuesday.
In fact, flyovers are exactly that -- a cost-saving measure, as the Washington Postreported last week:
This is the part that's true: for more than a decade, EPA inspectors have flown over farmland in small private planes -- the traditional kind of aircraft, with people inside them. The inspectors are looking for clean-water violations, like dirty runoff or manure dumped into a stream.
The EPA says the flights are legal under a 1986 Supreme Court decision. And they're cheap:an on-the-ground inspection might cost $10,000, but it costs just $1,000 to $2,500 to survey the same farm by air.
An agency spokesman said these flights are not happening more frequently now than in the past.
What's worse, the Hill story also ignores the fact that the GOP bill is designed in part to solve a problem that has never existed. Despite the manufactured outrage by Republicans, the EPA has never used drones, and the right-wing myth that the agency was "spying" on farmers with unmanned vehicles has been roundly debunked for some time.
I wrote the other day that Congress has no chance of reversing EPA climate pollution standards by using the Congressional Review Act, Fred Upton's smack-talking aside. The same can be said of bills introduced by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Ted Poe (R-Texas), which would permanently bar EPA from addressing greenhouse gases.
In the unlikely event that one of these gets through the Senate, Obama is certain to veto it, and there is zero chance it could muster the 67 votes needed to override. It's all bluster, an attempt to push the frame of the debate rightward.
The only serious legislative threat to EPA powers is the proposal -- relentlessly pushed in the Senate by Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and now introduced in the House by Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) -- to delay EPA climate rules for two years.
The purported rationale for the delay is that the economy is in a recession. But let's be clear: The purported rationale is bullshit. Nobody in D.C. takes it seriously, though of course the media is happy to play along. (Pointing out these kind of shared fictions counts as "bias" in media circles.)
No politician who thinks these regulations are going to be a crippling blow to the economy is going to be willing to give the economy such a blow in two years any more than they are today. The real intent behind the bill is to permanently block the EPA from addressing greenhouse gases. Capito, for one, makes no bones about it: "Although I do not believe the EPA should be granted this authority whatsoever, and I favor permanent suspension," she says, "I am confident that my bill has enough support to seriously hinder the EPA's power."
Rockefeller, being a Democrat, has to be somewhat more circumspect. But he voted for Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) resolution, which would have permanently crippled EPA, thundering in a floor speech, "I don't care about the Supreme Court!" He has said that EPA regulations "offer questionable greenhouse gas reductions at the expense of business certainty and economic growth." Is he going to feel differently in two years? Are economic circumstances going to change so much in the next two years that any senator will feel differently?
No. This is part of a concerted strategy. Bills like Blackburn's and Poe's push as hard to the far right as possible so that a two-year delay looks like the sensible "centrist" option. The point of the Rockefeller bill is to give "moderate" Senate Democrats a safe place to hide, where they can avoid offending both their corporate constituents and their clean-air-loving citizen constituents.
The question is whether enough of them will choose to hide there, or more importantly, whether Obama will hide there with them. Suffice to say, I think it would be a huge, huge mistake for Obama to back this bill as one of his signature gestures of compromise and bipartisanship. He must veto it.
If Rockefeller's bill passes and Obama refrains from a veto, what will happen in two years when the delay is up? Well, the country will likely still be suffering 8 percent or greater unemployment. The Senate will already have gone on record ratifying the (false) notion that these regulations will cripple the economy. Obama will be in the middle of a heated campaign for reelection. An unusually large number of Dem senators with vulnerable seats will be fighting for their political lives.
Is there any doubt that in those circumstances the delay would be extended? What else could Obama say? "I wanted to protect the economy in 2010, but I don't want to this election year." And then in 2014, with a Republican majority in the Senate, is there any doubt that it will be extended again? Eventually, extension will become the default policy until a vote for a permanent block finally makes it through.
That's the worst case scenario, but it's hard to see any good outcome from such a delay, other than giving cowardly Dems a little temporary cover.
Losing this fight would be a disaster, and there's no avoiding it. That leaves winning. Obama would be wise to start building a vigorous case before the American people -- starting today -- about why he plans to veto it if it hits his desk.