Murkowski, Lisa SEN 21%

not flanked, her dad? GOP alaska

odd duck?

merri OK

finda spine game with collins and ?

---

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/lisa-murkowski

47% 21%

---

supported deb haalaND nAT AM // COLLINS

---

AN 1 26

On Thursday morning, January 8, five Republican senators — Maine's Susan Collins, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, Kentucky's Rand Paul, Missouri's Josh Hawley, and Indiana's Todd Young — joined Senate Democrats in voting to advance a resolution to block President Donald Trump from using military force against Venezuela. And Trump responded by personally attacking the senators in a post on his Truth Social platform.

Trump wrote: "Republicans should be ashamed of the Senators that just voted with Democrats in attempting to take away our Powers to fight and defend the United States of America. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young should never be elected to office again. This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief."

Trump went on to attack the senators for invoking the War Powers Act in their resolution.

The U.S. president posted: "In any event, and despite their 'stupidity,' the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me."

Trump's post is drawing a lot of responses on X.

MAGA Republican Breanna Morello, formerly with far-right network Newsmax, applauded Trump's post, writing: "President Donald Trump calls out The RINO Senators that are teaming up with Senate Democrats to undermine the White House. This includes Senators Susan Collins, Rand, Paul, Lisa Murkowski, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young."

Eric Daugherty of the right-wing Florida's Voice News posted, "The White House CONFIRMED this would be vetoed."

But CNN's Aaron Blake, formerly of the Washington Post, argued that Collins is important to Republicans holding the U.S. Senate in the midterms.

Blake posted, "Collins is up for reelection this year and is key to Trump keeping a Senate majority."

MS NOW's Mychael Schnell tweeted: "Woah. President Trump blasts the 5 Senate Republicans who voted to advance the Venezuela war powers resolution. 'Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young should never be elected to office again.' Republicans should be 'ashamed' of them, he adds."

The Missouri Independent's Jason Hancock wrote: "Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Todd Young of Indiana, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska split with their party to act as a check on the administration's use of military forces."

Bloomberg News' Steven Dennis tweeted: "5 Republicans defied Trump on Venezuela, with some citing his talk of running the country indefinitely: Todd Young (Served as a Marine) Josh Hawley Susan Collins Lisa Murkowski Rand Paul."

Dennis, in a separate tweet, also posted: "Trump issued a veto threat, so passing this in the Senate - expected next week after today's 52-47 vote - is 15 votes shy in the Senate of an override (and needs 2/3rds in House too.)…. Still this is a very rare rebuke of Trump 2.0. (He's also lost votes on his tariffs on Canada)."

---

AN 11 25

MURK TWEET PRO

Steve Bannon urges Trump admin to court martial former NASA astronaut

---

A wide range of federal government agencies are being targeted for mass layoffs by the Trump Administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by SpaceX/Tesla/X.com CEO Elon Musk. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is being gutted, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) expects to suffer the same fate, and Trump proposes eliminating the U.S. Department of Education altogether. According to the Washington Post, as many as 200,000 federal government workers may lose their jobs.

The most vehement outcry against these layoffs is coming from Democrats, but according to Washington Post reporter Liz Goodman, some GOP lawmakers are worried as well.

In an article published on February 19, Goodwin reports, "Republican senators find themselves in an unusual position these days: begging Trump officials to release funds they themselves appropriated. Senators have, in recent days, made the case to Cabinet secretaries and other Trump officials to let money flow back into their states. They are trying to finagle exceptions to President Donald Trump's sweeping executive orders or cuts made by billionaire Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service that freeze hundreds of billions of dollars, including money for farmers and infrastructure projects. That push comes as the (Trump) Administration has also sought to fire a wide swath of federal employees — some of whom live in red states."

Goodwin cites Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Katie Britt (R-Alabama) and two examples of GOP lawmakers who worry that the DOGE cuts are going too far.

Republicans who "praise the ultimate goal of streamlining the federal government" are urging the Trump Administration "to reconsider its cuts or pauses to federal grants that support biomedical research and labs, or for programs supporting Native American tribes." This, according to Goodwin, is a " humbling turn of events for a body that has traditionally prized its power of the purse."

"Trump campaigned on overturning traditional limits on his ability to cancel funding appropriated by Congress, saying he should be able to use a technique called 'impoundment' to reduce or eliminate spending," Goodwin explains. "He and his allies have been laying the groundwork for challenging restrictions on that power in court and have aggressively flouted Congress' power with potentially illegal freezes on spending. The use of impoundment could create a situation where lawmakers who are in good standing with the Trump Administration have a better shot at restoring their funds, posing a potential conflict of interest, experts said…. Murkowski said she's been lobbying 'pretty much all the departments' to restore frozen funding that's affecting her state — including the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department and Agriculture Department."

Goodwin adds, "(Murkowski) has also asked the Trump Administration to exempt Native American tribes from freezes affected by an executive action targeting programs that promote diversity. Over the weekend, she slammed the Administration's responses to her on terminations of federal workers as 'evasive and inadequate.'"

Read the Washington Post's full article at this link.

---

npr but voted for horrible noms?

an 2 25

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is diverging from many Republican lawmakers by arguing that Congress needs to stand up to President Donald Trump as he overrides their authority, Alaska Public Media reported Wednesday.

“To have the executive basically come in and dismantle something that was legislatively created — that's outside the bounds of the executive,” she said. “So it requires us, in the legislative branch, to then assert our responsibility, which is to not cede the authority.”

“You got to claim it back,” she added.

Murkowski has earned a reputation as a moderate who will challenge Trump and can act as an important swing vote. She voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial after the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection and didn't rule out leaving the party last year. She rebuffed his proposal to buy Greenland, and she voted against his pick for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. However, more recently, she has voiced her support for controversial Trump nominees Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.

As for how to stand up to Trump, Murkowski offered a possible example in the form of Congressional earmarks, when legislation directs funding to a specific recipient. She called it “Ia small example of, I think, some of the steps that have to be taken to say that these authorities are the Congress’ and to push back."

Another option, she continued, would be a lawsuit. Alaska Public Media's Liz Ruskin wrote: “Ultimately, the Supreme Court could tell Trump not to tread on the authority of Congress."

But this approach only works if Trump allows it to -- something experts have pointed to as a potential constitutional crisis.

“You're now having some in the executive branch saying, ‘We don't think the courts should be deciding this. We think that this is our authority,'" Murkowski said. “You then call into question the legitimacy of your courts ... That's not a recipe for good governance.”

Murkowski expanded on this idea to reporters Tuesday: “We have a judicial system. If you don’t like the ruling, you can appeal the ruling and you can follow that through. But we are a nation of laws, and it is not necessarily for you or I to be the final arbiter here. This is why we entrust the judiciary with this responsibility,” she said.

Click here to read Alaska Public Media's full report.

---

an 1 24

gop # get worse with time?!

46 GOP senators sign SCOTUS brief downplaying Trump’s role in January 6 insurrection

President Donald J. Trump, joined by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO., speaks with reporters prior to attending a Senate Republican lunch Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

Carl Gibson

January 18, 2024

All but three members of the Senate Republican Caucus have signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) urging the Court to strike down the Colorado Supreme Court's disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the state's GOP primary ballot.

The brief — which was also signed by 130 House Republicans — argued that Trump's disqualification "tramples the prerogatives of members of Congress," which they say include "the enforcement and (if necessary) removal of Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment]’s 'disability' on holding office."

"Congress—not any state court—plays a vital role in regard to [the insurrection clause]," the brief read. "It is Congress that must pass implementing legislation authorizing enforcement of Section 3."

"[T]his Court should conclude that Section 3 determinations fall within the 'political question' doctrine because they are so clearly committed by constitutional text to another political branch, i.e., Congress," the amicus brief continued. "Under current law, Congress has implemented Section 3 only in the narrow context of requiring a criminal conviction for 'rebellion or insurrection,' and provided that those found guilty 'shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.'"

While the question of whether a presidential candidate can only be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS, the actual text of the insurrection clause doesn't explicitly say enforcement only comes after Congress votes. Rather, the clause — which prevents anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the US or who has "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" from holding any "civilian or military" office — only states that disqualification can be reversed by a two-thirds vote from both the House and Senate. Even if all signees of the brief voted to exempt Trump from the insurrection clause, it would still fall well short of the two-thirds threshold laid out in the US Constitution.

Notably, the brief also minimizes the former president's role in the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, with the brief falsely asserting that Trump "quickly" asked for peace and encouraged "disbandment" of the riot even though he watched events unfold over the course of several hours before telling his supporters to go home. The brief even quoted George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 to describe the actions of "enterprising state officials" trying to disqualify Trump as an example of the statement "peace means war."

The only GOP senators to not co-sign the brief were Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski. Notably, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) co-signed the brief despite condemning Trump's actions on January 6.

---

an 4 22 common dr

'No negotiating with arsonists': Green groups slam Manchin-led climate compromise with GOP

Jessica Corbett and Common Dreams April 27, 2022

Advocacy groups on Tuesday blasted new efforts by U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin to strike a deal with the GOP on climate legislation after months of the West Virginia Democrat preventing the House-approved Build Back Better Act from reaching President Joe Biden's desk.

:{:{}:

Manchin and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) organized a Monday night meeting to "gauge bipartisan interest in a path forward that addresses our nation's climate and energy security needs head-on," a Manchin spokesperson, Sam Runyon, told Bloomberg.

Food & Water Watch managing director of policy Mitch Jones said in a statement Tuesday that "the Build Back Better bill was effectively stymied by Sen. Manchin, who is now apparently part of an effort to craft a bipartisan bill that would be even weaker than the compromise efforts he soundly rejected last year."

While congressional Democrats attempted to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the $1.75 trillion package, it was blocked by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Manchin, who said Monday that "if I can find something bipartisan, we don't need reconciliation."

According to Bloomberg, "Manchin told reporters after the meeting that one area of common ground could be reform of the federal oil and gas leasing process."

The outlet reported:

In addition to reform on permitting, a potential package could include revisions to federal land policy, aid for domestic pipelines, efforts tobolster production of both liquefied natural gas at home and abroad and critical minerals, a person familiar with the matter said. It’s possible the changes could be paired with hundreds of billions of dollars in new and expanded tax credits for wind and solar power, nuclear plants, biofuels and advanced energy manufacturing sought by Democrats and the White House and included in earlier iterations of the Build Back Better spending bill, the person said.

Runyon didn't respond to a request for comment about the possible elements of a deal.

In his response to reports about Manchin's negotiations,Jones said that "this approach could only be considered 'climate legislation' if we warp the meaning of that term to include bills that will make climate change worse."

"Instead of letting Manchin and fossil fuel interests define the terms," he added, "the White House and Democratic leadership must push for the solutions we need, not merely what pleases Joe Manchin."

Sierra Club also released a statement Tuesday opposing attempts to compromise with the GOP, declaring that "just as there's no negotiating with arsonists on how much of a building they can burn, there's no negotiating with a party of climate deniers on climate action."

"For decades, the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Washington, D.C. have made their views on climate change abundantly clear: It's much ado about nothing, if it even exists," the group noted, citing some prominent examples—including recent comments from Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who attended Manchin's meeting.

During an NPR interview in January, Cramer said:

The vast majority of people that we work for, that would be our constituents, believe that there is climate change, that it is going the wrong direction in terms of the temperature of the Earth and that they want us to do something about it. My starting point is that it's not near the crisis that the alarmists have made it out to be. But at the same time, nobody is going to solve the problem except humans. Other than God himself, we're the only ones in a position to contribute or to lower our contribution, whatever that might be. And our constituents expect us to do that.

Asked what he says to young people concerned about the future, Cramer said that "what I would tell them is that the Earth has gone through cycles for as long as there's been creation. What I would also tell them is what we can't do is we can't destroy ourselves in the process of trying to save the Earth."

Discussing the Monday meeting with Axios, Cramer said that Manchin, "not surprisingly, likes to be proactive and he wants to see what's possible."

"What's acceptable to them has got to be something that can get 10 of us," he added. "And that's going to be pretty tough."

Sierra Club said that "even when Republicans are capable of recognizing the facts about the climate crisis, they're unwilling to take any action to address it," highlighting that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "wasted decades denying the existence of climate change—collecting a small fortune in donations from corporate polluters along the way—only to now have no plan to address the crisis."

"It's past time for President Biden and Democratic leadership to reject this nonsense and deliver on their promises of action on climate, care, jobs, and justice," the group asserted. "Our communities and our planet urgently need investments in transitioning to clean energy, reducing pollution, cutting costs for working families, creating good jobs, and promoting environmental justice."

Sierra Club was among the groups that held "Fight for Our Future" rallies across the country this past weekend.

---

threat to switch parties?

I want him out': Republican senator says Trump must go — and she might leave the GOP

Cody Fenwick

January 08, 2021

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska came out swinging against President Donald Trump in an interview with Anchorage Daily News published Friday. She said he should resign his office and expressed doubts about her place in the Republican Party.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/murkowski-joins-collins-in-opposing-trump-scotus-vote-before-the-election/

---

===

https://www.desmog.com/2010/01/11/murkowski-amendment-protect-polluters-was-written-dirty-polluter-lobbyists/

the Washington Post is reporting that Alaska Sen. LisaMurkowski’s amendment to gut EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act was written by two Washington lobbyists known for representing some of the worst polluters in the nation.

Surprise, surprise!

Juliet Eilperin writes on the Post Carbon blog:

“The Washington Post has confirmed that two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead andRoger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress.”

The Post notes that Sen. Murkowski is now likely to postpone offering the amendment next week when Congress returns to tackle the subject of climate change anew.

“This Mukowski rider should be called the Protect Dirty Polluters amendment, especially since we now know that it was written by polluter lobbyists,” Kert Davies, Director of the new PolluterWatch project at Greenpeace, told me today.

“If this amendment passed, it would be a get out of jail free card for the worst polluters from Big Oil and Big Coal,” Davies said.

And who better to deliver this gift to the carbon barons? A darling of the Carbon Club, Sen. Murkowski has received $470,000 in campaign contributions from dirty energy and mining interests since 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Post Carbon piece notes that the lobbyists who helped write the Mukowski amendment, both former Bush EPA employees, have again returned to doing what they do best, representing polluters in an effort to derail climate legislation:

“Holmstead represents industry interests including Southern Company, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council on climate matters, according to congressional lobbying registration forms, while Martella represents the National Alliance of Forest Owners and the Alliance of Food Associations on the same subject.”

The revelations about the origins of Murkowski’s polluter-friendly amendment don’t exactly kick off 2010 on a bright note. It looks as if Congress is set to continue abandoning the public interest in favor of doing the bidding of polluters once again in the new year.

Same old, same old, unfortunately.

===

---

https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/trump-administration-seeks-to-unleash-a-pillage-of-arctic-refuge-but-indigenous-groups-vow-to-fight-it/

no lnx

Trump administration seeks to unleash a pillage of Arctic Refuge — but indigenous groups vow to fight it

Written by Andrea Germanos / Common Dreams September 13, 2019

Indigenous leaders vowed Thursday to protect their Alaskan lands from fossil fuel exploitation after the Trump administration moved closer to allowing drilling along the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—a move the House just tried to block.

“The Gwich’in are protectors,” said Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, “and we will not give up.”

The pledge from the Gwich’in—who call the coastal plain “the sacred place where life begins”—came in response to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for oil and gas leasing, which was released Thursday by the Bureau of Land Management.

The announcement, said Interior Secretary David Bernhardt in a press statement, represents “a big step to carry out the clear mandate we received from Congress to develop and implement a leasing program for the Coastal Plain,” referring to Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) provision in the “tax scam” of 2017 requiring the sales for drilling rights in the area. Bernhardt is a former fossil fuel lobbyist.

In the new analysis, the administration, as The Washington Post reported, chose “the most aggressive development option for an area long closed to drilling.”

“The FEIS unlawfully opens the entire coastal plain to leasing,” wrote NRDC staff attorney Garett Rose. “It fails to even consider an approach that minimizes damage to the refuge’s unique environment, violating our bedrock environmental review law.”

But that choice came to “no one’s surprise,” according to Adam Kolton, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League, who said the Trump administration was “not even pretending that this is about restraint or meaningful protection.”

“With an eye on developing the entirety of the fragile coastal plain,” Kolton continued, “the administration has been riding roughshod over science, silencing dissent, and shutting out entire indigenous communities.”

Demientieff, whose community has highlighted the potential catastrophe the exploitation could unleash on the calving and nursery grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd, also criticized the FEIS for disrespecting “the Gwich’in Nation and all people in the Arctic and world who suffer the impacts of climate change and nonstop exploitation, while formally scratching the backs of those who seek to desecrate land and dishonor human rights to fill their pockets.”

The FEIS, as The Hill noted, is “one of the final steps before leases can be sold,” as bidding may begin after 30 days.

The timing of the release of the environmental impact statement also raised the eyebrows of Kolton, who noted that it came “literally hours” after the Democratic-controlled House voted 225-193 to block the mandate for the ANWR drilling.

Passage of that bill was welcomed by its author, by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who said the measure “reflects a very simple proposition: there are some places too wild, too important, too unique to be spoiled by oil and gas development.”

Huffman praised lawmakers voting in favor of the measure for “protecting not just the beating biological heart of the largest wildlife refuge in the United States, but the Indigenous people who depend on this sacred, natural landscape.”

The vote was also celebrated by Indigenous and environmental groups.

Alex Taurel, head of League of Conservation Voters’ Conservation Program, called the vote “a resounding victory for the Gwich’in people, their sacred traditions, and the invaluable wildlife of the majestic Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

“The majority of people in the U.S. oppose oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge—we will continue to stand up against special interest big polluters as long as it takes,” said Taurel, urging the Senate to follow suit.

Democratic Senators including Ed Markey (Mass.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.)took to social media this week to ramp support for their legislation to block the ANWR drilling—though its fate is likely doomed in the Republican-controlled chamber.

Ed Markey

@SenMarkey

We can’t let the Arctic Refuge, one of the last pristine wildernesses in America, be permanently destroyed by oil and gas drilling. That’s why today, we’re intro'ing the Arctic Refuge Protection Act to designate this delicate region as wilderness and prevent all future drilling.

Embedded video

---

Murkowski anxious to get Interior, DOE picks moving

By Geof Koss in E&E Daily Friday, March 15, 2019

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski is looking to schedule a confirmation hearing for Interior secretary nominee David Bernhardt before the end of the month.

---

2/19

https://www.ecowatch.com/senate-passes-conservation-bill-2628872795.html

In a rare bipartisan push, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of a major public landspackage on Tuesday.

The Natural Resources Management Act, approved 92-8, establishes 1.3 million acres of new wilderness, adds 694,000 acres of new recreation and conservation areas, creates four new national monuments, among other important conservation measures, according to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who introduced the bill with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Significantly, the Cantwell-Murkowski package also permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is considered America's most important conservation and recreation program.

The LWCF was established by Congress in 1964 and is funded by fees and royalties from federal offshore oil and gas leases. More than 42,000 state and local projects across the country are supported by the program but it expired last September because Congress failed to reauthorize and fund the program.

"The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a pre-eminent program for access to public lands," Cantwell said in a press release. "It gives local communities the tools and resources to manage public lands, to give more access to the American people, to do the things that will help us grow jobs and preserve against a very challenging and threatening climate."

The measure is the largest public lands bill considered by Congress in a decade, the Associated Pressnoted. The 662-page document contains more than 110 individual bills, including provisions sponsored by dozens of senators on both sides of the aisle.

Murkowski told the AP it was a "very, very collaborative" process.

Other notable provisions include 367 miles of new " Wild & Scenic Rivers" and 2,600 miles of new national trails. The Washington Post also pointed out that the bill includes funds for the the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act through 2022 to provide habitat protection for more than 380 bird species; a permanent mining ban on 370,000 acres around Yellowstone and North Cascades national parks; and codification of the Obama-era Every Kid Outdoors Act that allows free admission to national parks for fourth graders and their families.

The new national monuments proposed by the bill include the Mississippi home of civil rights activists Medgar and Myrlie Evers, as well as the Mill Springs Civil War battlefield in Kentucky.

What's more, the Congressional Budget Office projects the bill will save taxpayers $9 million, the Post reported.

It now heads to the House of Representatives, which is expected to "quickly" take up the bill and pass it, Cantwell's office said in the release.

The Senate's overwhelming support of the bill is contrasted by the Trump administration's drastic slashing public lands in favor of mining, drilling and other development. Incidentally, the Post reported that "White House officials have indicated privately that the president will sign it."

...

native am key to her write-in win, pressure on brett k

https://www.alternet.org/lisa-murkowskis-facebook-page-flooded-rape-threats-and-accusations-after-no-vote-kavanaugh

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/lisa-murkowski2016 Score Lifetime Score 29% 19%

---

But with McCain's ailing health, right now the committee is being chaired by vehement climate change denier Senator Inhofe. He's letting these riders in.

---

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060084255

:{:{}:

Trade, mining proposals in limbo in Senate mess

Nick Sobczyk, E&E News reporter

E&E Daily: Wednesday, June 13, 2018

The Senate defense authorization bill yesterday hit a procedural snag on several amendments, including a proposal to limit President Trump's authority to set tariffs.

The snafu could mean that a pair of controversial mining amendments filed by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) never get a vote.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has been pushing for an add-on to the National Defense Authorization Act that would require congressional approval of any tariffs imposed by Trump under the national security provisions contained in Section 232 of a 1962 trade statute.

But it has run into "blue slip" issues because of the Constitution's origination clause, which requires bills that raise revenue start in the House.

That led Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), managing the bill on the floor in the absence of Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), to object to Corker's attempt to offer the amendment and remedy the blue-slip problem yesterday.

Corker, in an impassioned floor speech, said he was disappointed that members of his own party were refusing to vote on the bill because it would "upset the president."

:{:{}:

"I can't believe it!" he said. "I would bet that 95 percent of people on this side of the aisle support, intellectually, this amendment. I would bet that. I would bet more than 95 percent."

:{:{}:

,....

grid security bs coal nuke

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12062018/ferc-no-power-grid-national-security-emergency-trump-perry-coal-subsidy-energy-regulators-congress

top regulators of the nation's power grid told Congress on Tuesday that they see no immediate national security emergency to justify propping up coal and nuclear power plants with a government order, as the Trump administration is considering.

All five members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, weighed in at a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on a debate that has been roiling the industry and its regulators for months. It was the first time in many years that the whole commission had appeared before the committee together.

Even though most of them were appointed by President Donald Trump, they seemed ambivalent or even hostile to his repeated attempts, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, to require grid operators to buy power from uneconomical coal and nuclear power plants.

Trump political supporters and influential fossil fuel companies, including the coal company Murray Energy and utility FirstEnergy, have pushed for a government-ordered bailout, while a diverse mix of environmental advocates, major grid operators and some public utility companies and natural gas suppliers have argued strongly against it.

The administration wants to keep coal and nuclear generators from being driven out of business by cheaper natural gas or carbon-free wind and solar. A few months ago, FERC rebuffed Perry's attempt to subsidize plant operators who keep 90 days of fuel on hand. Now, the White House has told Perry to use his own emergency powers under two laws to bail the industry out on grounds that plant closures are presenting a national security emergency.

But the idea that the grid is currently so frail as to present an urgent military crisis has received little support, and next to none at the commission.

FERC's chairman, Kevin McIntyre,reading a formal statement aloud, spoke of the deliberative approach the commission has adopted: opening a docket to solicit the views of all parties, especially the grid operators with the fingertip control of electricity supply. To Trump and his allies, this is bureaucratese for kicking the can down the road and risks providing too little assistance too late.

Vigilance, but No Rush to Intervene

Commissioner Neil Chatterjee, a Kentucky native and former energy advisor to pro-coal Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), was the most receptive to some kind of action, if not on an emergency basis.

"In my view, 'no action' is like driving your car without a seat belt," he said.

Other commissioners echoed Chatterjee's call for "vigilance." But while they said it was important to keep the grid resilient during storms, heat waves, cold snaps or market upheavals, they looked askance at emergency federal intervention that would favor one fuel or another.

That, said Commissioner Robert Powelson, a former member of Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission and past president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, would be "a real step back" from the benefits that have accrued to competing fuel suppliers and to consumers alike.

It would also retreat from the climate and other environmental benefits from wind and solar, as well as from storage technologies and smart metering that are helping to clean up the grid.

Commissioners Richard Glick, a former official with energy company Iberdrola, and Cheryl LaFleur, a former executive at National Grid USA who was appointed to FERC by President Barack Obama in 2010, were most hostile to the Trump plan.

"We cannot try to stop the natural evolution of this industry by claiming that there is a national security emergency unless there is evidence that suggests that an emergency actually exists," Glick said.

GOP Senator also Skeptical of Emergency Claim

After more than an hour of testimony, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) asked the question directly:

"Do any of you believe that in the wholesale power markets we are facing an actual national security emergency at the moment?"

"I do not," said LaFleur, the most outspoken of the commission's opponents of intervention.

"Would anyone answer that with a yes?" Heinrich inquired.

Nobody did.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the committee's chairwoman, also said she was skeptical.

"As with many controversies, with so much at stake in such a heavily regulated industry such as energy, the various interests are locked in," she noted. "This is battle, this is mortal conflict for some."

Murkowski is closely aligned with the oil and gas industry. Its lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, has joined renewable energy advocates to strongly oppose the administration's efforts on behalf of coal and nuclear.

'FERC Does Not Pick Winners and Losers'

The committee's ranking Democrat, Maria Cantwell of Washington, said she found the idea of intervening in markets "mind-boggling."

The commissioners, in more measured words, seemed to agree with her.

"FERC does not pick winners and losers in the market," Powelson said. "Instead we create an environment where the market can pick the winners and losers." He called it a "moral hazard" to do otherwise.

"We need to be wary of people using the situation or a potential situation as a way to achieve market changes that they haven't been able to achieve otherwise," Glick said.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

---

===

A group of 12 Congressional Republicans sent a letter to the leaders of both houses of Congress Thursday, objecting to a provision in the tax bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"For decades, Congress has voted to prohibit oil and gas development in the refuge, with the overwhelming support of the American public," the group wrote. "Support for this protection remains strong today. After years of debate, the Arctic refuge stands as a symbol of our nation's strong and enduring natural legacy."

The letter was sent as the Senate was poised to pass a massive—and controversial—tax overhaul, which has seen fierce opposition from Democrats. The Housepassed its own version of the tax bill in November, and the two versions will now have to be reconciled. Tucked into both bills is a provision that would allow for the opening of a 1.5 million-acre section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. The justification for its inclusion in the tax bill is that profits from any oil and gas development would help offset a budget deficit.

This part of the refuge, known as the coastal plain, occupies murky legal territory and has been fought over for decades. While the majority of the 19 million-acre refuge has been designated as wilderness area—and is permanently off limits to drilling—the coastal plain has occupied a middle ground. It is not currently open to drilling, but an act of Congress could reverse that.

This is not the first time the GOP has come close to passing a bill to open this part of the wildlife refuge to drilling, but in the past, conservationists have won. This time—despite the effort of this group of Republicans—that's looking less likely.

Earlier this week, the bill hit a procedural bump due to some arcane legislative rules that appeared to make it illegal to wrap the ANWR provision into the tax overhaul. Those who oppose drilling in the refuge saw it as a potential way to kill the provision, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)—a supporter of drilling in the coastal plain—said she did not see it as a problem. "We will be able to resolve all this," Murkowski said. "I am not concerned."

The letter opposing drilling was signed by Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Ryan Costello (Penn.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Patrick Meehan (Penn.), Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. (N.Y.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Mark Sanford (S.C.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), John J. Faso (N.Y.) and Leonard Lance (N.J.).

In it, the Republicans laid out a number of reasons why they believe drilling in the refuge is a bad idea:

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-drilling-congress-2498983191.htmlGOP-Controlled Senate Paves Way for Oil Drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife RefugeThe Senate Republicans' narrow passage of the 2018 budget plan on Thursday opened the door for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR).But Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups criticized the GOP for sneaking the "backdoor drilling provision" through the budget process. Past proposals to drill in the refuge have consistently failed.The budget was passed through a legislative tool known as reconciliation which only requires a simple majority, rather than 60 votes. The budget was approved 51-49, with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul joining Democrats in opposition, paving the way for President Trump's tax overhaul proposal.Drilling ANWR would raise revenue for Trump's tax plan that cuts taxes for the rich.ANWR, the largest protected wilderness in the U.S., consists of more than 19 million acres of pristine landscapes and is home to 37 species of land mammals, eight marine mammals, 42 fish species and more than 200 migratory bird species."The budget passed by the Senate today sets in motion a sellout of some of our most iconic public lands and waters to the highest bidder, in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires," said Earthjustice president Trip Van Noppen."Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not a budget issue, and should not be part of the budget reconciliation process," Van Noppen added. "This is a blatant attempt to use the budget reconciliation process to pass a divisive and controversial proposal that would lead us in the wrong direction on climate."Senate Democrats, led by Maria Cantwell of Washington, offered an amendment to the Senate's budget resolution that would block drilling in the Alaskan refuge but the measure failed 48-52 mostly along party lines.Republicans led a "sneak attack" that turned "public lands over to polluters," Cantwell said.Democrat Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon also said that there is "something cynical and sad" about opening ANWR since it would increase oil output from a state being impacted by climate change the fastest.Conservatives have sought for decades to open up parts of the refuge to create jobs and boost the energy sector. As Reuters reported, Republicans have targeted the so-called 1002 area on the Prudhoe Bay in Northern Alaska, which has an estimated 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude.Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has long championed opening up the Arctic Refuge to drilling, called the 1002 a "non wilderness area" since the government set it aside for petroleum exploration decades ago.But Earthjustice noted that the targeted area hosts migratory bird species and endangered wildlife and is considered to be sacred to the indigenous Gwich'in people, who sustain themselves from the caribou that migrate there."Americans should be outraged at the shameless hijacking of the federal budget process. This fight is far from over," said Wilderness Society president Jamie Williams. "Now is the time for Americans across the country to speak out. Congress cannot sneak this through the back door when they think nobody is looking. The Arctic Refuge is simply too fragile and special to drill, and we have a moral obligation to protect it for future generations of Americans."The Wilderness Society pointed out that the battle is not over yet."The Senate's drilling provision is just the first step towards drilling in the Arctic Refuge," the organization stated. "It requires the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to draft instructions to reduce the federal deficit through revenues created by oil and gas leasing in the refuge. The House has already passed a similar budget provision, but both houses of Congress must now work to reconcile their budget versions before final passage and delivery to the president."not great on AGW but kicked djt ass?http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-can-no-longer-make-recess-appointments-thanks-alaska-republican-he-attacked=epa https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19052017/leaked-donald-trump-budget-EPA-climate-clean-energy-environment Details of President Donald Trump's 2018 budget proposal, leaked this week, reveal that the administration appears determined to wallop environmental programs, including many that tackle climate change. It would cut Environmental Protection Agency funding by nearly one-third, slash spending on renewable energy innovation, and eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, among other programs.The White House only has the first move in the long budget process; once the proposal is unveiled officially next week, it will be Congress' turn to weigh in on spending priorities. With Trump embroiled in scandal, and many popular programs targeted for elimination, it's not at all clear that lawmakers will follow the president's lead.The president's so-called "skinny" budget, released in March, also called for slashing EPA funding by 31 percent but was light on detail.This second version of the budget proposal, leaked late this week, reveals that the administration intends to follow through on its commitment to reduce EPA to the size it was in the 1970s, when climate change wasn't on its radar screen.Research on air and energy would be slashed by 67 percent, and clean air regulatory programs—which include climate change—would be cut 47 percent.Among the EPA programs that would be eliminated:The $8 million Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, under which industrial facilities have been reporting their carbon emissions since 2010.The $27 million national estuaries program for protection of coastal waterways.$7 million for Environmental Justice.$19.9 million in assistance to Alaska villages.$427 million in geographic programs focused on environmental issues in the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans and other hot spots.By slashing the geographic programs, which have bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, the Trump administration is showing little inclination to open the budget process with any conciliatory moves to win over key members of Congress. To pass cuts to discretionary programs like those at EPA would require some Democratic support to reach 60 votes in the Senate, where the GOP holds 52 seats. Some Republicans also have indicated they would not support the deep cuts that the White House had signaled it was seeking.At a public forum in Washington this week, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), chair of both the Senate Energy Committee and the Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Other Agencies, had voiced hope that the administration would back off of its planned cuts....=wikiLisa Ann Murkowski /mɜːrˈkaʊskiː/ (born May 22, 1957) is the senior United States Senator from Alaska and a member of the Republican Party. She has served in the Senate since 2002. Murkowski became the state's senior senator on January 3, 2009, when Democrat Mark Begich, who had defeated Alaska's senior senator Ted Stevens in November 2008, took office.She is the daughter of former U.S. Senator and Governor of Alaska Frank Murkowski. Before her appointment to the Senate, she served in the Alaska House of Representatives and was eventually elected majority leader.Murkowski was appointed to the U.S. Senate by her father, Frank Murkowski, who resigned his seat in December 2002 to become the Governor of Alaska. She completed her father's unexpired term, which ended in January 2005. She ran for and won a full term in 2004.She ran for a second term in 2010. She lost the Republican Party nomination to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. She then ran as a write-in candidate and defeated both Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams in the general election,[1] making her only the second senator to be elected by write-in vote since Strom Thurmond in 1954.[2]Although Sen. Murkowski has won three full terms to the Senate, she has never won a majority of the vote winning pluralities each time: 48.5% in 2004, 39.5% in 2010 and 44% in 2016. 1Early life, education, and early career2Alaska House of Representatives3U.S. Senate3.1Appointment3.1.1Reaction to appointment3.2Elections3.2.120043.2.220103.3Committee assignments3.4Caucus memberships4Political positions4.1Abortion4.2Taxes4.3Affirmative action4.4Gun rights4.5Alaska Native issues4.6Healthcare4.7Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill4.8Energy and environment4.9Don't ask don't tell4.10Same-sex marriage and LGBT Issues5Controversies6Electoral history7Personal life8See also9References10External linksEarly life, education, and early career[edit]Murkowski was born in Ketchikan, Alaska, the daughter of Nancy Rena (née Gore) and Frank Murkowski.[3] Her paternal great-grandfather was of Polish descent, and her mother's ancestry is Irish and French Canadian.[4] As a child, she and her family moved around the state with her father's job as a banker.She earned a B.A. degree in Economics from Georgetown University in 1980, the same year her father was elected to the U.S. Senate. She is a member of Pi Beta Phi sorority [5] and represented the state of Alaska as the 1980 Cherry Blossom Princess.[6] She received her J.D. degree in 1985 from Willamette University College of Law.She was employed as an attorney in the Anchorage District Court Clerk's office (1987–89).[7] From 1989 to 1998, she was an attorney in private practice in Anchorage, Alaska. She also served, from 1990 to 1991, on the Mayor's Task Force for the Homeless.[citation needed]Alaska House of Representatives[edit]In 1998, Murkowski was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives and reelected in 2000 and 2002. She was named as House Majority Leader for the 2003–2004 legislative session, but resigned before taking office due to her appointment to the U.S. Senate.[8] Murkowski sat on the Alaska Commission on Post Secondary Education and chaired both the Labor and Commerce and the Military and Veterans Affairs Committees. In 1999, she introduced legislation establishing a Joint Armed Services Committee.U.S. Senate[edit]Appointment[edit]Murkowski, while a member of the state House, was appointed by her father, Governor Frank Murkowski, to his own unexpired Senate seat in December 2002, which he had vacated after being elected governor.Reaction to appointment[edit]The appointment caused a controversy in the state. Many voters disapproved of apparent nepotism in the appointment of Murkowski to the Senate. And eventually resulted in a referendum that stripped the governor of his power to directly appoint replacement Senators.[9]Elections[edit]2004[edit]See also: United States Senate election in Alaska, 2004Murkowski was elected to a full six-year term against former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles in the 2004 election, after winning a primary challenge by a large margin. The two were in a dead heat in polls. The centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, which wanted to run TV ads for Murkowski, was told no air time was left to buy.[10] Near the end of the general campaign, senior senator Ted Stevens shot campaign ads for Murkowski and warned the public that if a Democrat replaced Murkowski, they were likely to receive fewer federal dollars.2010[edit]See also: United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010 and Miller v. CampbellMurkowski faced the most difficult election of her career in the August 24, 2010, Republican Party primary election against Joe Miller, a former U.S. magistrate judge[11]supported by former Governor Sarah Palin.[12][13] The initial ballot count for the primary showed her trailing Miller by a margin of 51–49%, with absentee ballots yet to be tallied.[14] After the first round of absentee ballots were counted on August 31, Murkowski conceded the race, stating that she did not believe that Miller's lead would be overcome in the next round of absentee vote count.[15][16]Following the outcome of the primary election, the Murkowski campaign floated the idea of her running as a Libertarian in the general election.[17] But on August 29, 2010, the executive board of the state Libertarian Party voted not to consider allowing Murkowski on its ticket for the U.S. Senate race.[18]On September 17, 2010, Murkowski said that she would mount a write-in campaign for the Senate seat.[19] Her write-in campaign was aided in large part with substantial monetary aid and assistance from the Native corporations and PACs, as well as support from state teachers' and firefighters' unions.[20]On November 17, 2010, the Associated Press reported that Murkowski had become only the second Senate candidate (after Strom Thurmond in 1954) to win a write-in campaign, thereby retaining her seat.[21] Murkowski emerged victorious after a two-week count of write-in ballots showed she had overtaken Miller.[22][23] Miller did not concede defeat.[23] U.S. Federal District Judge Ralph Beistline granted an injunction to stop the certification of the election due to "serious" legal issues and irregularities raised by Miller as to the hand count of absentee ballots.[24] On December 10, 2010, an Alaskan judge dismissed Miller's case, clearing the way for Murkowski's win;[25] however, Miller appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, and the results were not certified. On December 13, Miller appealed the Alaska Superior Court decision of the prior week to the Alaska Supreme Court. Miller's appeal was rejected by the state Supreme Court on December 22, 2010.[26] On Dec. 28, 2010, U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline dismissed Miller's lawsuit. Murkowski was certified as the winner on December 30 by Gov. Sean Parnell.[27]Committee assignments[edit]