Scalise, S REP

format broken

not paying as much attn as i shd since he got bumped in cantor crash

https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/big-lie-2655289409/

key in killing carbon tax

https://www.alternet.org/2021/10:{/exxonmobil-climate-tax/:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:

no lnx

The truth behind ExxonMobil’s claims to support a carbon tax

Elliott Negin and Independent Media Institute October 13, 2021

When then-ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy conceded in a secretly recorded video in May that the oil giant voiced support for a carbon tax only because it assumed it would never happen, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said the company was "shocked by these interviews" and stood by its "commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change."

Wood's reaction was reminiscent of Captain Louis Renault feigning surprise to discover gambling at Rick's Café in the 1942 film "Casablanca." After quietly pocketing his winnings, Renault justifies closing down the nightclub by exclaiming, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

Woods was shocked? Really? Just one look at his company's financial records would show that despite claiming to endorse a carbon tax—initially in a cynical attempt to derail a cap-and-trade bill that was under consideration in 2009—ExxonMobil has funneled millions of dollars over the last decade to lawmakers who staunchly oppose the idea.

Backing Climate Science Deniers

One tried-and-true way corporations ensure access to Congress is by making campaign contributions. Although there may not be a verifiable quid pro quo, donations guarantee access, and access guarantees influence.

So, given ExxonMobil's professed support for a carbon tax, one might reasonably assume that the company's political action committee (PAC) and employees would back lawmakers who sponsor such legislation and, over time, withdraw their funding for senators and representatives who stand in the way.

In fact, the opposite is true.

During the video interview, McCoy—who at the time was ExxonMobil's senior director of federal relations—compared lobbying Congress with fishing.

"When you have an opportunity to talk to a member of Congress," he said, "I liken it to fishing, right? You know you have bait, you throw that bait out…. And… [then you start to] reel them in…. They're a captive audience. They know they need you. And I need them."

The goal, he explained, is to develop a close relationship with legislative staff. "You want to be able to go to the chief… and say, look, we've got this issue, we need Congressman So-and-So to be able to either introduce this bill, we need him to make a floor statement, we need him to send a letter," he said. "You name it, we've asked for everything."

Not quite everything. ExxonMobil apparently has not asked for a carbon tax, notwithstanding the fact that the company was one of the founding members of the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), a bipartisan, industry-supported group, which was formed in 2017 to promote a carbon tax, and a year later, the company pledged to give $1 million over a two-year period to Americans for Carbon Dividends(AFCD), the council's lobbying arm. Over the last decade, members of both houses have voted on a handful of carbon tax-related amendments and nonbinding resolutions. In every case, a sizable majority who received donations from ExxonMobil's PAC and employees rejected the idea. For example:

In March 2015, the Senate voted 58 to 42 to pass a budget amendment prohibiting a carbon tax. Thirty of the 40 senators who had received ExxonMobil campaign contributions since 2010, including amendment sponsor Roy Blunt (R-MO), voted in favor of the prohibition.

In June 2016, the House passed a resolution introduced bySteve Scalise (R-LA) stating that a carbon tax "would be detrimental to American families and businesses" by a 237 to 163 margin. Eighty-five percent of the House members who voted for the resolution had received ExxonMobil political donations since 2013. By contrast, only 26 of the representatives who voted against the resolution—16 percent—had received ExxonMobil money.

In July 2018, the House passed anotherScalise-sponsored resolutionasserting that "a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy," this time by a 229 to 180 vote. During the 2018 election cycle, 75 percent of the representatives who gave the resolution a thumbs up received ExxonMobil donations. Only 23 percent of the 180 who voted against it got ExxonMobil funding.

The disparity between ExxonMobil's PAC donations to supporters of the July 2018 Scalise resolution and its opponents is even more telling, given that PACs—which can contribute as much as $10,000 to a candidate per two-year cycle—more accurately represent a company's agenda than that of individual employees. The ExxonMobil PAC contributed more than $935,000 to 74 percent of the resolution's supporters, but only $109,500 to opponents during the 2018 election cycle. Scalise, the resolution's sponsor,and 37 of his 48 resolution cosponsors received ExxonMobil PAC contributions.

The most recent congressional carbon tax vote took place in the Senate in February during a round of votes on the pandemic relief bill. John Hoeven (R-ND) sponsored an amendment that would have prohibited such a tax. It was rejected on a strict party-line vote: All 50 Republican senators voted for the amendment; all 50 Democratic senators voted no.

ExxonMobil PAC donations to those senators are mostly party-line, too. Twenty-seven of the 50 Republicans collectively have received $233,000 during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles. Over that same time frame, the PAC contributed just $62,000 to 11 of the Democrats.

Snubbing Carbon Tax Proponents

In January 2018, ExxonMobil Vice President of Public and Government Affairs Suzanne McCarron reaffirmed the company's support for a carbon tax, the Paris climate agreement and other related climate policies in a blog post on the company's website. ExxonMobil, she maintained, is "committed to being part of the solution."

Nevertheless, during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, ExxonMobil employees and its PAC donated nearly $834,000 to 28 of the 30 senators and 90 of the 109 representatives currently in Congress who, according to the Center for American Progress, still reject the scientific consensus that global temperatures are rising and that burning fossil fuels is largely to blame. The company's PAC funded 16 of the climate science deniers in the Senate and 81 in the House.

Lawmakers sponsoring carbon tax legislation, meanwhile, have enjoyed considerably less support. Over the last two election cycles, climate science deniers in the 117th Congress received six and a half times more from ExxonMobil than carbon tax proponents.

Two carbon tax bills have been introduced in the Senate this session, both byDemocrats: one sponsored by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, which has nine cosponsors, the other by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. Three carbon tax bills have been introduced in the House: one sponsored by Pennsylvania's Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick with one cosponsor, another by Connecticut's Democratic Rep. John Larson with two cosponsors, and a third by Florida's Democratic Rep. Theodore Deutch with 84 cosponsors.

Since 2017, ExxonMobil employees and the company PAC have donated only $127,692 to these carbon tax proponents: $35,486 to eight of the 11 sponsors and cosponsors in the Senate and $92,206 to 33 of the 90 sponsors and cosponsors in the House. The PAC contributed to only three of the senators and 12 of the representatives.

Despite this decidedly lopsided funding pattern, McCoy insisted during the interview that ExxonMobil wants to work with lawmakers on carbon tax legislation. "Put forth a bill and we'll show you that we'll support that bill, we'll help you work on that bill," he said. But, he added, "Nobody wants to do that because it's not politically expedient to put forth a tax for people, it just isn't."

In fact, a number of lawmakers have "put forth a bill" to establish a carbon tax in successive congressional sessions, but the company has shown no support, and neither McCoy nor ExxonMobil's other in-house lobbyists have broached the topic with members of Congress since 2018—the same year it announced its $1 million donation to the Climate Leadership Council's lobbying arm, AFCD—according to ExxonMobil's quarterly lobbying reports.

Staffers working for Rep. Larson and Sen. Whitehouse, who both have been sponsoring carbon tax legislation for years, recently verified that ExxonMobil has not expressed support for their respective proposals. Larson introduced a bill in 2009, the same year that ExxonMobil announced that it favored the policy, while Whitehouse first sponsored one in 2014 and has reintroduced a version of it in every session since.

Out of frustration, Whitehouse and his fellow bill sponsor, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, sent a letter to ExxonMobil in August 2016 criticizing the company for its indifference.

"Regarding ExxonMobil's alleged seven years of support for a carbon fee, we've seen no meaningful evidence of that," the senators wrote. "None of the top executives that make up ExxonMobil's management team has expressed interest in meeting with any of us to discuss the Whitehouse-Schatz proposal or any carbon fee legislation."

Five years later, nothing has changed on that front. A Whitehouse spokesperson says his office is not aware of ExxonMobil supporting any carbon pricing legislation, let alone the senator's.

But McCoy's revelations did have consequences: The Climate Leadership Council kicked ExxonMobil out of the organization in August; the Union of Concerned Scientists and other public interest groups cited McCoy's comments in a "friend of the court" brief filed in Minnesota's climate science deception lawsuit against ExxonMobil; and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform asked McCoy to testify about his company's campaign to mislead the public "about the dangers of fossil fuels and their role in causing global climate change."

As for McCoy's job status, an ExxonMobil spokesperson told E&E News in late September that "McCoy no longer works for the company."

If McCoy does wind up testifying before Congress, he would serve as the opening act for a hearing that the Oversight Committee plans to hold on October 28 featuring his former boss Darren Woods and top executives from other major oil and gas companies. Finally, under oath, Woods and his colleagues will have to answer questions about their decades-long effort to block government action on climate.

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

McConnell 'prays' for Manchin and Sinema to help him defeat Biden ... ›

New report details a 'massive lobbying blitz' against Biden's agenda ... ›

'We've asked for everything': Top oil lobbyist caught on tape ... ›

With Trump’s potential reelection just weeks away, he and his supporters have ramped up disinformation efforts well aware that there’s no one willing to stop them.

In March, for the first time, Twitter slapped a “manipulated media” label on something tweeted by White House social media director Dan Scavino and retweeted by Trump. The tweet included a video of Democratic nominee Joe Biden making what seemed to be an accidental endorsement of Trump.

“Excuse me. We can only reelect Donald Trump,” Biden says in the edited clip, omitting the second half of his statement. “Excuse me. We can only reelect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It’s got to be a positive campaign,” he says in the full video.

On August 29, Trump ally and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) shared a video on Twitter that edited the words said during an interview with Biden by activist Ady Barkan, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and uses assistive technology to speak. Scalise added the words “for police” to a question Barkan asked about funding things that might mitigate crime such as social services and mental health counseling. The goal of Scalise’s deceptive editing was to make it seem as though Biden was in favor of defunding the police, a position he has repeatedly said he does not support.

Twitter again added a “manipulated media” flag to Scalise’s tweet following backlash.Scalise later took the post down, but stood by the video.

On August 30, Scavino shared another edited clip. In this one, the clip superimposed an image of Biden over footage from a 2011 interview between a Bakersfield, California-based news show and actor Harry Belafonte. This was edited together with a snoring sound effect to make it look as though Biden had fallen asleep in the middle of a TV appearance, though this obviously was not true. Twitter again applied the “manipulated media” flag to the post, leaving it up. It wasn’t until the video’s copyright holder filed a takedown request that Twitter removed the post altogether.

Belafonte said of Scavino’s use of that clip, “They keep stooping lower and lower. A technical glitch in an interview I did 9 years ago now becomes another one of their lies, more of their fake news. I beg every sane American-please vote them out. I knew many who gave their life for the right to vote. Never has it been so vital to exercise that right.”

On August 31, Trump’s campaign tweeted a clip of Biden saying, “You won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America,” a complete distortion of what Biden actually said: “Since they have no agenda or vision for a second term, Trump and Pence are running on this, and I find it fascinating. 'You won't be safe in Joe Biden's America.’ And what's their proof? The violence we're seeing in Donald Trump's America.”

Yet again, Twitter slapped the “manipulated media” label to the post, but not before the video had racked up hundreds of thousands of views. Later, the campaign defended the post, tweeting, “To all the triggered journalists who can’t take a joke about their candidate, it’s not our fault Joe Biden was dumb enough to say this on camera.”

The press and tech companies need to incentivize truthfulness, and that means ensuring that the political and social cost of lying outweighs the benefits.

Would the Trump campaign have posted the deceptively edited clip of Biden if there was a chance that its entire account would be suspended from the platform? Would Trump have repeatedly claimed that just 6% of COVID deaths were actually because of COVID if newspapers and nightly news broadcasts insisted on doing more than just quickly noting that what he said wasn’t true and moving on?

It used to be treated as a scandal when the public learned of an instance of the president lying to the American people, but now it’s just an accepted fact of daily life that something the president says to us today will likely turn out to be untrue. If the press had taken Trump’s candidacy seriously, holding him to the same standards as other candidates, it’s possible he wouldn’t have ever become president. Had journalists stopped offering Trump the benefit of the doubt, he would have been forced to either lie less often or face a barrage of nonstop criticism for his dishonesty. Fact-checking is important, but we’re beyond the point of simply being able to correct our way out of the situation the world is in. Fact checks can’t simply be something brought up in a single segment squeezed between hours of uninterrupted lies, and it cannot be something that gets siloed into its own separate section of news coverage.

The many lies of Trump’s presidency have been enabled by the press and by social media companies afraid to take real action to stop the spread of false information. As November’s election approaches, it’s become clear that disinformation is no longer a tactic for his campaign, but the tactic. The extent to which that tactic will be successful will depend on whether the press is willing to cover his campaign the way it should have all along, and if tech and social media companies are willing to hold him and his allies to the same standards as every other user.

In July, Trump wrongly claimed that Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) issued a document outlining a plan “to abolish our police departments.” In June, he shared a deceptively edited video made to look like a CNN segment. In May, he lied about a “rogue Secretary of State” in Michigan sending 7.7 million absentee ballots to voters across the state. This is who he is, who he’s always been, and who he will always be.

Trump and his allies keep telling lies, and they will continue to do so as long as the benefits of lying outweigh the costs.It’s because of a deferential news media and timid social media companies that the cost of telling blatant lies remains so low. If the worst thing to come of a manipulated Twitter video is a tiny label applied to a tweet long after its engagement has already peaked, it makes perfect sense to continue to spread increasingly brazen false claims and deceptive footage in hopes of influencing voters’ actions.

Once you’ve hit 20,000 lies, what are a few more on the pile?

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/democracy-wilts-on-the-vine-trump-campaign-resorts-to-lies-conspiracy-theories-and-disinformation-as-biden-leads-in-the-polls/

Reporter Ashley Parker, in an article published in the Washington Post over Labor Day Weekend, discusses some of the ways in which President Donald Trump’s campaign and its allies have been aggressively promoting disinformation — from “doctored and misleading videos” to bogus conspiracy theories.

For example, Parker notes, Trump recently “retweeted footage of a black man violently pushing a white woman on a subway platform under the caption, ‘Black Lives Matter/Antifa’ — but the man was not affiliated with either group, and the video was shot in October (2019).” And according to Parker, “White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino shared a manipulated video that falsely showed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden seeming to fall asleep during a television interview, complete with a fake TV headline.”

In addition to those things, Parker notes thatHouse Minority Whip Steve Scalise — a Louisiana Republican and Trump ally — “released a video splicing together quotes from activist Ady Barkan — who has Lou Gehrig’s disease and uses computer voice assistance — to falsely make it sound as if he had persuaded Biden to defund police departments.”

Whitney Phillips, a communications professor at Syracuse University, told the Post, “When you have this disinformation and it’s introduced to one side of the forest, for example, it can travel so quickly through so many different communities and does so many unintentional things before you can even do a fact-check. He’s able to muddy the waters so thoroughly that democracy wilts on the vine."

trump, Parker points out, has “repeated a false claim that just 6% of the nation’s death toll” in the coronavirus pandemic “was actually caused by the novel coronavirus itself — part of his ongoing effort to portray the virus as less deadly or pervasive than it actually is.” Thatconspiracy theoryhas been promoted by QAnon and has no basis in reality, but that hasn’t prevented Trump and other Republicans from promoting it.

Trump is hardly the first candidate to play hardball during a presidential race. From President Lyndon B. Johnson’s infamous “daisy ad” of 1964 to President George H.W. Bush’s racist Willie Horton ad of 1988 to the Swift Boat Veterans ads that helped President George W. Bush defeat Democrat John Kerry in 2004, presidential candidates — both Democrats and Republicans — have dealt some harsh blows to their rivals over the years. But Lily Adams, a Democratic National Committee senior adviser, argues that Trump’s campaign is taking disinformation to another level.

Adams told the Post, “Spin has been something that folks in politics have come to expect,but this is the invention of a totally new reality. Because they can’t run on the reality that every American is seeing, they’re inventing a new one.”

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/gops-steve-scalise-could-be-in-ethics-trouble-for-violating-rules-of-not-posting-deep-fake-videos/

a January 2020 memo to all House members from the Ethics Committee may mean that Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) is in trouble for the deep-fake video that he posted online this weekend.

Scalise was outed for doctoring a videoofALS healthcare activist Ady Barkan andusing computer audio to change the comments Barkan said in a video with Vice President Joe Biden.

As the Washington Post‘s Dave Weigle pointed out, Barkan uses a voice assistance device to speak. He commented about Vice President Joe Biden’s comments about “re-directing” public safety funding to social workers and mental health experts, something police have actually requested because it typically isn’t crime-related, and they aren’t trained to handle such mental health crises

@SteveScalisedoctors video from@AdyBarkanfor political exploitation. He should consider resigning. Please follow@RebeccaCokleyon this and all things related to the disability community.https://t.co/efHkGVdJg3https://t.co/jElvOp4uMl

— Jesse Lee (@JesseCharlesLee) August 30, 2020

AD REMOVED FOR SUBSCRIBED USER

Deep fakes are against the ethics rules in Congress, and posting it will likely mean an ethics investigation.

“However, intentional distortions of audio and/or video representations can be far more damaging. Members have a duty, and First Amendment right, to contribute to the public discourse, including through parody and satire. However, manipulation of images and videos that are intended to mislead the public can harm that discourse and reflect discreditably on the House. Moreover, Members or the staff posting deep fakes “could erode public trust, affect public discourse, or sway an election.” Accordingly, Members, officers, and employees posting deep fakes or other audio-visual distortions intended to mislead the public may be in violation of the Code of Official Conduct. Prior to disseminating any image, video, or audio file by electronic means, including social media, Members and staff are expected to take reasonable efforts to consider whether such representation are deep fakes or are intentionally distorted to mislead the public.”

Hey @SteveScalise–who is your ethics lawyer? pic.twitter.com/H6smicnOPv

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) August 30, 2020

Early next week, Americans will likely learn if there will be an investigation of Scalise over the deep fake video from the Ethics Committee.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/conservative-writer-warns-the-gop-is-increasingly-embracing-the-utter-lunacy-of-qanon/

no lnx twt vid?

Conservative writer warns the GOP is increasingly embracing the ‘utter lunacy’ of QAnon

Written by Alex Henderson August 14, 2020

On Tuesday, August 11, the QAnon conspiracy cult enjoyed a major victory when far-right QAnon supporter Marjorie Taylor Greene won a Republican primary in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District and was congratulated by President Donald Trump — who wasn’t the least bit troubled by her pro-QAnon views. And veteran conservative pundit/author Mona Charen, in an article published in The Bulwark on August 13, laments the willingness of prominent Republicans to endorse those who embrace the “utter lunacy” of QAnon.

The QAnon cult believes that Trump was elected president to combat an international pedophile/child sex ring that operates within the U.S. government and that an anonymous figure named “Q” is providing updates on Trump’s battle. Greene, in a 2017 video that has been posted on YouTube, expressed her solidarity with QAnon. And considering how deeply Republican her district is, Greene has a very good chance of defeating the Democratic candidate, tech worker Kevin Van Ausdale, in November and taking a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2021.

Charen explains: “Pizzagate morphed into the QAnon conspiracy in which Q followers wait for signals from their leader that a vast conspiracy of Satanic child abusers, run by the ‘Deep State,’ George Soros, the Supreme Court, and God knows who else is about to be unmasked.Did I mention that they think Beyoncé is only pretending to be black? It’s a hydra-headed thing, this conspiracy, and contains multitudes. But the one common thread is this: the great deliverer will be Donald J. Trump.”

QAnon, Charen writes, is a “paranoid conspiracy (theory that) has gathered momentum at the Republican grassroots.”

Greene is not an anomaly: support for QAnon has been growing in the Republican Party.

“No fewer than 60 current or former congressional candidates have expressed interest in or support for the QAnon conspiracy,” Charen laments. “One of them, Jo Rae Perkins, got the Republican nomination for Senate in Oregon. And now, Marjorie Taylor Greene seems almost certain to be going to Congress.”

Charen notes that although some prominent Republicans condemned Greene — including Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise — Trump and others have embraced her.

“Greene received backing from the House Freedom Fund, an arm of the House Freedom Caucus,” Charen observes. “Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and former Rep. Mark Meadows, now Trump’s chief of staff, also backed Greene.”

To make matters worse, Charen adds, Greene critics like Kinzinger are being slammed by Trump supporters for speaking out against her.

Voters in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, Charen points out, could have chosen her GOP primary rival, Dr. John Cowan — who she describes as a “gun-rights-supporting, anti-abortion Trump loyalist” — to run against Van Ausdale. Instead, they went with someone even further to the right: a QAnon extremist.

“It’s odd that Republicans, who pride themselves on their practical understanding of life — incentives matter, money doesn’t grow on trees, personal responsibility is essential to a well-ordered society — should display such a marked weakness for utter lunacy,” Charen laments. “I don’t offer an explanation, just a warning. This disordered thinking is no longer just a fringe phenomenon.”

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/here-are-5-huge-lies-republicans-are-telling-about-the-new-report-on-the-russia-probe

no lnx

Here are 5 huge lies Republicans are telling about the new report on the Russia probe

Written by Cody Fenwick December 10, 2019

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s new report on the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, commonly called the Russia investigation, blew up many of the right wing’s favorite talking points and conspiracy theories about the FBI. At the same time, it exposed real failures of procedures meant to protect American citizens against undue surveillance and exposed the need for serious law enforcement reforms.

But most Republicans seem unfazed that the report undercuts President Donald Trump’s repeated accusations of “treason” and a “witch hunt,” and they show no genuine interest in pushing policy to generally make law enforcement more responsible. Instead, they’re trying to pin the blame on the Obama administration and bias against Trump, even though these claims actually distract from the genuine problems uncovered.

So instead of grappling with the complicated facts of the report, Republicans are just lying about what it says. Here are five huge lies you should be on the look out for, and why they’re false:

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar

Trump on the IG report: "It is incredible. Far worse than I ever would've thought possible. It's an embarrassment to our country, it's dishonest. It's everything that a lot of people thought it would be, except far worse."

Embedded video

This is absolutely not true. Trump has accused the FBI of “treason” for its investigation of members of his campaign, an accusation that was always ludicrous. Obviously, the report didn’t find anything “far worse” than treason — the worst finding seems to be that an FBI lawyer falsified a piece of evidence in an application for surveillance, making Carter Page’s activities look more suspicious than they otherwise would. This is quite bad, if true, but it’s far milder than much of what the FBI’s critics have claimed.

And in contrast to what Trump has been saying for more years now, the report said: “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open” investigations of Trump associates.

Ronna McDaniel

@GOPChairwoman

The mainstream media cannot dispute this fact:

Comey’s FBI repeatedly misled the FISA court and omitted key facts about the phony Steele Dossier, which launched the 2-year, $35M Russia investigation.

This should have never happened!

In fact, the media can dispute this fact, because it’s not true. The work of Christopher Steele did not “launch” Crossfire Hurricane, as Horowitz made perfectly clear. It explained that the officials working on the investigation “did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks [after the investigation began] and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”

Senator John Cornyn

@JohnCornyn

It confirms that the Obama Justice Department spied on an American citizen by misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court into issuing 4 separate warrants. https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1204151940202020864 …

also scalise BS

It’s true that, as the report says, the standards for predication are low. But it’s possible for the predication to fail to meet the standard — it can’t simply be that FBI agents have a “hunch.” Having concerning, first-hand information from a friendly foreign government — which public reporting indicates was Australia — that implicates national security is not “the thinnest of suspicions.” And Barr is just wrong to say that the report supports the idea that it is.

Steve Scalise

@SteveScalise

?? BREAKING ? The IG report proves Obama officials abused their FISA power to trigger an investigation into @realDonaldTrump's campaign.

Just more evidence Dems will break any rule or law to rig an election against Trump.

These crooked bureaucrats must be held accountable!

Yet again, this is blatantly wrong and grossly misleading about the underlying facts. The investigation was not of the campaign more broadly but of four distinct individuals tied to the campaign. And the fact that the report found no evidence to support the idea that there was political motivation behind the investigation refutes the claim that it is “more evidence Dems will break any rule or law to rig an election against Trump.”

And Scalise lied about the opening of the investigation, which preceded the decision to apply for FISA surveillance by several months. Again, there’s no evidence in the report that the investigation was opened improperly, even though it says that there were serious problems in the FISA process.

Cody Fenwick is a senior editor at AlterNet. He writes about politics, media and science. Follow him on Twitter @codytfenwick.

with jim jordan, drafted to support nunes on impeach defense, led sciff storm pizzagaetz

w/ cole tried to change rules

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-wallace-accuses-gop-rep-steve-scalise-of-very-badly-mischaracterizing-impeachment-testimony

no lnx

‘WITH ALL DUE RESPECT’

Chris Wallace Accuses Top Republican of ‘Very Badly’ Mischaracterizing Impeachment Testimony

“No, sir, they are career foreign service officers and these are people who worked in the Trump administration,” Wallace snapped back at Scalise.

Justin Baragona

Contributor

Published Nov. 17, 2019 11:31AM ET

Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace repeatedly confronted House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) on Sunday over the top Republican’s characterization of last week’s impeachment testimony, accusing congressman of “very badly” misrepresenting the witnesses’ positions.

Wallace pressed the Trump-boosting Louisiana lawmaker on the upcoming testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sonldand, asking Scalise if it was possible Sondland could “blow a hole in the president’s defense” if he testifies that the president told him Ukraine aid was being held up unless the Ukrainian president publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens.

“Well, the president’s defense is that those things didn't happen,” Scalise responded. “And it’s not just the president's word. President Zelensky himself said that the aid wasn’t conditioned and there was no pressure.”

“The real bottom line is he got the money,” the GOP representative added, reiterating a key party talking point. “Ukraine got the money.”

Wallace, however, pointed out that a dozen people listened in on the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, noting that many of them became immediately upset that Trump pressed Zelensky on investigating a Ukrainian gas firm that Vice President’s Joe Biden’s son worked for.

“Those were [House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam] Schiff's witnesses,” Scalise insisted.

“No, sir, they are career foreign service officers and these are people who worked in the Trump administration,” Wallace retorted, adding that an aide to Vice President Mike Pence recently testified that Trump’s call was “inappropriate.”

“You had Tim Morrison, who was on the NSC staff, who said that he—alarm bells immediately went off for him,” the Fox News host continued. “Alexander Vindman immediately went to see—these are all people, you say they are Schiff's witnesses—they all were working in the Trump administration.”

Scalise attempted to pivot to the whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, claiming the Intelligence Community inspector general said the whistleblower had political motivations. Wallace, meanwhile, snapped back: “We are not talking about the whistleblower!”

After saying that he didn’t want to answer “hypothetical” questions about Sondland’s upcoming testimony, Scalise then asserted last week’s impeachment witnesses—senior State Department official George Kent, top Ukraine envoy Bill Taylor, and former U.S. Amb. to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch—essentially said Trump did nothing wrong.

“All three of them were asked, did you see any impeachable offenses” he declared. “Did you see any bribery? Any of that? Not one of those things were mentioned. Not one person said they saw a crime committed.”

“With all due respect—with all due respect, that very badly mischaracterizes what they said,” Wallace pushed back. “They were asked, William Taylor, for instance, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, was asked whether or not these were impeachable offenses. He said I’m there as a fact witness. I’m not there to pass judgment, but he made it clear what he thought about what the president was doing.”

RELATED IN ARTS AND CULTURE

Fox News Anchor: Bill Taylor Was ‘Very Damaging’ to Trump

Tapper Rips Into Graham: Impeachment Stance Is ‘Confusing’

Fox Reporter: ‘Witness Intimidation’ Not in Constitution

Wallace would then go on to play a clip of Taylor’s testimony, further noting that Taylor said that withholding aid to Ukraine to help Trump’s presidential campaign was “crazy.”

This wasn’t the only time that Wallace left Scalise stumbling in Sunday morning’s interview. When the Louisiana congressman dismissed concerns about the July phone call by brushing off “third-hand” accounts while pointing to the Ukrainian foreign minister’s claim there was no link between aid and investigations, Wallace retorted that the foreign minister “was not on the call either.”

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-inquiry-truth-whistleblower-steve-scalise

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-inquiry-truth-whistleblower-steve-scalisehttps://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-inquiry-truth-whistleblower-steve-scalisehttps://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-inquiry-truth-whistleblower-steve-scalisehttps://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-impeachment-inquiry-truth-whistleblower-steve-scaliseRep. Steve Scalise: Trump impeachment inquiry requires the ...

https://www.foxnews.com › opinion › trump-impeachment-inquiry-truth-wh...

3 days ago -Steve Scalise questions why House Democrats are investigating a Ukraine call that neither party felt was inappropriate. President Trump was ...

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/'Soviet-Style' Impeachment: Steve Scalise Spreads Nonsense ...

https://www.esquire.com › news-politics › steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeac...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:1. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Euktgr_o7QIJ:https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Euktgr_o7QIJ:https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Euktgr_o7QIJ:https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Euktgr_o7QIJ:https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29654276/steve-scalise-soviet-style-impeachment-democrats-trump/+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us:{Oct 31, 2019 -Steve :{Scalise:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: thinks Stalin could've been :{impeached:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: lol ... or any of the other characters from the :{Trump:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Conspiracy Cinematic Universe.:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-engineer-multiple-chances-to-make-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment/2019/11/08/a804454a-01a4-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-engineer-multiple-chances-to-make-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment/2019/11/08/a804454a-01a4-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-engineer-multiple-chances-to-make-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment/2019/11/08/a804454a-01a4-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-engineer-multiple-chances-to-make-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment/2019/11/08/a804454a-01a4-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-engineer-multiple-chances-to-make-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment/2019/11/08/a804454a-01a4-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-engineer-multiple-chances-to-make-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment/2019/11/08/a804454a-01a4-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-engineer-multiple-chances-to-make-the-case-for-trumps-impeachment/2019/11/08/a804454a-01a4-11ea-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.htmlDemocrats engineer multiple chances to make the case for ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com › powerpost › 2019/11/08

Nov 9, 2019 -Democrats engineer multiple chances to make the case for Trump's impeachment ... whistleblower at the center of President Trump's impeachment Nov. .... investigation, in the words of House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.) ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/11/01/ddd98da2-fc21-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/11/01/ddd98da2-fc21-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/11/01/ddd98da2-fc21-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/11/01/ddd98da2-fc21-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/11/01/ddd98da2-fc21-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/11/01/ddd98da2-fc21-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.htmlWhite House expects impeachment, press secretary says; Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2019/11/01

Nov 1, 2019 -○As Trump moves to bully witnesses and derail impeachment, ..... Vice President Pence echoed Scalise's sentiment about 30 minutes later.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-caredhttps://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-caredhttps://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-caredhttps://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-caredhttps://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-caredhttps://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-caredhttps://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-caredScalise: Trump wouldn't have sold Ukraine missiles if he only ...

https://thehill.com › homenews › sunday-talk-shows › 470814-scalise-trum...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:1. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us:{2 hours ago -on Sunday pushed back against claims by witnesses in the House's :{impeachment:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: inquiry that President :{Trump's:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: only concern in Ukraine was ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

===

:{mma:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

We rarely see television news discuss the climate crisis at all, and when we do, it's often milquetoast both-sides type coverage that leaves the viewer poorly informed. But Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) was confronted with something very different on CBS This Morning while promoting his book.

Co-host Dokoupil refused to let Scalise get away with denying climate science, starting off with how much land Louisiana is losing to the sea now, and then grilling the congressman about his approach to the climate change and how it contradicts what scientists have said. Dokoupil even highlighted the absurdity that Scalise's plan to fight climate change is to drill more in the Gulf of Mexico.

We sometimes hear that it's hard to cover climate change. This interview proves otherwise.

scuttles carbon tax as part of leadership play?

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mYBFHMHUWPwJ:https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/470814-scalise-trump-wouldnt-have-sold-ukraine-missiles-if-he-only-cared+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ushttps://insideclimatenews.org/news/19072018/anti-carbon-tax-resolution-house-vote-climate-solutions-caucus-curbelo-scalise-koch-influence-congress

U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a resolution denouncing the idea of a U.S. carbon tax as detrimental to the economy, one week before a Republican-sponsored bill to create a carbon fee is set to be introduced.

It was a win for a coalition of groups funded by the petrochemical billionaire Koch brothers and other wealthy, right-wing opponents of climate action. And it revealed weak resolve for bucking GOP leadership among most of the 43 Republican members of the Climate Solutions Caucus.

If the bipartisan caucus had held firm, the resolution would have been handily defeated.

Instead, only six Republicans—four of them caucus members, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, who plans to unveil the carbon fee measure next week—joined most Democrats in opposing the resolution. Seven Democrats voted with the GOP.

The 229-180 vote marked a slight erosion in the GOP wall of opposition to climate action. In 2016, an identical measure passed the House 237-163with no Republicans opposed. Such resolutions are meant to express the views of the chamber and have no real-world impact, but with a different Congress in place now, carbon tax foes wanted a new vote. The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the Heartland Institute, and 18 other conservative advocacy groups had urged House Speaker Paul Ryan earlier this month to bring the resolution to the floor.

AEA president Thomas Pyle said in an interview with InsideClimate News that the impetus was not the prospect of Curbelo's bill, but an effort to put members on the record before November. The groups put it this way in their letterto Ryan: "As we approach the 2018 midterm election, American voters need to know whether their elected representatives support the implementation of a new tax on the energy they rely on every single day."

The House's affirmation of a fossil fuel-friendly agenda comes in a week when President Donald Trump's administration did the same on multiple fronts.

The Environmental Protection Agency's new administrator, former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, finalized a plan to ease requirements for handling the toxic coal ash from power plants—rules developed by the Obama administration after costly spills in Tennessee and North Carolina. The Treasury Department announced it would scrap requirements that certain tax-exempt nonprofits disclose their donors, helping to cloak a key avenue for campaign contributions used by the Koch brothers and other wealthy political benefactors.

2 Views on How Climate Solutions Caucus Voted

The House vote showed the flimsiness of the Climate Solutions Caucus, the bipartisan coalition that Curbelo and others have sought to build behind the concept of a market-based solution for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

RL Miller, president of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, said the caucus' credibility is in tatters after its GOP members, whom she has frequently criticized for their weak environmental voting records, failed to hold off a resolution that strikes at the heart of their purported purpose.

"It would be a joke were the subject not so serious. The caucus has no credibility, and no ability to do anything," Miller said. "The climate is changing far more quickly than Republican attitudes. That's why we do not hold faith in bipartisan solutions."

But Steve Valk, spokesman for the Citizens Climate Lobby, a grassroots advocacy group that favors a carbon tax and that helped bring together the caucus, noted the non-binding resolution has no real effect. Valk said he did not expect that its members would go out on a limb against such a measure, especially since it was sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 3 Republican in the chamber and a potential successor to Ryan, who is retiring.

"Anybody who votes against this resolution—it's going to be a mark against them in the eyes of the leadership, which decides what assignments you get, whether or not you're on the committee you want, and who's chair," Valk said. "There's a lot of calculations that go into a decision like this. We're willing to look at that and say, yeah, it's not a simple choice for them.

"In my mind, if you can get a handful of Republicans to vote no on this, that's a victory."

The Conversation Is Shifting: Republicans Consider Carbon Pricing

Other carbon tax advocates expressed glass-half-full optimism, arguing the mere push for a vote by fossil fuel allies betrays their concern about the increasing support for the idea of putting a price on carbon to fight climate change.

"They feel that the momentum is shifting as the conversation commences, and they are trying to beat down any thoughtful analysis with a tribal drum that they are nervously beating louder," said former Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina and founder of a conservative carbon tax advocacy group republicEn.

"If we were able to discuss this, we'd find that this is something that could bring conservatives and progressives together," he said.

Conservative advocates for a carbon tax have been trying to make their case in Washington since the start of the Trump administration with little success.Trump's former chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, reportedly earned the derisive nickname "Carbon Tax Cohn" in the West Wing for giving a hearing to a revenue-neutral tax plan proposed by prominent Republicans, including former Secretary of State James Baker and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

But since then, other groups have popped up. The nuclear-heavy energy company Exelon, the American Wind Energy Association and First Solar are funding a coalition called Americans for Carbon Dividends, which has hired former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, to lobby on the issue. Twenty-two college Republican groups came together earlier this year to form Students for Carbon Dividends.Its founding president, Alex Posner, an American history major at Yale, says the plan they favor would address international competitiveness and jobs creation and would look nothing like the carbon tax described in the Scalise resolution. "We want to see a plan that's pro-growth and pro-environment while shrinking the size of government," he said.

Pyle, of the American Energy Alliance, argues that no matter the design of a carbon tax program, consumers are worse off. "There's revenue generated, and then you haggle over how to spend it," he said. "It's no different than other taxes and fees. If you're giving back some to low-income households, it's a still a redistribution. And since poorer people pay a higher percentage of their incomes on energy, they are worse off."

A series of four reports released this week by Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy calls that argument into question, however, and provides ammunition for carbon tax advocates.The reports analyze various carbon tax legislation scenarios and conclude that they would increase government revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars a year and drive down U.S. emissions, far more than current policy, with minimal effects on the U.S. economy, families or businesses, or even on oil and gas production and consumption.

Curbelo: Resolution Presented 'a False Choice'

For now, the House vote preemptively throws cold water on Curbelo's planned introduction next week of legislation that wouldimpose an escalating tax on carbonemissions, while pausing federal regulations on climate change.Although Curbelo would not discuss details of his plan, reports said the revenue generated would be directed into infrastructure and in helping communities adapt to sea level rise and other impacts of climate change.

Curbelo did not speak on the House floor during the one-hour debate allotted for the Scalise resolution. But when asked by InsideClimate News to comment, he criticized the measure in an emailed statement.

"The resolution presents a false choice," Curbelo said. "While I agree a carbon tax on its own would not be the best way forward and could have negative effects on the economy, there are smarter, more innovative solutions that would not only reduce carbon emissions and mitigate for the effects they have on our planet, but also grow the economy and provide opportunities for American workers and businesses at home and abroad.

"I look forward to engaging with my colleagues on this topic next week, and sharing my own proposal in the near future," he said.

Curbelo, who represents the southern tip of Florida, one of the regions of the country most vulnerable to climate change impacts, is seen as one of the most vulnerable House Republicans. Cook Political Report and other political odds-makers call his race a toss-up.

With Democrats expected to gain between 20 and 35 seats in November, and just 23 needed for them to retake the majority, Inglis argues that Scalise wasn't doing his own party any favors by forcing a carbon tax showdown. "Steve, what are you doing, running for minority leader?" asked Inglis. "He's putting people at risk for an idea that is clearly going to become very passé and very retro looking."

The House Debate

During the House debate on the measure, Republicans urged a stand against carbon taxes while taking pains to assert that they were not denying the science of climate change.

"I'm not a climate denier. I'm not a science denier. I'm a climate thinker," said Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) "And real science isn't just about assessing costs only. It's about looking at benefits as well. ... Coal provides cheap, plentiful, reliable energy over the long term. We should not want the most carbon-free energy, but the best energy."

Democrats used up much of their 30 minutes of time attempting to change the subject from the anti-carbon tax measure to spotlight Trump's controversial meeting this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), managing the resolution for the GOP, repeatedly refused.

A handful of Democrats, most of them members of the Climate Solutions Caucus, offered full-throated defense of carbon taxes.

"For decades, economists from across the ideological spectrum have argued that a carbon price is the most efficient way to discourage the use of fossil fuels and the best way to encourage energy efficiency measures and market decisions on everything from housing to transportation," saidRep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "The science continues to accumulate in prodigious amounts that the pollution is changing our Earth and the cost is staggering into the billions. Carbon pricing is the most market-oriented policy we can take to combat this."

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, (D-Ore.) said the resolution "encapsulates what's wrong with the Republican management of this Congress. It is a cartoon that doesn't deal with the underlying issues," he said. "We could have a debate about real legislation that would satisfy their answers and be able to deal with what our responsibilities are to the future. ... Instead, we're dealing with empty gestures."

In addition to Curbelo, Republicans voting against the resolution were Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mia Love of Utah—all members of the Climate Solutions Caucus—and Reps. Trey Hollingsworth of Indiana and Francis Rooney of Florida. The Democrats who joined the GOP in voting for the resolution were Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia; Henry Cuellar and Vincente González of Texas; Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania; Stephanie Murphy of Florida; and Tom O'Halleran and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

REGULATION

CLIMATE CHANGE

AN 119

...That’s right. According to Scalise, the problem isn’t that the GOP elected a president who grabs women by the pussy, or that they put an accused rapist on the Supreme Court, or that they oppose everything from birth control coverage to paid family leave. The realproblem is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) won’t allow Republican women to win congressional races. The GOP’s failure to recruit women can only be blamed on … a woman!

There are a few things that get in the way of Scalise’s attempt to pass the buck onto Pelosi. For one thing, Republicans aren’t actually running as many women as Democrats in the first place — 356 women filed to run in Democratic House primaries last year, versus just 120 for Republican House primaries. Of those filers, 183 women won Democratic nominations, and just 52 won Republican nominations. For another thing, polls show not only that women voters overwhelmingly prefer Democrats, but that Republican voters, both men and women, do not believe electing women is as important as Democratic men and women.

There is no doubt Pelosi is a politician of prodigious skill. But she can’t claim all the credit for Republicans’ loss of women from their ranks. They did that largely on their own.

Oil & Gas	$351,174	$132,200	$218,974
Insurance	$161,600	$24,500	$137,100
Health Professionals	$155,600	$15,100	$140,500
TV/Movies/Music	$141,350	$5,850	$135,500
Real Estate	$136,300	$53,300	$83,000
Electric Utilities	$132,750	$18,750	$114,000
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$125,700	$9,200	$116,500
Lobbyists	$119,850	$113,850	$6,000
Sea Transport	$119,349	$69,449	$49,900
Lawyers/Law Firms	$100,600	$52,850	$47,750

Edison Chouest Offshore		$119,400	$0	$0
2	Entergy Corp	$33,750	$18,750	$15,000
3	Cajun Industries	$27,600	$27,600	$0
4	Koch Industries	$25,200	$5,200	$20,000
5	AT&T Inc	$20,000	$0	$20,000
5	Marathon Petroleum	$20,000	$0	$20,000
5	United Parcel Service	$20,000	$0	$20,000
5	General Electric	$20,000	$0	$20,000
5	Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America	$20,000	$0	$20,000
5	National Assn of Realtors	$20,000	$0	$20,000
5	National Beer Wholesalers Assn	$20,000	$0	$20,000
12	Comcast Corp	$18,500	$0	$18,500
13	National Cable & Telecommunications Assn	$18,250	$750	$17,500
14	Southern Co	$17,500	$0	$17,500
15	Verizon Communications	$16,500	$1,500	$15,000
16	Microsoft Corp	$15,500	$0	$15,500
16	Bollinger Shipyards	$15,500	$15,500	$0
16	Clark, Geduldig et al	$15,500	$15,500	$0
19	American Resort Development Assn	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	National Multi Housing Council	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Pfizer Inc	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Google Inc	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Lockheed Martin	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	American Bankers Assn	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Union Pacific Corp	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	CSX Corp	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Time Warner Cable	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	CenturyLink	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Cox Enterprises	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	National Auto Dealers Assn	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Humana Inc	$15,000	$0	$15,000
19	Home Depot	$15,000	$0	$15,000
33	Blue Cross/Blue Shield	$14,500	$0	$14,500
34	Altria Group	$14,000	$0	$14,000
35	Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America	$13,500	$0	$13,500
36	Eatel Inc	$13,000	$13,000	$0
37	Citigroup Inc	$12,500	$0	$12,500
37	American College of Radiology	$12,500	$0	$12,500
37	Chicago Bridge & Iron	$12,500	$0	$12,500
37	American Dental Assn	$12,500	$0	$12,500
37	New York Life Insurance	$12,500	$0	$12,500
42	National Rifle Assn	$12,400	$0	$12,400
43	JPMorgan Chase & Co	$12,000	$0	$12,000
43	College of American Pathologists	$12,000	$0	$12,000
45	Geocent LLC	$11,300	$11,300	$0
46	Nucor Corp	$11,000	$0	$11,000
46	Bertucci Construction	$11,000	$11,000	$0
46	FedEx Corp	$11,000	$0	$11,000
46	DirecTV	$11,000	$1,000	$10,000
50	Edison Electric Institute	$10,500	$0	$10,500
51	Svendson Companies	$10,300	$10,300	$0
51	Gray Insurance	$10,300	$10,300	$0
53	Chevron Corp	$10,250	$250	$10,000
54	Dawson Farms	$10,200	$10,200	$0
54	Hailey McNamara	$10,200	$10,200	$0
54	Zito Companies	$10,200	$10,200	$0
57	NOLA Motorsports Park	$10,100	$10,100	$0
57	Jackson Kearney Group	$10,100	$10,100	$0
57	Woodvine Group	$10,100	$10,100	$0
60	American Cable Assn	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	American College of Surgeons	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Friedkin Group	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Chesapeake Energy	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Deloitte LLP	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Associated Builders & Contractors	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Credit Union National Assn	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	PricewaterhouseCoopers	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Wiley Rein LLP	$10,000	$10,000	$0
60	National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Prudential Financial	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Capital One Financial	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Desert Caucus	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	American Waterways Operators	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Boeing Co	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	AFLAC Inc	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	National Assn of Insurance & Financial Advisors	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Border Health	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Norfolk Southern	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Facebook Inc	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Valero Energy	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Northrop Grumman	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Real Estate Roundtable	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	UBS AG	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Ernst & Young	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Every Republican is Crucial PAC	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Exxon Mobil	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold	$10,000	$0	$10,000
60	American Sugar Cane League	$10,000	$0	$10,000
89	Advantage Capital Partners	$9,800	$9,800	$0
90	National Ocean Industries Assn	$9,750	$1,750	$8,000
91	National Amusements Inc	$9,500	$0	$9,500
91	General Dynamics	$9,500	$0	$9,500
91	Abbott Laboratories	$9,500	$0	$9,500
91	Textron Inc	$9,500	$0	$9,500
95	Honeywell International	$9,055	$0	$9,055
96	Wal-Mart Stores	$9,000	$0	$9,000
96	Goldman Sachs	$9,000	$0	$9,000
96	Merck & Co	$9,000	$0	$9,000
96	International Council of Shopping Cntrs	$9,000	$0	$9,000
100	Jones Walker LLP	$8,500	$1,500	$7,000
100	Berkshire Hathaway	$8,500	$500	$8,000
100	Amgen Inc	$8,500	$1,000	$7,500
100	Metlife Inc	$8,500	$0	$8,500
100	American College of Emergency Physicians	$8,500	$0	$8,500
100	General Motors	$8,500	$0	$8,500
100	Halliburton Co	$8,500	$0	$8,50

This week, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise held a “Meet Team Scalise” event to introduce Washington insiders to his staffers and his fundraising team. Given the massive outcry over Scalise’s speech to David Duke’s white supremacist organization, and new revelations that, in 1996, Scalise voted against a formal apology for slavery,1 it would be reasonable to assume that attendance was low.

According to a report by Politico, nearly 300 hundred people attended the event, including lobbyists for Comcast and American Airlines.2

It’s not terribly surprising that Republicans in the House, who have refused to fix the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act and have stood solidly in the way of any kind of real immigration reform, are happy to be led by someone who has kept company with white supremacists.

But it’s astonishing that major U.S. corporations would legitimize, and continue to fund, Scalise.

“Steve Scalise voted against apology for slavery in 1996,” Luke Brinker, Salon, 1/13/2015.
“Nearly 300 K Streeters flock to meet Steve Scalise,” Anna Palmer, Politico, 1/13/2015.

Potential donors crowded into the third floor of the Capitol Hill Club to hear from the Louisiana Republican, who welcomed everyone and thanked them for their support. His chief of staff, Lynnel Ruckert, and his political staff followed, laying out his new fundraising program. Several Scalise staffers were on hand, including his policy director Bill Hughes, member services director Eric Zulkosky and personal office chief of staff Charles Henry.

One of the attendees described it as a “locker room” style rally and related that staff said they were “looking forward to a good year.”

A source close to the Scalise political operation said the event was a kickoff and introduction to his fundraising operation. The leadership political action committee is Louisiana-themed, but will raise money to give broadly to the conference.

Dozens of K Streeters were at the event, including Sam Lancaster of Comcast, Adam Peterson of T-Mobile, Jay Cranford of Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen, Cliff Riccio of NTCA, Mike Ference of the S-3 Group, Megan Bell of NOIA and Mike Wascom of American Airlines.

No one brought up or addressed the continuing fallout from a 2002 speech Scalise gave to a white supremacist group.

More race-related news came out Tuesday when The Hill reported that Scalise voted against a resolution apologizing for slavery when he was in the statehouse.

Scalise’s office declined to comment.

Political director Tyler Daniel said last week that Scalise’s fundraising had not been affected by the news reports.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/steve-scalise-114234.html#ixzz3PIFwlRvs

Steve Scalise, Top 100 Contributors, 2013-2014, Open Secrets.

Steve Scalise, a Louisiana congressman and the number three Republican in the House,admitted on Mondaythat as a state representative, he addressed former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's European-American Unity and Rights Organization in 2002. Unsurprisingly for any group affiliated with Duke, the organization is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The story was first brought to light on Sunday night by the Louisiana-based blogCen Lamar.

Scalise's allies anonymously told Robert Costa of the Washington Post that the congressman was poorly staffed at the time, and did not really know who he was talking to. Scalise's camp is also saying that he had no idea that he was addressing a hate group. As Lamar writes, Duke himself was not present at the conference. However, as a former Senate and gubernatorial candidate, Duke was (and still is) an incredibly well known figure in Louisiana politics. If it was clear that Scalise was talking to a Duke group, it will be hard for him to plead ignorance.

Costa tweets that House GOP leaders know about the story and are keeping an eye on things. Scalise's own staff is reportedly looking at what Scalise told the group. Needless to say, Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy are hoping that Scalise can prove he did not in fact know what was going on around him. We'll see what else, if anything, comes to light.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise got some help interviewing potential new hires for his press shop from an unlikely source: a federal lobbyist.

Quinn Gillespie & Associates’ John Feehery sat in on and participated in multiple official interviews with job candidates last month for the new majority whip’s press operation. Scalise has not yet announced who he will name as his communications director.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/steve-scalise-staff-john-feehery-109739.html#ixzz39eUVgA00

Carbon-tax proposals aregoing nowhere in Congress, but the Koch brothers aren’t taking any chances.

A few non-office-holding Republicans and a few actual-office-holding Democrats are calling for a carbon tax, but the current Congress would never pass one, and even the Obama administration has said it doesn’t want one.

Still, a grandstanding Republican representative, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, is pushing a House resolution declaring that “a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy” and “to American families and businesses,” and that it would “fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes.” (Never mind that many carbon-tax proposals are designed specifically to ease burdens on low-income Americans. Facts are not of interest here.)

The billionaire oil-mogul Koch brothers — who’ve convinced many politicians to sign a “No Climate Tax Pledge” — have now hired a gang of lobbyists to push Scalise’s pointless resolution, *The Hill*reports.

Just how would a tax on carbon pollution hurt American families and businesses? Well, it might take a bite out ofthe Koch family’s coffers and the Kochs’ businesses.

Still, the Kochs really are concerned about the poor. In fact, Charles Koch is pushing his own plan for lifting people out of poverty; one key component is eliminating the minimum wage.

Click here for 9 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.

Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling. (May 2011)
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)
Member of House Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mar 2011)
No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011)

Steve Scalise on Environment
Click here for 7 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment. Full funding of 100-year flood protection. (May 2008) Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009) Voted NO on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009) Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Repeal requirements for compact fluorescent bulbs. (Jan 2011) Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)

Steve Scalise on Environment

Click here for 7 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.

Full funding of 100-year flood protection. (May 2008)
Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
Repeal requirements for compact fluorescent bulbs. (Jan 2011)
Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Steve Scalise is currently the Republican representative for the 1st Congressional District (map) of Louisiana and an incumbent candidate in the 2008 congressional elections. On May 3, 2008, he defeated Gilda Reed (D) in a special election to replace former Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-Lou.), who vacated his seat to become Governor.^[1] On November 4, 2008, Scalise defeated Democratic challenger Jim Harlan by a comfortable margin.

Contents[hide]

Positions, record and controversies

Bio

2008 elections

On May 3, Scalise defeated Gilda Reed (D) in a special election to replace former Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-Lou.), who vacated his seat to become Governor. As an incumbent, Scalise is seeking the Republican nomination to retain his seat in the November general election.^[2][1]

Money in politics

Information on this candidate's 2010 fundraising is not yet available.

Committees and affiliations

Committees

Affiliations

More background data

Contact

DC Office:

429 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Phone: (202) 225-3015

Fax: (202) 226-0386

Web Site

Web Email

Articles and resources

Sources

↑ ^1.0^ ^1.1^ J. Taylor Rushing, "Dems add to majority with Cazayoux win in La.", TheHill.com, May 4, 2008.
↑ 2008 Race Tracker page on Louisiana’s 1st Congressional District

External resources

External articles

Categories: Louisiana and the U.S. Congress | Members of the U.S. Congress from Louisiana | Congresspedia | Stubs | Republican Party (USA)

...

Now, Muller said, he's going a step further: "Humans are almost entirely the cause," Muller wrote.

Scalise said Muller's new position isn't persuasive.

"One Berkeley professor flip-flopping his opinion on global warming doesn't create any kind of consensus on this issue, and there's still vast amount of disagreement throughout the scientific community on the causes of climate change. In fact, recent scientific data shows that the earth is currently in a cooling period, and it's predicted that it will continue to cool over the next 20 years," Scalise said.

At a 2009 House hearing, Scalise challenged Gore, arguing that there isn't anywhere near the overwhelming evidence for global warming cited by the former vice president. He accused Gore of championing solutions that would put many Americans out of work while enriching people and businesses that were close to him.

Still, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2011 evidence is overwhelming that "climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems." There have been warnings about rising sea levels that would pose a serious threat to coastal communities like New Orleans, as well as more intense storms and elimination of key habitat for a wide range of fish and animals.

Muller said studies he and his research colleagues have conducted can lead to no other conclusion than that global warming is real and caused by human activities.

"Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years," Muller wrote. "Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."

Still, Muller won't go as far as some climate change researchers.

"I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong," he wrote. "I've analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn't changed."

"Hurricane Katrinacannot be attributed to global warming," Muller said. "The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren't dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren't going to melt by 2035."

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/08/former_climate_change_skeptics.html

Rep. Steve Scalise leads GOP attack on global warming regs

Published: Wednesday, February 09, 2011, 1:25 PM Updated: Wednesday, February 09, 2011, 2:07 PM

By Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans Wednesday mounted an attack on the Obama administration's plan to regulate greenhouse emissions with predictions it would stymie job creation.

John McCusker/The Times-PicayuneU.S. Rep. Steve Scalise

As is his custom, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, was among the most aggressive critics, asking Environmental Protection Administration Administrator Lisa Jackson whether she agrees with then Sen. Barack Obama who once predicted cap and trade legislation would substantially raise utility costs.

"Yes or no?" he pressed during the hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committeeon a GOP bill to bar EPA from imposing new carbon emission standards under the Clean Air Act.

Jackson said that her agency isn't implementing cap and trade legislation, which failed to pass the Senate in the last session. The new EPA regulations, she said, would not adversely impact jobs and likely would save companies money by making them more energy efficient.

Scalise said he was very disappointed that Jackson, in arguing why the nation needed to come to deal with carbon emissions that lead to climate change, suggested "global warming" was a factor in the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina when Scalise said everyone knows that the real damage from that storm was caused by failed federal levees.

Jackson said she had done no such thing, but was simply pointing out what many scientists have said -- that global warming leads to rising water levels and increased storm surge that can have devastating impact on flood-prone areas such as "my hometown" of New Orleans.

Scalise and other Louisiana lawmakers have raised particular concern about the regulation's effect on oil refineries that are a large part of Louisiana's economy.

Scalise's tough questions drew a rebuke from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who last year said he likes Scalise despite their differing views on environmental issues. Waxman said Scalise wasn't giving Jackson a chance to reply, though Waxman has been accused of that same thing in the past.

Under EPA plans, industries that are large emitters of carbons linked to global warming, would be required to implement energy efficient measures when they build new facilities or make major modifications in existing plants.

Cap and trade, the policy mentioned by Scalise that was rejected by the Senate, would set mandatory caps on reducing emissions, though industry would have the flexibility to reach the goals by getting credits from businesses that exceed the new standards.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said that the EPA regulations would put the "economy in a straitjacket" at a time when President Obama says creating jobs is the nation's No. 1 priority.

But Waxman, who chaired the panel until the GOP recaptured the House majority in the 2010 elections, said Republicans are ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is real and a major threat. The GOP bill, which would block EPA from regulating gashouse emissions, is called the Energy Tax Prevention Act, but "that is total nonsense, Waxman said.

'"What this bill should be called is the Big Polluter Protection Act," Waxman said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who once famously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that even if he is wrong the new regulations won't be effective. U.S. businesses, he predicted, will flee he new regulations by relocating operations to China, India and other nations that won't impose tough regulations.

Jackson said there's no doubt global warming is real.

"Eighteen of America's leading scientific societies have written that multiple lines of evidence show humans are changing the climate, that contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science, and that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and the environment," Jackson said.

Quotes by Steve Scalise	vs	What the Science Says
"they are trying to actually change our economy in the United States in a way that would run millions of jobs out of this country." 8 March 2011 (Source)	http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.	http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.
"we saw in Climategate, they used a trick to hide the decline." 8 March 2011 (Source)	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.	The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
"there is dispute over this claim that man is the cause of global warming." 8 March 2011 (Source)	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.	Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.
"I think it is clear that the science is not settled." 8 March 2011 (Source)	That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.	That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by observations.

Fact Check from Climate Hearings: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

ByHeather Shelby | Bio |Published:May 21, 2009

This bill would give the "global warming Gestapo" the power to throw senior citizens out of their homes, if the homes are not up to energy-efficient building standards."A senior citizen whose home is destroyed by a tornado .. and she wants to rebuild .. if she doesn't rebuild according to the rules in this bill .. she is declared an unlawful occupant of her own home." – Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA-01)

First of all, state and local laws already require construction to meet current codes when homes are built or re-built. So, there's nothing new here.

And it's a good thing — it's how we make sure homes are safe, healthy, livable and efficient. It's also how we make sure senior citizens (and everybody else) aren't taken advantage of by shoddy or unscrupulous builders.

What the Waxman-Markey bill does is set some broad national efficiency targets for new construction. The bill leaves it up to cities, states and building code associations to decide how to meet them — based on local weather and climate, cost-effectiveness for the region and local preferences.

In other words — pretty much the same system we've got now.

More importantly, the national efficiency targets require that code changes are cost effective and save people money on their power bills. Senior citizens would appreciate lower utility bills at least as much as anyone else. They would be unlikely to argue strenuously against a provision that will immediately reduce their monthly expenses and will ultimately put more money in their pocket.

As for "global warming Gestapo" .. we don't think cute alliteration justifies anything that offensive.

This entry was posted in 395. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Paul Ryan Voted To Block The USDA From Preparing For Climate Change. In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of the Scalise (R-LA) Amendment to the FY12 Agriculture Appropriations bill, to bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing its Climate Protection Plan. Roll Call 448, [6/16/11]

Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate White House Climate Advisers. Ryan voted in favor of Scalise (R-LA) Amendment 204 to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, to eliminate the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, the special envoy for climate change (Todd Stern), and the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. Roll Call 87, [2/17/11]

Scalise: Worth a Study

By Quin Hillyer on 1.7.11 @ 6:08AM

A new conservative communicator you'll be hearing from.

For years, the Republican Study Committee has been Command Central for true conservatives in the House -- a sort of internal think tank for those more interested in ideas than in careerism. It will be chaired this year by rising star Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio -- and its new head of communications will be Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who is perfectly suited for the task. Scalise also has been making a name for himself as an aggressive and effective advocate for energy exploration and development. In a relaxed interview on the Gulf Coast during the Christmas break, he had plenty of interesting things to say, including a clever and accurate way to turn around an epithet the Democrats and establishment media (forgive me for repeating myself) like to hurl at Republicans.

Forget Republicans being the "Party of No," says Scalise. It is Barack Obama who risks becoming "The President of 'No'." It is Republicans who are pushing a thoughtful and popular agenda, and the president vetoes or otherwise blocks that agenda at his own political peril.

1	Edison Chouest Offshore	$22,900	$22,900	$0
2	AT&T Inc	$12,500	$0	$12,500
2	Comcast Corp	$12,500	$0	$12,500
4	United Parcel Service	$11,500	$0	$11,500
5	Chailland Business Services	$11,000	$11,000	$0
5	Liberty Media	$11,000	$0	$11,000
7	B&G Food Enterprises	$10,411	$10,411	$0
8	American Dental Assn	$10,000	$0	$10,000
8	Linfield, Hunter & Junius	$10,000	$10,000	$0
8	Mac-Re LLC	$10,000	$10,000	$0
8	Koch Industries	$10,000	$0	$10,000
8	National Cable & Telecommunications Assn	$10,000	$0	$10,000
8	Time Warner Cable	$10,000	$0	$10,000
14	Zito Companies	$9,900	$9,900	$0
15	Morris & Dickson	$9,700	$9,700	$0
16	Verizon Communications	$9,000	$0	$9,000
17	Bollinger Shipyards	$8,650	$8,650	$0
18	Adams & Reese	$8,500	$0	$8,500
19	Stirling Properties	$8,400	$8,400	$0
20	Bertucci Contracting	$7,500	$7,500	$0
20	Chevron Corp	$7,500	$0	$7,500
20	Woodvine Group	$7,500	$7,500	$0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k24pdO1HSCo sect 201 lowrs bldg standards?! would prvent ppl from using stronger windows? global warming police (feds can charge you for inspection too) Gestapo

May 20, 2009: Debating the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454), Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) argues establishing federal building energy efficiency standards would create a "global warming gestapo" and violate the third and tenth amendments.

Without irony, Scalise argues that fighting global warming would threaten the health and safety of Lousianans in danger of hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes. He ignores the difference between energy efficiency building codes and fire and safety codes, and the fact that the legislation does not affect local efficiency codes that meet or exceed the national standard.

SCALISE: Here, with really no debate, we're creating a federal code that trumps all of the states' codes and in some cases would actually lower the standards that states have for building.

And if you go back to why we have building codes and why states have done this, the purpose typically is to protect safety and health. Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it's literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I'm in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage -- which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina -- under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can't use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don't want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

And then what does that mean? Let's go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We're actually creating a global warming police. To page 235: "The Secretary may set and collect reasonable inspection fees to cover the costs of inspections required." So number one, they can come in, the federal government can come in and inspect your house and send you the bill. And if they find that you're out of compliance with this new federal code, "The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section." And then further to page 236: "Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation." We're setting up a global warming gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, "unlawful occupancy." Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0Ryek7rHk&feature=related

infowars

Al Gore Caught lying!! Denies that Ken Lay, Goldman Sachs CEOs Helped Develop C02 Trading 'Scheme'

Credit:urWURLDnow

http://www.youtube.com/user/urWURLDnow

After insisting once again that there is a consensus on Man-made Global Warming (while paradoxically comparing those not in consensus with those who deny the moon landing), Al Gore denies, downplays and refuses to discuss the role that CEOs played in crafting his Cap-and-Trade C02 trading schemes.

Rep. Scalise points out that Gore met with Ken Lay, of ENRON-fraud fame circa 1998, as well as top members of Goldman Sachs-- all of which Al Gore obscures and denies.

In point of fact, Al Gore's founding partner in the sustainability-investment firm Generation Investment Management, LLC is none other than David Blood, CEO of Goldman Sachs' asset-management division until 2003. Gore-Blood founding their Carbon-trading Corp. in 2004.

http://www.generationim.com/citizenship/partnerships.html

Although Gore refuses to address the issue, Rep. Scalise makes a direct point in the fact that many of the people and associated firms that caused our current and widespread economic crisis were involved in developing this and other related proposals.

How then, could such people be trusted? Gore's only response is to question whether Scalise means to consider him 'guilty by association.

Steve Scalise at CPAC: Climate Change Is a Myth Because Obama Was Cold at the Inauguration

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Friday 03/15/2013, 3:50pm

At CPAC today, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) argued that climate change is a myth and doesn’t need to be addressed, noting that President Obama was cold during the inauguration. “He talked about global warming at his inauguration, I found it ironic that the President was wearing a trench coat it was so cold but he’s talking about global warming,” Scalise said. He also noted that a snow storm later cancelled a congressional hearing on climate change, “you can’t make this stuff up.” Of course, climate change is actually leading to more incidences of... MORE >

Rep. Scalise: Obama Is Attacking Freedom, History Has Redeemed Bush Tax Cuts

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Friday 02/15/2013, 12:00pm

Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) appeared on Washington Watch with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday to discuss the State of the Union address where he pushed the standard right-wing canards that President Obama is leading an attack on freedom and trying to exploit “tragedies that he uses to his own benefit.” Perkins: There’s not been an administration that’s been more hostile to our first freedom, our fundamental right of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Scalise: Right, look, just go in order. Right after that, he’s... MORE >

Rep. Steve Scalise Says Republicans Were the Real Winners of the 2012 Election

SUBMITTED BY: Brian Tashman, Monday 01/07/2013, 4:20pm

Apparently, Republicans were the big winner of the 2012 election! Or so says Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who on Friday told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins that conservatives in the House won a “mandate” in 2012. “I think if you look at the country, even in the results of this election, we’re still a center-right nation,” Scalise said in the interview, “the House and the House conservatives did win and we’re there with a mandate to fight for the values that we believe in." That’s right, losing the White House by a 332-206... MORE >

Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana is the new face of the conservative movement in the House of Representatives. At least according to the Republican Study Committee, a caucus representing the right wing of the party.

The RSC elected Scalise to be their new chairman Thursday, taking over from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio. Scalise beat Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia for the position, despite the fact that the committee’s founders and past chairmen came out in support of Graves.

“From the beginning I felt like this ought to be a member-driven organization and the members should decide who’s the next chairman,” Scalise told the Alley.

Scalise said that Graves ran a great campaign for the position and that the major differences between the two of them was not in policy but in leadership style.

“The American people chose the Republican House to serve as the only line of defense against Barack Obama’s liberal agenda, and the RSC must stand tall as the conservative rudder, steering the House towards more conservative solutions as we work to get our country back on the right track,” he said in a statement.

n the end, of course, Boehner won handily, with barely enough people voting against him to make it into the double digits. However, those who did vote against him were among the House’s most stalwart conservatives, and almost without exception, their votes – for candidates such as Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) – went to candidates who were members of one little known, but highly influential group: The Republican Study Committee, or RSC.

Meet Steve Scalise, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and New Conscience for House Conservatives

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Photo Credit: AP)

For those with knowledge of the inner workings of Congress, this fact should surprise no one. The RSC, which is known in many circles as the voice of committed conservatives within the House of Representatives, boasts an impressive 170 members of Congress, all Republicans, in its ranks. In other words, while Republicans control the majority in the House, the RSC controls the majority of the Republicans. This may explain why the last minute fiscal cliff deal, which garnered opposition from House conservatives generally, and the RSC especially, passed thanks to the votes of Democrats, rather than Republicans. Such is the pull of this little known group.

Meet Steve Scalise, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and New Conscience for House Conservatives

Paul Weyrich, founder of the RSC (Photo Credit: AP)

The history of the RSC reads in some ways like a who’s who of conservatism. Founded in 1973 by conservative organizing giant Paul Weyrich, who would later go on to found the Heritage Foundation as well, and in whose name a weekly lunch is still held for conservatives. The RSC was explicitly designed to keep a handle on Republican congressional leaders and prevent them from moderating too aggressively. Given that 7 of 9 members of the current Republican leadership in the House are themselves members of the RSC (Speaker Boehner and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy being the lone exceptions), this mission is presumably much easier in the present climate.

It is not difficult to see why ambitious politicians would flock to this group. Among its past members are two former Vice Presidents (Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney), as well as seven sitting Senators and three sitting Governors. Of those Governors, Mike Pence, the current Governor of Indiana, and a man who many floated in the last election as a Presidential prospect, and no doubt will be floated again in 2016, spent two years as leader of the RSC. Jim Jordan, who until this year was the chair of the RSC, earned more than a few feathers in his cap by nearly passing a budget that outpaced even Rep. Paul Ryan’s in fiscal conservatism, and acting as one of Boehner’s lead internal critics on the debt ceiling deal two years ago.

Meet Steve Scalise, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and New Conscience for House Conservatives

Speaker John Boehner (left) and Rep. Jim Jordan (right) (Photo Credit: AP)

Here’s Jordan explaining his opposition to making “deals” over taxation:

However, now that Jordan has stepped down, a new face has assumed control of the group, and with it, the position of “conscience” for House conservatives. That new leader is Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who was described by the American Spectator this way prior to his election:

In just four years, Scalise has forged a reputation as an intelligent bulldog with an appetite for chomping away at big government. Consider several of his high-profile accomplishments.

First, Scalise authored an amendment that made it all the way into law, despite objections from President Obama, that eliminated four of Obama’s unaccountable policy “czars.”

Second, while everybody else in a committee hearing seemed to be kowtowing to the supposed moral authority of former Vice President Al Gore on cap-and-trade legislation, Scalise effectively raked Gore over the coals, as can be seen in this video link. (He did much the same to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, calling him to account for Chu’s earlier advocacy of high gas prices as a good idea and blasting him for his role in the Solyndra scandal.) Indeed, Scalise has made himself perhaps the “go-to guy” for all House conservatives when it comes to energy policy.

Third — and this one was fun — Scalise almost single-handedly stopped Barack Obama from being the Grinch who taxed Christmas trees. Obama tried to assess a 15-cent tax on trees as a “fee,” but Scalise got wind of it and, as Fox News noted, raised such a stink that Obama was forced to reverse himself.[...]

His conservative interest-group ratings are strong, too: 97 lifetime from the American Conservative Union, 100 lifetime from National Right to Life, 100 lifetime from the National Federation of Independent business, and an A+ from the National Rifle Association.

Meet Steve Scalise, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and New Conscience for House Conservatives

Rep. Steve Scalise (Photo Credit: AP)

Scalise won election to his position by a close vote against Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia, and is already generating buzz. Said one Senior GOP aide, “RSC Chairman Jim Jordan is a hard act to follow, but it looks to most folks I know that Chairman Scalise is doing it. He’s already pushing back against leadership, advancing some conservative ideas, and banking some wins.”

Here’s Scalise talking about the necessity for serious solutions after the 2012 election on CBS:

To find out how Scalise himself plans to keep “banking wins,” TheBlaze interviewed him via email about his view of the future of the conservative movement broadly and the Republican Study Committee specifically:

TheBlaze: What do you see as the key issues for the conservative movement in the present climate?

Scalise: The primary issue for the conservative movement is preserving the American Dream for our children by cutting spending and getting us on a path to balance the federal budget. I have two young children and every vote I take I think about the impact it will have an their ability to have the same opportunities I enjoyed when I grew up. Washington needs to work towards solutions that will reduce our debt and deficit so that we can get our economy back on track and future generations are not burdened by our mistakes today.

TheBlaze: In the past, you have stated that the RSC “needs to actually focus on implementing conservative solutions.” What conservative solutions do you think should be offered, and to which issues? Will you be introducing legislation on these issues?

Scalise: There is a place for conservative solutions to all the big problems that are currently facing America and I plan for the RSC to continue bringing legislation forward to solve those problems from a conservative perspective. One example of legislation RSC will be promoting involves health care, where our Members have bills not only to repeal Obamacare, but also to replace it with conservative solutions that will lower costs for families by promoting competition and innovation without the taxes and mandates in the President’s law. We also plan on bringing an RSC jobs bill that focuses on economic growth by lowering tax rates, increasing American energy production, and rolling back the radical regulations that are killing jobs and stifling growth.

RSC members have and will continue to produce conservative legislation. The latest conservative solution that is being embraced by leadership is achieving a balanced budget in 10 years, which was has been a hallmark of the RSC’s budget.

TheBlaze: Given that you control a majority of House Republicans, including 7 of the 9 current members of leadership, how closely do you expect to work with the leadership to push the RSC’s goals?

Scalise: The job of the RSC is to be the conservative rudder of the House, and that means we should fight to promote conservative legislation to our nation’s problems and push our leadership to bring those bills to the House Floor, but we also stand ready to pull our leadership back to the right when they veer off course.

TheBlaze: You’ve stated in the past that it is necessary for Republicans to “unite as conservatives if we’re going to get things done.” How far does the necessity to unite extend? Will you still push back on leadership?

Scalise: With more than 165 members, the RSC is a powerful bloc of votes in the Republican conference, and I intend to unify the RSC around conservative solutions as we present common sense alternatives to the problems facing our nation. House Republicans have been most united when we are fighting for conservative principles, whether it was our support for the RSC-proposed “Cut, Cap, and Balance” legislation, or our united opposition to the failed stimulus and Obamacare. There will be times when we are in agreement with our leadership’s approach to the challenges we face, but there will also be times when we disagree with our leadership. During those times when we disagree with our leadership, we will work to pull them back to the right, but also stand ready to fight any proposals that violate our conservative principles.

TheBlaze: What areas of public policy do you think conservatives have ignored to their detriment?

Scalise: Conservatives have not paid enough attention to getting our agenda enacted into law. We have come up with great solutions to America’s problems, but have been largely unsuccessful at getting conservative policy enacted. A bill that does not get passed, no matter how great the bill is, does not help American families who are struggling under the weight of Obama’s failed agenda, and this Congress I hope to work with the RSC to pass bills that will help preserve the American Dream, put us on the path to a balanced budget, and finally cut spending so we can reduce the mountain of debt that has been piled on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

TheBlaze: The RSC was founded by Paul Weyrich, who was never elected to Congress. Do you foresee grassroots activists and other outsiders being able to influence Congress so directly in the future?

Scalise: I see the grassroots as an important part of the RSC, and in fact just Wednesday I spoke at the Weyrich lunch. The RSC would not be the powerful force we are today without this strong grassroots influence, and I look forward to continuing to work with conservative outside groups to help us achieve our shared beliefs and goals so we can advance the conservative movement.

Scalise, S REP

With Trump’s potential reelection just weeks away, he and his supporters have ramped up disinformation efforts well aware that there’s no one willing to stop them.

The press and tech companies need to incentivize truthfulness, and that means ensuring that the political and social cost of lying outweighs the benefits.

2 Views on How Climate Solutions Caucus Voted

The Conversation Is Shifting: Republicans Consider Carbon Pricing

Curbelo: Resolution Presented 'a False Choice'

The House Debate

Positions, record and controversies

Bio

2008 elections

Money in politics

Committees and affiliations

Committees

Affiliations

More background data

Contact

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

Sources

External resources

External articles

Rep. Steve Scalise leads GOP attack on global warming regs

Published: Wednesday, February 09, 2011, 1:25 PM Updated: Wednesday, February 09, 2011, 2:07 PM

Fact Check from Climate Hearings: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

Scalise: Worth a Study

Al Gore Caught lying!! Denies that Ken Lay, Goldman Sachs CEOs Helped Develop C02 Trading 'Scheme'

Attachments