senate2bak
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">html broken 4/19</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
senate2419
recover
=
see main
post 1/16
=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">lcv gop 2018 top green!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">McCain, JohnRAZN/A20%
Collins, Susan M.RME21%61%
Murkowski, Lisa A.RAK14%17%
Moran, JerryRKS14%8%
McConnell, MitchRKY14%7%
Daines, SteveRMT14%4%
Sasse, Benjamin EricRNE14%3%
Burr, Richard M.RNC14%8%
Inhofe, James M.ROK14%5%
Thune, John R.RSD14%10%
Cruz, TedRTX14%4%
Hyde-Smith, CindyRMS8%8%
Shelby, Richard C.RAL7%13%
Sullivan, DanRAK7%7%
Flake, JeffRAZ7%8%
Boozman, John N.RAR7%7%
Gardner, CoryRCO7%10%
Perdue, DavidRGA7%1%
Isakson, Johnny H.RGA7%9%
Risch, JimRID7%7%
Crapo, Michael D.RID7%6%
Young, ToddRIN7%3%
Ernst, JoniRIA7%1%
Roberts, PatRKS7%9%
Paul, RandRKY7%8%
Kennedy, John NeelyRLA7%3%
Cassidy, BillRLA7%7%
Wicker, Roger F.RMS7%5%
Blunt, RoyRMO7%5%
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dems 2018 lcv</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Harris, KamalaDCA100%100%
Bennet, MichaelDCO100%90%
Murphy, Chris S.DCT100%96%
Blumenthal, RichardDCT100%97%
Carper, TomDDE100%83%
Coons, ChrisDDE100%93%
Hirono, Mazie K.DHI100%95%
Schatz, Brian EmanuelDHI100%97%
Durbin, DickDIL100%88%
Cardin, Benjamin L.DMD100%92%
Van Hollen, ChrisDMD100%98%
Markey, EdDMA100%94%
Warren, ElizabethDMA100%99%
Stabenow, DebbieDMI100%89%
Peters, Gary C.DMI100%93%
Klobuchar, AmyDMN100%96%
Smith, TinaDMN100%100%
Cortez Masto, CatherineDNV100%94%
Hassan, Margaret WoodDNH100%100%
Menendez, RobertDNJ100%95%
Booker, Cory AnthonyDNJ100%99%
Udall, Tom S.DNM100%96%
Gillibrand, Kirsten E.DNY100%95%
Schumer, ChuckDNY100%92%
Brown, Sherrod C.DOH100%94%
Wyden, RonDOR100%91%
Merkley, JeffDOR100%99%
Whitehouse, SheldonDRI100%98%
Reed, JackDRI100%97%
=
OMFG
vs gop
top scores
Sen burr leak WH
https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/gop-gang-of-eight-senator-leaked-all-five-major-trump-linked-targets-of-mueller-probe-to-the-white-house-after-fbi-briefing
https://www.ecowatch.com/senate-passes-conservation-bill-2628872795.html
In a rare bipartisan push, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of a major public landspackage on Tuesday.
The Natural Resources Management Act, approved 92-8, establishes 1.3 million acres of new wilderness, adds 694,000 acres of new recreation and conservation areas, creates four new national monuments, among other important conservation measures, according to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), who introduced the bill with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).
Significantly, the Cantwell-Murkowski package also permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is considered America's most important conservation and recreation program.
The LWCF was established by Congress in 1964 and is funded by fees and royalties from federal offshore oil and gas leases. More than 42,000 state and local projects across the country are supported by the program but it expired last September because Congress failed to reauthorize and fund the program.
"The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a pre-eminent program for access to public lands," Cantwell said in a press release. "It gives local communities the tools and resources to manage public lands, to give more access to the American people, to do the things that will help us grow jobs and preserve against a very challenging and threatening climate."
The measure is the largest public lands bill considered by Congress in a decade, the Associated Pressnoted. The 662-page document contains more than 110 individual bills, including provisions sponsored by dozens of senators on both sides of the aisle.
Murkowski told the AP it was a "very, very collaborative" process.
Other notable provisions include 367 miles of new " Wild & Scenic Rivers" and 2,600 miles of new national trails. The Washington Post also pointed out that the bill includes funds for the the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act through 2022 to provide habitat protection for more than 380 bird species; a permanent mining ban on 370,000 acres around Yellowstone and North Cascades national parks; and codification of the Obama-era Every Kid Outdoors Act that allows free admission to national parks for fourth graders and their families.
The new national monuments proposed by the bill include the Mississippi home of civil rights activists Medgar and Myrlie Evers, as well as the Mill Springs Civil War battlefield in Kentucky.
What's more, the Congressional Budget Office projects the bill will save taxpayers $9 million, the Post reported.
It now heads to the House of Representatives, which is expected to "quickly" take up the bill and pass it, Cantwell's office said in the release.
The Senate's overwhelming support of the bill is contrasted by the Trump administration's drastic slashing public lands in favor of mining, drilling and other development. Incidentally, the Post reported that "White House officials have indicated privately that the president will sign it."
...
After The Intercept reported over the weekend that a bipartisan group of senators is pushing, as its first legislative priority, a bill that would hand states more power to punish boycotts of Israel—even as the prolonged and deeply harmful government shutdown continues into its third week—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday condemned the legislation itself and urged Democrats to block any bills that are not related to reopening the government.
“It’s absurd that the first bill during the shutdown is legislation which punishes Americans who exercise their constitutional right to engage in political activity. Democrats must block consideration of any bills that don’t reopen the government,” Sanders wrote on Twitter. “Let’s get our priorities right.”
?@SenSanders
It’s absurd that the first bill during the shutdown is legislation which punishes Americans who exercise their constitutional right to engage in political activity. Democrats must block consideration of any bills that don’t reopen the government. Let's get our priorities right. [twit]
Sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the legislation would give states and localities more legal authority to punish companies that participate in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Kathleen Ruane, senior legislative counsel with the ACLU, condemned the measure as an attack on Americans’ First Amendment rights that must be voted down.
“In the midst of a partial government shutdown, Democratic and Republican senators have decided that one of their first orders of business… should be to sneak through a bill that would weaken Americans’ First Amendment protections,” Ruane declared.
“The bill, Combatting BDS Act, encourages states to adopt the very same anti-boycott laws that two federal courts blocked on First Amendment grounds,” she continued. “The legislation, like the unconstitutional state anti-boycott laws it condones, sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government. We therefore urge senators to vote no on the Combatting BDS Act.”
According to The Intercept‘s Ryan Grim and Glenn Greenwald, “26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.”
“Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity,” Grim and Greenwald noted. “That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.”
In the last Congress, Rubio’s bill was co-sponsored by six received the backing of at least six Democrats who are still in the Senate: Bob Menendez (N.J.); Joe Manchin (W.Va.); Ben Cardin (Md.); Ron Wyden (Ore.); Gary Peters (Mich.); and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.).
As The Intercept reported, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) “plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it.” If all seven Democrats back Rubio’s bill, it will have enough votes to pass the Senate.
Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, expressed outrage at Rubio’s legislation, and Schumer’s support for it, on Twitter.
“It’s horrifying that Sen. Schumer and the Democratic leadership’s first Senate bill (‘S. 1’) allows state and local governments to boycott U.S. companies which boycott Israel,” Shahid wrote. “How is this the first priority?”
fail:
https://www.alternet.org/gop-rejects-call-curb-us-funding-slaughter-yemeni-kids
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday denounced as "mind blowing" the decision to "continue to willingly participate in the slaughter of Yemeni kids" after Republicans objected to his amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill that would have put key restrictions on U.S. financial and other support for the Saudi-led bombing campaign.
The Republicans objected.
It’s just unthinkable to me that we continue to willingly participate in the slaughter of Yemeni kids when there is zero benefit to U.S. security. Mind blowing really. https://t.co/p6qbrfRGoe
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 22, 2018
The amendment "would cut off United States' support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition's war in Yemen until the Secretary of Defense certified that the coalition's air campaign is not violating international law and U.S. policy related to the protection of civilians," a press statemnt from Murphy's office states.
Win Without War had called the amendment "our big chance to slam on the brakes and stop our role in enabling the suffering in Yemen." Yet Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, objected to Murphy's amendment, despite saying that "what's going on in Yemen is atrocious."
Speaking on the Senate floor next to a photo of a Yemeni community center bombed when a funeral was underway, Murphy gave a damning assessment of the catastrophe the U.S. has helped fuel. "The United States is a key player in this bombing campaign," he noted.
"It shouldn’t be on our conscience as a nation to be part of this humanitarian catastrophe." Sen. @ChrisMurphyCT is 100% right: U.S. involvement in Saudi-led war in #Yemen is profoundly immoral and unacceptable. pic.twitter.com/GXqboofQJ3
— Win Without War (@WinWithoutWar) August 22, 2018
In his floor speech, Murphy said that "the targeting of civilians inside Yemen is getting worse, not better," and referenced an event he said should underscore the urgency of his amendment—the coalition's bombing earlier this month of a school bus in Yemen that killed 40 children.
"The Saudis' initial reaction was that it was a legitimate military target," Murphy said. "There's no way a school bus is a legitimate military target. That school bus was carrying dozens of children—dozens of children that are now dead because of a 500-pound bomb made in the United States and sold to the coalition."
The amendment doesn't even put a full stop on U.S. support but merely requires "the administration to certify that civilians aren't intentionally getting targeted in contravention of U.S. law before we continue to support this funding," Murphy said.
"At some point we need to believe our eyes rather than the reports we get from the administration that the targeting is getting better," he said, yet the "problem is [that the coalition's] targets are [a] school bus, funerals, water treatment facilities." He said U.S. support, which includes military support and intelligence, makes it so that the coalition "can more effectively hit their civilian targets with the bombs that we are selling."
"The fact of the matter is the majority of the civilian casualties are caused by the side that we are supporting," Murphy said.
"The campaign is not expediting a political end," he argued. "It is prolonging the misery and giving more opportunity for our mortal enemies there, the terrorist groups to get stronger and stronger."
"We are radicalizing a generation of Yemeni children against us and that will have implications for U.S. National security for years to come," he warned.
Watch Murphy's full speech below:
=
inhofe rolls on pru
Chair of Senate Environment Panel to Call Scott Pruitt to Testify on Scandals
The Republican chairman of the Senate committee with oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to call the agency's embattled chief Scott Pruitt to testify, specifically in response to multiple scandals and investigations surrounding the administrator.
Through a spokesperson, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., informed Reuters of his decision to compel Pruitt to come before the Environment and Public Works Committee to answer questions about his alleged abuse of his office.
...
538
Kirsten E. Gillibrand
D
NY
8.2%
-22.5
23.1%
-14.9
Jeff Merkley
D
OR
9.6%
-11.0
33.9%
-24.3
Elizabeth Warren
D
MA
9.6%
-27.2
20.6%
-11.0
Bernard Sanders
I
VT
11.0%
-26.4
21.0%
-10.0
Cory A. Booker
D
NJ
12.3%
-14.1
30.1%
-17.8
Edward J. Markey
D
MA
12.5%
-27.2
20.8%
-8.3
Kamala D. Harris
D
CA
15.1%
-30.1
19.3%
-4.2
Ron Wyden
D
OR
16.4%
-11.0
33.9%
-17.5
Richard Blumenthal
D
CT
19.4%
-13.6
30.5%
-11.1
Mazie K. Hirono
D
HI
21.9%
-32.2
18.5%
+3.5
Tammy Baldwin
D
WI
22.2%
+0.8
55.5%
-33.2
Chris Van Hollen
D
MD
22.2%
-26.4
21.2%
+1.0
Robert Menendez
D
NJ
22.5%
-14.1
28.2%
-5.7
Richard J. Durbin
D
IL
22.5%
-17.1
26.5%
-3.9
Patty Murray
D
WA
23.3%
-15.5
28.6%
-5.4
Al Franken
D
MN
23.6%
-1.5
49.5%
-25.9
Tom Udall
D
NM
24.7%
-8.2
38.0%
-13.4
Maria Cantwell
D
WA
24.7%
-15.5
28.6%
-4.0
Sheldon Whitehouse
D
RI
24.7%
-15.5
28.6%
-4.0
Charles E. Schumer
D
NY
24.7%
-22.5
23.1%
+1.5
Patrick J. Leahy
D
VT
24.7%
-26.4
21.0%
+3.7
Brian Schatz
D
HI
24.7%
-32.2
18.5%
+6.2
Tina Smith
D
MN
25.0%
-1.5
48.7%
-23.7
Christopher Murphy
D
CT
25.0%
-13.6
30.5%
-5.5
Tammy Duckworth
D
IL
25.4%
-17.1
26.5%
-1.2
Jack Reed
D
RI
26.0%
-15.5
28.6%
-2.6
Benjamin L. Cardin
D
MD
26.0%
-26.4
20.9%
+5.1
Martin Heinrich
D
NM
26.4%
-8.2
38.0%
-11.6
Dianne Feinstein
D
CA
26.4%
-30.1
19.5%
+6.9
Sherrod Brown
D
OH
28.8%
+8.1
69.8%
-41.0
Michael F. Bennet
D
CO
28.8%
-4.9
43.8%
-15.0
Robert P. Casey Jr.
D
PA
30.1%
+0.7
55.1%
-25.0
Amy Klobuchar
D
MN
30.1%
-1.5
50.5%
-20.3
Debbie Stabenow
D
MI
31.5%
+0.2
54.1%
-22.6
Gary C. Peters
D
MI
31.9%
+0.2
54.1%
-22.1
Margaret Wood Hassan
D
NH
32.9%
-0.4
52.9%
-20.0
Catherine Cortez Masto
D
NV
32.9%
-2.4
48.6%
-15.8
Christopher A. Coons
D
DE
33.3%
-11.4
33.6%
-0.3
Jeanne Shaheen
D
NH
34.2%
-0.4
52.9%
-18.6
Tim Kaine
D
VA
34.2%
-5.3
43.0%
-8.8
Thomas R. Carper
D
DE
35.6%
-11.4
33.3%
+2.3
Jon Tester
D
MT
37.0%
+20.4
85.6%
-48.6
Bill Nelson
D
FL
43.1%
+1.2
56.4%
-13.3
Mark R. Warner
D
VA
43.8%
-5.3
43.0%
+0.8
Claire McCaskill
D
MO
45.8%
+18.6
84.0%
-38.2
Angus S. King Jr.
I
ME
46.6%
-3.0
47.6%
-1.0
Joe Donnelly
D
IN
55.6%
+19.2
84.4%
-28.8
Heidi Heitkamp
D
ND
56.2%
+35.7
92.7%
-36.5
Doug Jones
D
AL
56.3%
+27.7
89.6%
-33.3
Joe Manchin III
D
WV
61.6%
+42.2
93.4%
-31.8
Rand Paul
R
KY
74.3%
+29.8
91.0%
-16.7
Susan M. Collins
R
ME
80.8%
-3.0
47.6%
+33.3
Mike Lee
R
UT
82.2%
+18.1
83.5%
-1.3
John McCain
R
AZ
83.0%
+3.5
61.2%
+21.9
Lisa Murkowski
R
AK
83.3%
+14.7
79.5%
+3.9
Jeff Flake
R
AZ
84.1%
+3.5
59.8%
+24.2
Bob Corker
R
TN
84.5%
+26.0
89.2%
-4.7
Ben Sasse
R
NE
87.5%
+25.0
89.1%
-1.6
Steve Daines
R
MT
89.0%
+20.4
85.6%
+3.4
John Kennedy
R
LA
89.0%
+19.6
84.9%
+4.1
Lindsey Graham
R
SC
89.0%
+14.3
79.1%
+9.9
Michael B. Enzi
R
WY
90.4%
+46.3
93.6%
-3.2
James E. Risch
R
ID
90.4%
+31.8
91.8%
-1.3
Luther Strange
R
AL
91.1%
+27.7
88.7%
+2.4
Patrick J. Toomey
R
PA
91.4%
+0.7
54.5%
+36.9
Mike Crapo
R
ID
91.7%
+31.8
91.7%
0.0
James Lankford
R
OK
91.8%
+36.4
92.8%
-1.0
Joni Ernst
R
IA
91.8%
+9.4
72.0%
+19.8
Chuck Grassley
R
IA
91.8%
+9.4
72.0%
+19.8
Ted Cruz
R
TX
91.8%
+9.0
71.3%
+20.5
Ron Johnson
R
WI
91.8%
+0.8
55.2%
+36.6
Dean Heller
R
NV
91.8%
-2.4
48.6%
+43.1
Cory Gardner
R
CO
91.8%
-4.9
43.8%
+48.0
John Barrasso
R
WY
93.2%
+46.3
93.6%
-0.5
Mike Rounds
R
SD
93.2%
+29.8
91.1%
+2.1
Tom Cotton
R
AR
93.2%
+26.9
89.9%
+3.3
Deb Fischer
R
NE
93.2%
+25.0
88.9%
+4.3
Lamar Alexander
R
TN
94.3%
+26.0
89.0%
+5.3
Dan Sullivan
R
AK
94.3%
+14.7
79.6%
+14.7
Jerry Moran
R
KS
94.4%
+20.6
85.6%
+8.8
David Perdue
R
GA
94.4%
+5.2
63.7%
+30.7
James M. Inhofe
R
OK
94.5%
+36.4
92.8%
+1.7
Bill Cassidy
R
LA
94.5%
+19.6
84.9%
+9.6
Todd Young
R
IN
94.5%
+19.2
84.5%
+10.0
Rob Portman
R
OH
94.5%
+8.1
69.8%
+24.8
Johnny Isakson
R
GA
94.6%
+5.2
63.1%
+31.6
Richard Burr
R
NC
95.8%
+3.7
60.6%
+35.2
Shelley Moore Capito
R
WV
95.8%
+42.2
93.4%
+2.5
Mitch McConnell
R
KY
95.8%
+29.8
91.0%
+4.8
John Thune
R
SD
95.9%
+29.8
91.1%
+4.8
Richard C. Shelby
R
AL
95.9%
+27.7
90.3%
+5.6
Tim Scott
R
SC
95.9%
+14.3
79.1%
+16.8
Thom Tillis
R
NC
95.9%
+3.7
61.2%
+34.7
Thad Cochran
R
MS
97.1%
+17.8
83.0%
+14.1
Marco Rubio
R
FL
97.2%
+1.2
55.7%
+41.5
John Hoeven
R
ND
97.3%
+35.7
92.7%
+4.6
John Boozman
R
AR
97.3%
+26.9
89.9%
+7.4
Pat Roberts
R
KS
97.3%
+20.6
85.8%
+11.5
Roy Blunt
R
MO
97.3%
+18.6
84.0%
+13.3
Orrin G. Hatch
R
UT
97.3%
+18.1
83.5%
+13.8
Roger F. Wicker
R
MS
97.3%
+17.8
83.2%
+14.1
John Cornyn
R
TX
97.3%
+9.0
71.3%
+26.0
Jeff Sessions
R
AL
100.0%
+27.7
95.8%
+4.2
Cindy Hyde-Smith
R
MS
100.0%
+17.8
86.1%
+13.9
=
Industry, enviros fight over mining add-ons in authorization bill
Nick Sobczyk and Dylan Brown, E&E News reporters
Published: Tuesday, June 12, 2018
The Senate is set to advance controversial legislation to pave the way for a major copper-nickel mine in Minnesota as part of its annual defense authorization bill.
kigali amend to montreal protocol
kennedy murkowski collins...
13 Republican senators are urging President Trump to back a policy achieved under former President Obama that they say would create American manufacturing jobs. It would also cut greenhouse gas emissions, but that went unmentioned.
Why it matters: In a letter, dated last week and obtained by Axios on Monday, the senators don’t mention "Obama" or "climate change." It's one of the starkest signs of how the Republican Party is willing to support efforts cutting emissions as long as they don’t mention one of these two hyper-polarizing topics.
Last week the Senate passed the fy18 omnibus spending package to keep the federal government running through September. The bill is a complete repudiation of President Trump's budget priorities, especially on climate change and clean energy.
In fact, I'd argue that the "art of the deal" approach the administration took in negotiating with Congress over the budget numbers (pushing overly draconian cuts in the hope that Congress would move slightly closer in their direction) proved to have the opposite effect. It galvanized Congress in opposition to the president's budget priorities and solidified bipartisan coalitions in support of specific programs and agencies, proving once again that bullying Congress on funding is not an effective strategy for the executive branch.
The administration's interests would have been better served working in partnership with Congress—a lesson this president clearly has not learned given his fy19 budget request.
Here's how some important climate and clean energy programs fared in the fy18 omnibus:
What does this tell us?
Clean energy R&D (and energy efficiency) still matter to both Republicans and Democrats. It's not so much a climate thing as it is a local thing, an energy security thing and a "pro-growth" strategy.
Climate change (climate science) has become so politicized on the hill that Congress doesn't want to touch it and instead defaults to continued funding without increases or cuts. While some may see level funding as a victory (especially in this political environment), we know climate change is a growing and serious threat to our economy and national security, and therefore climate science should truly necessitate increased priority and federal support.
People are feeling the impacts of a changing climate (especially extreme weather). Both Democrats and Republicans see the logic in investing up-front to be more prepared and save cost and heartache on the back end.
The president signed the bill shortly after a brief veto threat. The budget reflects the fact that science advocacy matters, but it's also a reminder that we need to be vigilant in our work to depoliticize the issue of climate change and continue to work in strong bipartisan fashion to advance shared goals around clean energy deployment and innovation, as well as community resilience to extreme weather and other climate impacts.
Rob Cowin is director of government affairs for the UCS Climate & Energy Program, advocates for clean energy, solutions to global warming, and safer nuclear power plants.
books
https://www.c-span.org/video/?440008-1/after-words-ira-shapiro
JANUARY 25, 2018
After Words with Ira Shapiro
Former U.S. trade negotiator and senior Senate staffer Ira Shapiro argued that the U.S. Senate has lost its political center. He is interviewed by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. mansfield era
---
https://www.c-span.org/video/?417834-8/tom-daschle-trent-lott-discuss-bipartisanship
NOVEMBER 10, 2016
Bipartisanship and the Trump Presidency Former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle (D) and Trent Lott (R) offered suggestions for bipartisanship in the upcoming Congress and Trump presidency.
“Beyond the Crisis Point with Former Senators Tom Daschle and Trent Lott” was the closing general session of the Roll Call Live 2016 Election Impact Conference.
=
tool: https://environmentamerica.org/page/ame/environmental-scorecard
Sadly, Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much these days, including the need to protect our environment. It shouldn't be this way, it didn't used to be and we're doing all we can to make sure it's not this way in the future.
But, as we release our environmental scorecard for 2017, we want to not only applaud the Democrats who scored 100 percent, but also cheer on those members of both parties who boldly stood up for our planet this year.
Overall, the U.S. Senate had a score of 47 percent and the U.S. House of Representatives scored 45 percent, which does not bode well for our air or water.
The good news is that 139 members from the two branches voted with us 100 percent of the time, which means our planet and our families are represented by a lot of real environmental champs.
And on a number of issues, the environment received bipartisan support. In particular, a cadre of Republicans in the U.S. House supported funding to make public transit available and to ensure that the EPA had enough money to do its job protecting our air and water. In the Senate, limiting methane pollution was the big bipartisan winner.
Unfortunately, with 145 of our federal decision-makers scoring 0 percent, it's obvious we have a lot more work to do to make sure our elected officials represent the majority of Americans who want to see a cleaner, greener, healthier planet for future generations.
https://www.ecowatch.com/environment-america-scorecard-2515982183.html
https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-power-plan-senators-pruitt-2502303003.html
Senators Accuse EPA of 'Denying Science' and 'Fabricating Math' to Justify Clean Power Plan Repeal
In a letter sent to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt on Thursday, 19 Democratic senators demanded that the EPA boss "show your work" in his justification of repealing the Clean Power Plan (CPP).
This move comes after suggestions that the agency seriously underestimated the costly toll of climate change. For instance, one analysis showed that the Trump EPA put the cost of one ton of emissions of carbon dioxide between $1 and $6 in the year 2020—a dramatic decrease of the Obama administration's 2020 estimate of $45. This figure is known as the "social cost of carbon"—or the public cost of burning fossil fuels—which guides current energy regulations and possible future mitigation policies.
“Our review of the 2017 Repeal proposal reveals significant deficiencies associated with the cost-benefit analysis used to support the 2015 Rule's repeal," the senators wrote. "At seemingly every turn, the 2017 Repeal proposal uses mathematical sleights of hand to over-state the costs of industry compliance with the 2015 Rule and under-state the benefits that will be lost if the 2017 Repeal is finalized."
The effort was led by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Other prominent signatories include Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
They continued:
"Denying the science and fabricating the math may satisfy the agency's paperwork requirements, but doing so will not satisfy the requirements of the law, nor will it slow the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, the inexorable rise in sea levels, or the other dire effects of global warming that our planet is already experiencing. It will also not improve our standing in the international community or bring certainty to power markets as states plan for their future energy needs."
“Your rejection of the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas pollution causes global warming is well-known. Additionally, we continue to await your response to the April 7, 2017 letter requesting more details about your views related to the cause of global warming and the agency's plan to repeal and replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan Rule. Our review of the 2017 Repeal proposal only heightens our concerns."
Pruitt announced earlier this month that he was repealing the CPP, which cuts carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's power plants. Without the rule, the U.S. will not live up to its Paris climate accord pledge of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in emissions by 2025.
Pruitt says withdrawing the rule would end the war on coal.
...
=
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/university-press/book/9780826521668
When the Senate Worked for Us
The Invisible Role of Staffers in Countering Corporate Lobbies
Author(s): Michael Pertschuk
Every politically sentient American knows that Congress has been dominated by special interests, and many people do not remember a time when Congress legislated in the public interest. In the 1960s and '70s, however, lobbyists were aggressive but were countered by progressive senators and representatives, as several books have documented.
What has remained untold is the major behind-the-scenes contribution of entrepreneurial Congressional staff, who planted the seeds of public interest bills in their bosses' minds and maneuvered to counteract the influence of lobbyists to pass laws in consumer protection, public health, and other policy arenas crying out for effective government regulation. They infuriated Nixon's advisor, John Ehrlichman, who called them "bumblebees," a name they wore as a badge of honor.
interview:
https://kpfa.org/episode/patriotic-millionairescongress-workingtrump-vs-nfl/
https://www.ecowatch.com/sanders-energy-bill-2464667836.html
Senators Urged to Join Bernie Sanders in Opposing Dirty Energy Bill
By Jessica Corbett
As Senate Democrats stay silent on an energy bill that environmental groups call "a pro-fracking giveaway to oil and gas interests that would commit America to decades more of dangerous fossil fuel dependence," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is receiving applause for speaking out against it.
"As a nation, our job is to move away from fossil fuels toward sustainable energy and energy efficiency. This bill does the opposite," Sanders said in a statement.
Sanders' opposition to the bill was praised by environmental advocates who continue to pressure Democrats with thousands of phone calls to their Congressional offices.
"Once again, Bernie Sanders shows that he is a champion of the American people by reminding the Senate that clean renewable energy, not obedience to industry executives, is the future of our country," said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter called on others lawmakers to follow Sanders' lead.
"By coming out in opposition to the dirty energy bill currently looming before the Senate, Senator Sanders has once again demonstrated the real progressive leadership that is too often hard to find in Washington," Hauter said. "With our climate and a livable future hanging in the balance, Senate Democrats need to wake up, state their sensible opposition to this foolish energy bill now, and ensure it doesn't see the light of day."
Earlier this month, more than 350 green groups sent a letter to pressure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to oppose the bill. However, according to recent reporting by Bloomberg, "no Democrat has publicly voiced opposition" to the legislation, which is nearly 900 pages, even though it "would entrench natural gas into the U.S. energy portfolio for years to come."
The bill, Sanders said, "would make us more reliant on fracking for natural gas for decades to come by expediting the review process for natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas. It would also provide millions of taxpayer dollars to research new offshore natural gas extraction techniques."
Supporters of the legislation are quick to point to its power grid updates, as well as cyber security, public lands, and energy efficiency provisions. Some senators also see it as an opportunity to work across the aisle.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), often considered one of the Senate's major advocates for the environment, told Bloomberg: "There's been no slaking of the thirst for bipartisan work because none's been available, and I think in energy, there are areas where we can work together… We're not going to agree on everything, but it's worth a try."
Environmental advocates and organizations disagree, and said in their letter to Schumer:
No energy legislation is better than bad energy legislation that serves to increase our dependence on dirty fossil fuel production instead of advancing energy efficiency to reduce the amount of energy we utilize and building on successful policies to expand clean energy sources such as solar and wind.... In light of the current administration's overt efforts to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to pollute our air and water, it is more essential than ever that Congress resist efforts to increase fossil fuel production.
"The Senate dirty energy bill would further Trump's extreme agenda by increasing fracking. Resisting Trump means resisting fossil fuels," said Ben Schreiber, a senior political strategist at Friends of the Earth.
"By opposing this bill, Senator Sanders continues to be a real climate leader in Congress," said actor and environmental advocate Mark Ruffalo. "There can be no more trading off a few good conservation provisions in a bill for increased coal projects and fracking. We must transition swiftly to renewable clean energy. Our time is running out."
https://www.ecowatch.com/koch-brothers-paris-agreement-2430226599.html
Paris Exit Was 'Victory Paid and Carried Out' by Republican Party for the Koch Brothers
nolink
The 22 Republican senators who sent a letter to President Donald Trump last week urging the United States' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement received more than $10 million dollars in campaign funds from fossil fuel interests.
The two-page letter was signed by a number of Republican heavyweights from coal/gas/oil-rich states, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ted Cruz of Texas.
The Guardian calculated that the 22 senators received a total of $10,694,284 from oil, gas and coal money in just five years. (See the breakdown below.
However, that sum does not even come close to the amount of undisclosed funds coming from the deep pockets of Charles and David Koch's coal, oil and gas conglomerate, Koch Industries, and other outside groups.
As the Guardian explains:
"Visible donations to Republicans from those industries exceeded donations to Democrats in the 2016 election cycle by a ratio of 15-to-1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And that does not include so-called dark money passed from oil interests such as Koch industries to general slush funds to re-elect Republicans such as the Senate leadership fund.
"At least $90m in untraceable money has been funneled to Republican candidates from oil, gas and coal interests in the past three election cycles, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics."
Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, shared recently his views on Trump's climate walkout.In an interview with Bloomberg Surveillance, Sachs referenced the senators' letter and specifically cast blame on the billionaire oil barons for pulling the strings of Republican party leaders such as McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, who both supported exiting the Paris accord.
"This is the victory paid and carried out for 20 years by two people, David and Charles Koch," Sachs said. "They have bought and purchased the top of the Republican party. Trump is a tool in this."
Notably, most of the Republican signatories of the letter do not support the belief that human activity contributes to climate change.
During an appearance on MSNBC, Democratic Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts explained why he thinks his Republican colleagues do not believe in the science of climate change.
"This Conservative party in the United States is funded by the Koch brothers [and] it's funded by the coal industry," Markey said. "[They] insist that Scott Pruitt—the Attorney General of Oklahoma that actually sued the EPA 19 times on clean air, clean water, soot, mercury issues—becomes the head of the EPA in our country."
The 22 Republican signatories' funding from Big Oil, Gas and Coal in the past three election cycles (2012, 2014 and 2016):
James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Oil & gas: $465,950 + Coal: $63,600 = $529,550
John Barrasso, Wyoming
Oil & gas: $458,466 + Coal: $127,356 = $585,822
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Oil & gas: $1,180,384 + Coal: $361,700 = $1,542,084
John Cornyn, Texas
Oil & gas: $1,101,456 + Coal: $33,050 = $1,134,506
Roy Blunt, Missouri
Oil & gas: $353,864 + Coal: $96,000 = $449,864
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
Oil & gas: $198,816 + Coal: $25,376 = $224,192
Michael Enzi, Wyoming
Oil & gas: $211,083 + Coal: $63,300 = $274,383
Mike Crapo, Idaho
Oil & gas: $110,250 + Coal: $26,756 = $137,006
Jim Risch, Idaho
Oil & gas: $123,850 + Coal: $25,680 = $149,530
Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Oil & gas: $276,905 + Coal: $15,000 = $291,905
Mike Rounds, South Dakota
Oil & gas: $201,900 + Coal: none = $201,900
Rand Paul, Kentucky
Oil & gas: $170,215 + Coal: $82,571 = $252,786
John Boozman, Arkansas
Oil & gas: $147,930 + Coal: $2,000 = $149,930
Richard Shelby, Alabama
Oil & gas: $60,150 + $2,500 = $62,650
Luther Strange, Alabama (Appointed in 2017, running in 2017 special election)
Total: NA
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Oil & gas: $446,250 + Coal: $25,000 = $471,250
Mike Lee, Utah
Oil & gas: $231,520 + Coal: $21,895 = $253,415
Ted Cruz, Texas
Oil & gas: $2,465,910 + Coal: $103,900 = $2,569,810
David Perdue, Georgia
Oil & gas: $184,250 + Coal: $0 = $184,250
Thom Tillis, North Carolina
Oil & gas: $263,400 + Coal: $0 = $263,400
Tim Scott, South Carolina
Oil & gas: $490,076 + Coal: $58,200 = $548,276
Pat Roberts, Kansas
Oil & gas: $388,950 + Coal: $28,825 = $417,775
=
22 GOP Senators vs. World Leaders on Paris Agreement
Twenty-two GOP senators sent a letter Thursday urging Donald Trump to pull out of the Paris agreement. They argued remaining in the deal could "upend" the administration's ability "to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan."
Accounting for fewer than half of Senate Republicans, signers included coal-friendly politicians and prominent climate deniers, such as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and James Inhofe of Oklahoma.
Overseas, French president-elect Emmanuel Macron urged Trump not to make a "rushed decision" on the agreement at a Thursday meeting. White House economic adviser Gary Cohn predicts "fairly robust" talks on the Paris agreement at this weekend's G7 leadership summit in Sicily, and European leaders at the summit have indicated they will pressure Trump to remain in the deal.
As The Guardian reported:
"Some western powers are trying to frame the climate change discussion as a national security argument, pointing to the risk of war and terrorism if mass migration explodes out of drought-ridden Africa.
Trump's aides insist he remains in listening mode on climate change, and no decision will be made for a few weeks. The British, eternal optimists, at least sense he is moving on the issue. Results may have to wait for the G20 summit, to be attended by China in Hamburg in June."
For a deeper dive:
GOP letter: AP, Axios, The Hill; Macron: Reuters, CNBC; G7: The Guardian, Reuters, BBC
https://www.ecowatch.com/paris-agreement-g7-2422835676.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/10/senates-poised-to-repeal-a-final-obama-era-rule-as-soon-as-wednesday/
no link many
Senate unexpectedly rejects bid to repeal a key Obama-era environmental regulation
By Chelsea Harvey and Juliet Eilperin May 10 at 12:10 PM
Oil pumps and natural gas burn off in Watford City, N.D. Methane emissions will likely be the next big environmental issue to face North Dakota’s booming oil industry according to a top official at the state’s Department of Health. (AP/Charles Rex Arbogast)
This story has been updated.
The U.S. Senate narrowly voted down a resolution on Wednesday to repeal an Obama-era rule restricting methane emissions from drilling on public lands — with three Republicans joining every Democrat to preserve the rule.
The 51 to 49 vote marked the first time since Trump’s election that Republicans have failed in their attempt to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn Obama-era rules.
Thirteen earlier resolutions, based on the 1996 law that allows Congress to overturn rules within 60 days of their adoption, all succeeded. But the deadline for repealing such regulations through the Congressional Review Act is on Thursday.
The methane emissions rule, issued by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management in November, addresses a potent greenhouse gas that is accelerating climate change.
[Earth could break through a major climate threshold in the next 15 years, scientists warn]
The rule would force oil and gas companies to capture methane that had been previously burned off or “flared” at drilling sites.
The previous administration estimated the rule would prevent roughly 180,000 tons a year of methane from escaping into the atmosphere and would boost federal revenue because firms pay only royalties on the federal resources they capture and contain.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) unexpectedly voted no against a motion to proceed with consideration of the resolution, along with GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.). Two Democrats who had considered backing the rule’s elimination — Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — voted against the motion as well.
In a floor speech after the vote, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), said “the very first victory” lawmakers have had in beating back a Congressional Review Act bill this year came from a combination of Democratic unity and a few Republicans’ willingness to buck their leadership. “Thank you so much for coming forward and seeing the common sense nature of this issue,” Udall said, referring to Collins, Graham and McCain.
Jamie Williams, president of The Wilderness Society, praised the lawmakers who supported the rule. “In recent months, thousands of Americans asked the Senate to stand up for clean air and against the oil lobby, and their efforts were successful today,” he said.
Republicans and industry officials said they would now switch their focus to getting the Interior Department to rewrite the rule.
Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said his group “looks forward to working with the Interior Department on a targeted, meaningful solution that will achieve the common goal of ensuring the American taxpayers receive a fair and equitable return in the form of royalties while developing a workable regulation, instead of this one-size-fits-all approach.”
[EPA dismisses half of key board’s scientific advisers; Interior suspends more than 200 advisory panels]
And Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said in a statement that Interior should withdraw the regulation outright. “If left in place, this regulation will only discourage energy production, job creation, and economic opportunity across the West.”
Before this year, Congress had only nullified one rule, a regulation on ergonomics Bill Clinton enacted during his final year in office. In less than four months Republicans have wiped away rules covering everything from limits on the dumping of waste from surface mining operations to enlarging states’ power to offer retirement accounts to private-sector workers.
But the move to strike a rule requiring companies to limit the practice of flaring, or leaking, methane from oil and gas operations on federal and tribal land had given some Republicans–who control 52 seats in the Senate–pause.
Senate Press Gallery ? @SenatePress
#senate vote on HJ Res 36, the CRA on the methane rule was NOT agreed to 49-51. Collins, Graham and McCain joined all Dems/IND against.
7:27 AM - 10 May 2017
236 236 Retweets 516 516 likes
Many Republicans and fossil fuel producers criticized the regulation after it was finalized last year, and a resolution to repeal it passed quickly in the House of Representatives at the end of January. But despite Trump’s support, the repeal measure had been sitting in the Senate for months. It had to pass by Thursday to be eligible to be signed into law.
Democrats, as well as environmental and public health groups, ran a months-long campaign to persuade Heitkamp and Manchin not to disclose their position publicly while arguing to centrist Republicans that abolishing the rule would cost taxpayers money as well as harm the environment.
[Trump undertakes the most ambitious regulatory rollback since Reagan]
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) also remained on the fence until Monday, when he announced in a statement that he would vote to overturn the BLM regulation. Two other wavering Republicans, Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Dean Heller (Nev.), ultimately joined Portman in voting to proceed with the bill’s consideration.
“Unfortunately, the previous administration’s methane rule was not a balanced approach,” Portman said. “As written, it would have hurt our economy and cost jobs in Ohio by forcing small independent operators to close existing wells and slowing responsible energy production on federal lands. There’s a better way.”
He added that he believes the Interior Department should still work to reduce venting and flaring on public lands. Last week, Portman wrote to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, calling for a commitment that the department would continue to work to reduce methane waste if the Obama rule were reversed. On May 4, Zinke responded, affirming that “the Department is committed to reducing methane waste, and under my leadership, we will take important steps to accomplish this goal.”
Environmentalists urged Portman to reconsider. In a statement on Tuesday, Environmental Defense Action Fund Executive Director Fred Krupp said Zinke’s assurances were “unfounded” and argued that the strategies for reducing methane waste outlined in his letter would have little impact.
A coalition of industry groups have argued they are taking steps to reduce fugitive methane emissions, because they recognize capturing them can yield additional profits. The American Petroleum Institute noted that the Environmental Protection Agency data, released in March, shows about an 8 percent drop in methane emissions from petroleum production since 2014, largely because of improved gas venting and flaring techniques.
The legislative window for Congressional Review Act resolutions to be considered ends on Thursday, though a handful of conservative analysts believe that agencies’ failure to submit a 2-page report on previous rules to Congress could open the door to reconsideration of dozens of much older rules.
Curtis Copeland, a regulatory expert who specialized in American government at the Congressional Research Service, said in an email that regardless of how many rules this Congress ultimately overturns, “The CRA can no longer be described as ‘obscure’ or ‘little known.’ It now has to be viewed as a substantive tool of congressional oversight regarding an outgoing President’s rules, and it is likely be used again in the future.”
More from Energy & Environment:
Energy and Environment newsletter
The science and policy of environmental issues.
Sign up
Scientists are conspicuously missing from Trump’s government
‘We all knew this was coming’: Alaska’s thawing soils are now pouring carbon dioxide into the air
New EPA documents reveal even deeper proposed cuts to staff and programs
http://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-option-gorsuch-2347867635.html
Senate Republicans Rig System, Trigger 'Nuclear Option' to Push Through Gorsuch
Senate Republicans rushed through a confirmation vote Thursday on President Donald Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Neil Gorsuch has been met with widespread criticism both across the country and from the Senate before, during and after his confirmation process.
For more than 200 years, the Senate has honored a 60 vote margin for Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed. Gorsuch only received 55. According to existing Senate procedure, Gorsuch's nomination would be defeated and the Senate would move forward without confirming him to the court. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell changed the rules and triggered the so-called "nuclear option" for what had been deemed the "greatest deliberative body" to force Gorsuch's nomination through.
The Senate rightfully rejected Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is their duty to advise and consent on judicial nominees and with this vote, they refused their consent and advised President Donald Trump that Gorsuch is not fit to be granted a lifetime appointment to America's highest court..
https://mic.com/articles/159067/meet-the-three-women-of-color-who-were-just-elected-into-the-u-s-senate
The price of winning just got higher, especially in the Senate
This election cycle, an average winning Senate candidate had spent $10.4 million through Oct. 19 (reflecting the latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission). That’s a $1.8 million increase over the same period in the 2014 cycle. By the end of last cycle, the number rose to $10.6 million, and a similar uptick is expected this time once post-election and year-end reports are filed.
... read more.
=
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and joined by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Edward Markey (D-MA)
CoC rept
http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-issue-report-on-us-chamber-of-commerce-lobbying
=
https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/04/15/111169/release-cap-analysis-shows-anti-environmental-priorities-dominate-first-100-days-of-new-congress-but-no-results-to-show/
april 2015
D.C. — According to a Center for American Progress analysis of roll call votes, the 114th Congress has cast more roll call votes on energy and environmental issues in its first 100 days than on any other legislative issue, with none of the energy and environmental proposals voted on becoming law.
Thirty percent of the votes cast in the 114th Congress were on energy- and environment-related topics, more than any other legislative area. The Senate alone cast more than 44 percent of its votes on fossil-fuel and anti-environmental priorities, including approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, blocking action to address climate change, and selling America’s public lands.
“With close to three-quarters of a billion dollars from coal, oil, and gas companies behind them, the new Congress spent its first 100 days pushing divisive and unpopular proposals that have gone nowhere,” said Matt Lee-Ashley, Senior Fellow and the Director of Public Lands at CAP. “Congressional leaders must now choose whether to drive their anti-environment agenda deeper into a ditch or whether to align their priorities with American families who want more renewable energy and better protections for public lands, public health, and clean drinking water.”
CAP’s analysis found that on 74 percent of the energy and environmental votes, a majority of senators supported the anti-environment position. Public opinion research commissioned by CAP shows that the majority of Americans widely oppose many of the proposals that Senate leaders have chosen to prioritize, including efforts to remove key protections for land, water, and wildlife and to block the creation of new national parks.
An earlier CAP analysis found that fossil-fuel interests spent more than $721 million to help elect and influence the agenda of the 114th Congress.
Click here to read the column.?
For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, contact Tom Caiazza at tcaiazza@americanprogress.org or 202.481.7141.
==
</font></div>