Udall, T Sen

=
<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/trump-pulls-nomination-of-pro-polluter-to-oversee-nations-public-lands" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/trump-pulls-nomination-of-pro-polluter-to-oversee-nations-public-lands</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">common dr</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">environmental campaigners on Saturday welcomed news that President Donald Trump withdrew his nomination of “<a href="https://foe.org/news/white-house-withdraws-nomination-of-racist-pro-polluter-william-perry-pendley-to-lead-blm/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">pro-polluter</a>” and “<a href="https://foe.org/news/white-house-withdraws-nomination-of-racist-pro-polluter-william-perry-pendley-to-lead-blm/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">unapologetic racist</a>” William Perry Pendley for director of the Bureau of Land Management, with groups saying he should no longer be allowed to continue in his role as unofficial head of the agency.</div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="font-size: small; box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 20px 10px 24px; position: relative; line-height: 1.7; overflow: hidden; background: rgb(245, 245, 245); border: none !important;">We are hearing the Trump administration is pulling down their nomination of William Perry Pendley for BLM director. It’s about damn time.— Martin Heinrich (@MartinHeinrich) <a href="https://twitter.com/MartinHeinrich/status/1294666847929937921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">August 15, 2020</a></blockquote>Pendley, who’s <a href="https://twitter.com/Sagebrush_Rebel/status/1148664155525664768" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">called</a> fracking an “environmental miracle,” was <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/03/worst-possible-person-300-groups-demand-senate-reject-trumps-pick-manage-us-public" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">panned</a> by civil rights, environmental, tribal, and immigrant advocacy groups as “the worst possible person you could conjure to be a leading steward of our shared public lands” given his public record that includes a history of racist and sexist <a href="https://williampendley.org/in-his-own-words/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">comments</a>, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/08/01/william-perry-pendley-blm-native-americans/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">“overt racism” toward native people</a>, dismissal of the climate ciris, suggestion that “the Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold,” and <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/william-perry-pendley-50-conflicts-of-interest/%20" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">a 17-page list </a>of 57 potential conflicts of interest.“Pendley never should have been nominated, and the fact that he was shows you what you need to know about this administration’s conservation priorities,” Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said in a <a href="https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/news/press-releases/udall-statement-on-reports-that-william-perry-pendleys-nomination-being-withdrawn" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">statement</a> Saturday.Trump formally <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/28/far-right-ideology-trump-public-lands-nominee-why-senate-must-reject-him-say-groups" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">nominated</a> Pendley in June to lead BLM, an agency within the Interior Department (DOI). However, he has been <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/30/new-blm-appointee-brings-conflicts-interest-and-plans-sell-public-lands-agency" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">overseeing</a>—to the outrage of progressive groups—BLM for over a year, with the agency’s website <a href="https://www.blm.gov/leadership" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">describing</a> him as “exercising authority of the director."outdoor Life first <a href="https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/blogs/opencountry/pendley-withdrawn-bureau-land-managment-nominee/" target="blank" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" outline="outline" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" transition="transition" color="color" s="s" ease="ease" cursor="cursor" pointer="pointer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">reported</a> on the news of the withdrawal.Interior spokesperson Nicholas Goodwin <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/512169-trump-to-withdraw-controversial-public-lands-nominee" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">confirmed</a> the nomination withdrawal to The Hill but provided no explanation for the decision. “The president makes staffing decisions. Mr. Pendley continues to lead the Bureau of Land Management as Deputy Director for Programs and Policy,” Goodwin said.Critics of Pendley responded to the news with fresh attacks on his record.<a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/08/withdrawing-pendley-nomination-victory-for-public-lands" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">According to</a> Lena Moffitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Our Wild America campaign, “Pendley’s tenure as head of the Bureau of Land Management, like the entire Trump administration, has been a disaster for our public lands. At best, he’s demonstrated a total disregard for the health of our communities and our wild places, prioritizing giveaways to polluting fossil fuel corporations. At worst, he actively worked against marginalized communities.”Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, suggested the withdrawal simply represents the administration seeing Pendley as unlikely to be confirmed by the Senate.“Unfortunately, the ignominious end of Pendley’s nomination is more of a cynical nod to political realities than a retreat from the nihilist ideology he championed—and provides small solace for the communities and wildlife affected by the unbridled leasing of wildlife habitat and recreation lands across the West to energy development,” said O’Mara.Further dampening any reason for progressive applause is that Pendley is not yet ousted from his current role at BLM.“This is a sham,” <a href="https://twitter.com/PeterGleick/status/1294687412593938433" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">tweeted</a> climate scientist Peter Gleick. “Trump is withdrawing the nomination but leaving Pendley in charge anyway.”“Another unconfirmed, illegal appointment,” he added.Udall, in his statement, demanded that Pendley “not be allowed to continue in this role in an acting, unconfirmed capacity.”“It’s time for DOI stand up for our public lands and our trust and treaty obligations to tribes,” he said.<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div>July 30, 2019<a href="https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/7/bennet-udall-shaheen-senate-democratic-caucus-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united">https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/7/bennet-udall-shaheen-senate-democratic-caucus-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united</a><div class="header" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: -40px; margin-bottom: 30px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="post-datetime" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; margin-top: 15px;">
</div></div><div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h2 class="subtitle" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px 0px 0.67em; border: 0px; padding: 0px;">Democracy for All Amendment Would Help Get Big Money Out of Politics and Put Power Back in the Hands of the American People</h2><div class="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Washington, D.C. – Today, Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in introducing the Democracy for All Amendment, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC and other disastrous court decisions, help get big money out of politics, and put power back in the hands of the American people. Citizens United and other Supreme Court decisions have unleashed a flood of unlimited corporate spending in U.S. elections and opened the door for wealthy special interests to have an outsized voice in our government. These decisions have wrongfully equated money with free speech, and wrongfully determined that big, wealthy corporations have the same first amendment rights as people. The Democracy for All Amendment gives the power back to Congress and the states to set reasonable campaign finance rules and limit corporate spending in elections. The amendment would enshrine in the Constitution the right of the American people to regulate the raising and spending of funds in public elections, and curb the concentration of political influence held by the wealthiest Americans.“The Supreme Court fundamentally misapprehended the nature of money in politics, and its decision has unleashed a corruption of inaction in Washington, where elected officials fear that action on issues like gun violence or climate change will lead a super PAC to spend $20 million and end their career,” said Bennet. “We need the Democracy for All Amendment to turn the page on Citizens United and reconnect the American people with our government.” “Thanks to Citizens United and other disastrous court decisions, our electoral system – and as a result, our democracy – have reached a crisis point,” said Udall. “Ever since the Supreme Court ruled to open the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in our elections, secret special interest money has poured in – and drowned out the voices of the American people. And the door has opened even wider for the ultra-wealthy and well-connected to root themselves in our government and pull the levers of our democracy. Now, citizens are losing faith in our institutions because they have every reason to believe that their government no longer answers to them. It’s time to restore the power of the American people to regulate the out-of-control, secret spending in our elections, and make sure that our elections aren’t put up for sale to the highest bidder. Our Democracy for All Amendment would help unrig the system and put power back in the hands of all Americans, instead of a privileged and powerful few.” “Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, our political system has been flooded with money from special interest groups,” said Shaheen. “We have also seen the growing influence of dark money pouring into our elections. Dark money allows secret groups with hidden agendas, even foreign actors, to influence elections without disclosing their political donations. We need only look to the 2016 presidential election to understand the lengths that foreign adversaries are willing to go to attempt to influence our elections and sow confusion in the electoral process. This legislation would help shore up our elections from these malign efforts and also reclaim the integrity of our political process by ensuring elected representatives reflect the will of the public, not special interests.” “The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates for dark money to pour into our elections and tipped the scales in favor of the ultra-wealthy and the most powerful corporations,” said Schumer. “The Democracy for All Amendment would undo the tremendous damage done by this decision. It is the best antidote to the surge of unlimited, undisclosed money that’s poisoned our politics and deepened the swamp. Senate Democrats are determined to fix a system that remains beholden to big corporations and put power back in the hands of hardworking Americans.”Companion legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Representative Ted Deutch (D-FL).The full text of the amendment is available <a href="https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/cache/files/7/f/7fd22905-0ded-4367-896c-a4db7ac2e69a/D069A6CD2F2CD791D3729F0E7BD9C340.democracy-for-all-amendment-final-bill-text.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background-color 0.25s ease 0s;">HERE</a>. A background summary is available <a href="https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/cache/files/4/2/42c578d0-0854-49c5-a8f2-0c87033620ef/0BBBAD3184E24BFFC7CE8624CDD761D2.democracy-for-all-one-pager.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background-color 0.25s ease 0s;">HERE</a>, and a section-by-section with FAQsis available <a href="https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/cache/files/d/1/d1f162ff-4cde-4470-8358-a754bb4d6cf2/1663B278A66388C8EC2FA26172150DE6.democracy-for-all-section-by-section.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background-color 0.25s ease 0s;">HERE</a>.  The Democracy for All Amendment is backed by a broad range of campaign finance and government reform advocates, including End Citizens United, People For the American Way, Public Citizen, American Promise, Common Cause, Free Speech For People, and Union of Concerned Scientists. Statements of support are available <a href="https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/cache/files/c/8/c862e25c-5488-41fa-81d8-d4e54601d785/507712E7B028AF098BA7BA01BEDC8CB2.democracy-for-all-amendment-supporting-statements.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background-color 0.25s ease 0s;">HERE</a>.</div></div></div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/333610-dems-plot-to-overturn-regulatory-repeal-law">https://thehill.com/regulation/333610-dems-plot-to-overturn-regulatory-repeal-law</a></div><div>
</div><div>Democrats are taking aim at President Trump’s power to roll back regulations.</div>The Sunset the CRA and Restore American Protections (SCRAP) Act introduced Tuesday by Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.) and <a class="rollover-people-link" data-nid="188182" href="https://thehill.com/people/tom-udall" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block; position: relative;">Tom Udall</a> (N.M.) would eliminate the law that Trump and Republican lawmakers have used to repeal more than a dozen Obama-era regulations. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is backing identical legislation in the House.The Congressional Review Act (CRA) makes it easier for lawmakers to repeal regulations they disapprove of from the executive branch. Under the 1996 law, Congress only needs a simple majority to rollback recently issued regulations. Federal agencies are also blocked from publishing similar rules in the future.The SCRAP Act would not only prevent Republicans from using this law to repeal future regulations, but it would also allow federal agencies to reinstate rules that have already been struck down under the CRA.Before Trump, the CRA had only been successfully used once, in 2001, to repeal a Clinton-era labor rule.Since then, Republicans have turned to the CRA to repeal 14 Obama-era regulations, hoisting the relatively obscure law into the limelight.The rules overturned include environmental regulations like the Interior Department’s stream protection rule, internet regulations, financial rules, healthcare rules, education rules and gun restrictions.Democrats warn Republicans are abusing their authority under the law by rolling back so many regulations.“It’s like using a sledgehammer when a chisel is needed,” Udall said.“The CRA never should have been passed into law, and it’s past time to repeal it,” he added.The bill stands no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled Congress, but it is something Democrats could someday return to in the majority. Robert Weissman, president of the left-leaning Public Citizen, called Republicans’ use of the CRA a “corporate payback scheme.”“If there was any doubt before, it’s now certain that the CRA must go,” he said.<div>
</div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.dcreport.org/2017/11/20/how-trump-and-congress-are-erasing-the-last-20-years/">
</a></div><div><a href="https://www.dcreport.org/2017/11/20/how-trump-and-congress-are-erasing-the-last-20-years/">https://www.dcreport.org/2017/11/20/how-trump-and-congress-are-erasing-the-last-20-years/</a></div><div>
</div><div><h2 style="margin-top: 1rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.25; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">They’re Using an Obscure 1990s Law to Wipe Out Regulations Protecting Citizens and the Environment</h2>By Jillian S. AmbrozThe Republicans of the 115th Congress and Trump have not accomplished much in the way of landmark legislation this year, unless you count overturning President Barack Obama’s achievements. And on that front, they’ve been prolific.In Trump’s first four months of office, he and Congress have completely eliminated 14 rules issued by Obama—rules ranging from things like protecting Americans from coal waste in drinking water to blocking individuals with severe mental illness from buying firearms—using the Congressional Review Act.And lest you think that headache of a legislation that had only been wielded once in 21 years before now might be going away anytime soon, think again.Congress has targeted at least 31 rules in just 11 months, including the ones that have been nullified already, according to a report prepared by former senior staff member of the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3480518-CRA-Resolutions-Table-0303.html" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Congressional Research Service</a>, Curtis W. Copeland. Those that have not been disapproved have been introduced to the House and await further action.It’s not enough to just remove the rules, this Republican-led Congress and Trump want to nullify these acts completely, as if they never took place.To do that requires a joint resolution by a simple majority in each house of Congress, which is easy for this current legislative branch. After 60 legislative days, Trump can sign the resolution into law and nullify the previous rule.But once undone, it’s not easy to reinstate a rule removed by the Congressional Review Act, which is written so that essentially a new law is required to reinstate a new or similar rule like the one that was removed by it. And that is how people like influential ex-White House strategist Steve Bannon and pollution advocate <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/science/myron-ebell-trump-epa.html?_r=0" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Myron Ebell</a>, who was in charge of the blueprint for the transition and transformation of the Environmental Protection Agency, crafted this deregulation regime that could take years to undo once Trump leaves office.Bannon once said the goal of the Trump presidency is the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-27/bannon-s-requiem-for-the-administrative-state" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">“deconstruction of the administrative state.”</a><div class="action-box" style="margin: 2em; padding: 1em; background-color: rgb(219, 229, 241); border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);">ACTION BOX/What You Can Do About ItContact the White House and tell Trump using the Congressional Review Act and undoing these regulations is harmful to the American people. Call 202-456-1111, reach him on <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">email</a>.Contact <a href="https://paulryan.house.gov/" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Speaker Paul Ryan</a> (R-Wis.) by phone at 202-225-3031, <a href="https://paulryan.house.gov/contact/email.htm" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">email</a>, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/speakerryan" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Facebook</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Twitter</a>. Contact Senate Majority Leader <a href="http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Mitch McConnell</a> (R-Ky.)by phone at 202-224-2541, <a href="http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=ContactForm" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">email</a>, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mitchmcconnell" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Facebook</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Twitter</a>.As always, contact your <a href="http://www.house.gov/representatives" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">representatives</a> and <a href="http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">senators</a> and ask them to stop using the CRA to roll back safeguards for the American public.</div>The Congressional Review Act was part of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.Before Trump took office, the Congressional Review Act was only used once before when the 107th Congress overturned a rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The rule addressed ergonomic injuries in the workplace.Here are just a few of the rules Congress and Trump have overturned:<ul style="list-style: circle inside; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 2.5rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 2em;"><a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/41?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.J.+Res.+41%22%5D%7D&r=1" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Oil Company Foreign Payment Disclosure Rule</a>: Forced oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 2em;"><a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.J.+Res.+38%22%5D%7D&r=1" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">The Stream Protection Rule</a>: Enforced regulations on coal mine operators to protect streams and other water sources from coal waste.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 2em;"><a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/83?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22h.j.+res+83%22%5D%7D&r=1" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Workplace Injuries Rule</a>: Required employers to maintain accurate records of serious workplace injuries and illnesses for up to five years.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 2em;"><a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.J.+Res.+40%22%5D%7D&r=1" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Gun Control Amendment</a>: Required the Social Security Administration to provide instant information to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System on individuals meeting certain criteria, including severe mental health issues, that would prevent them from being able to purchase a firearm.</li></ul>“Time and time again, Republicans have abused the Congressional Review Act to appease the extreme right wing of their party and ensure giveaways to corporate special interests,” top Senate Democrat  Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/donald-trump-obama-legacy-215009" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">Politico</a>article.It was thought there was a finite window for the Congress and Trump to employ the Congressional Review Act, which was previously considered a vehicle to undo so-called “Midnight Regulations” of an outgoing administration. The consensus was Obama actions only back to 2016 could be undone. That may not be the case. Technically, Congress can go back over unsubmitted agency rules, too—all the way back to 1996—and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/susandudley/2017/03/07/crazy-after-all-these-years-extending-the-reach-of-the-congressional-review-act/#7433792c24b8" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">belatedly submit them  for disapproval</a>. Thousands of rules and regulations could be up for disapproval.In May, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) <a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1140?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Booker+Udall+Congressional+Review+Act%22%5D%7D&r=1" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s linear;">introduced a bill to repeal the Congressional Review Act</a>. It’s unlikely the Republican-led Congress will give up its most powerful tool anytime soon. At least not before the 116thCongress is sworn in.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div>=
Alpha

Natural Resources, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy have filed

bankruptcies, incidentially revealing payments to cllimate anti-science

groups. The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160326041859/http://www.westernfuels.org/" target="_blank">Western Fuels Association</a> (WFA)

may be smaller and less known, but its long history of funding climate

denial is already better exposed. It was called out by Senator Tom Udall

in his<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/18/webofdenial-senators-strong-remarks-collected-and-annotated"> #WebOfDenial </a>remarks in July 2016.  Its earliest well-known disinformation effort is detailed in <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/07/23/medievaldeception-1991-richard-lindzen-hijacks-ipcc">MedievalDeception 1991: Lindzen Hijacks Curve For Western Fuels Video - Early Fake News</a>.

Its front group <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/greening-earth-society">Greening Earth Society</a> (GES) claimed “sound information” following the “sound science” theme of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/advancement-sound-science-coalition">The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition</a> (TASSC), started as front for Philip Morris in 1993, but like WFA, also involved <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels">Pat Michaels</a>.

Newly-assembled information adds evidence that #WesternFuelsKnew the science was against them, decades ago.

          <span class="field-content"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/07/23/western-fuels-association-decades-of-dollars-for-doubt-and-denial"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read mor</font></a></span><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==<br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">8/16</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>6:25pm EDT</strong>: Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) spoke about the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/mercatus-center" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Mercatus Center</a>, which he said "should be called the Koch Center" due to its massive Koch funding. He discussed the connections to the tobacco industry's attacks on tobacco science and the overlap with the Koch-funded Mercatus Center.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>5:55pm EDT</strong>:<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) spoke about the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/virginia-institute-public-policy" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Virginia Institute for Public Policy</a></span>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/co2-coalition" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">CO2 Coalition</a>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/cornwall-alliance-stewardship-creation" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation</a>&nbsp;and mentioned DeSmogBlog's research in his #WebOfDenial speech. He also talked about the funding from&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/donors-capital-fund" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Donors Capital Fund</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Donors Trust</a>&nbsp;to denier organizations.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>5:40pm EDT</strong>: Sen. Elizabeth Warren spoke about the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/science-and-public-policy-institute" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)</a>,<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Willie Soon</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Christopher Monckton</a>'s Hitler Youth outrage and claims to have a cure for AIDS and other "completely made up" Monckton-isms.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>5:25pm EDT</strong>: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse spoke about the #WebOfDenial and the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;$700 billion in global subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, annually.&nbsp;</span>He highlighted the work of Drexel University professor Robert Brulle to expose the climate change counter movement and what the Senators are calling the climate #WebOfDenial.</font></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><div class="share-tab-img share-buttons share-trigger" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[cspan img]</font><div class="share-media-panel"><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px;" /><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>5:15pm EDT</strong>:&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Sen. Tom Udall</b></span>&nbsp;spoke about the front groups Greening Earth Society and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE) and the web of denial.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>5:10pm EDT</strong>:&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Sen. Christopher Coons</span>&nbsp;spoke about the historical denial efforts of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/advancement-sound-science-coalition" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)</a></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>5pm EDT</strong>:&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Sen. Cardin&nbsp;</span>spoke about the attacks on climate science by the defunct group&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/annapolis-center-science-based-public-policy" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy</a>&nbsp;which received funding from ExxonMobil and the tobacco industry. He was introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who was thanked for leading this effort. Whitehouse delivered his 144th statement on the need for climate action and discussed the influence of the web of denial blocking action.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong>Update 4:30pm EDT</strong>:<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;Senator Reid</span>&nbsp;kicked off the action on #WebOfDenial, railing against the Koch Brothers and Exxon for dishing out millions to fund climate denial organizations. Reid named Heartland Institute, Cato Institute and Americans For Prosperity, among others. You can watch the action on C-SPAN2.</font></p></div></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4/16</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Two new amendments</b>&nbsp;are on the list to replace offshore drilling measures: a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/3312?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22sa3312%5C%22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration: none;">proposal</a>&nbsp;from Sen. Tom Udall to direct the government to design a program to sell up to $50 billion worth of “Clean Energy Victory Bonds” to fund renewables, efficiency and related projects; and Sen. Rand Paul’s “Economic Freedom Zones”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politicopro.com/f/?id=00000154-11f9-d131-abdd-5dfdfb460001" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration: none;">amendment</a>, which would provide tax and regulatory relief to businesses that invest in designated areas.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Next stop:&nbsp;</b>Assuming the bill passes, it will be up to Senate energy leaders to get together with their House counterparts to reconcile differences with H.R. 8, the energy bill that passed the lower chamber on a mostly party-line vote last year. Recall that the White House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr8r_20151130.pdf" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration: none;">waved its veto pen</a>&nbsp;at the House bill while taking a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saps2012s_20160127.pdf" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration: none;">more measured view</a>&nbsp;of the Senate version.</font></p><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Read more:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/04/morningenergy-wolff-213760#ixzz46fe2rQAs" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.25s ease; text-decoration: none;">http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2016/04/morningenergy-wolff-213760#ixzz46fe2rQAs</a>&nbsp;<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></font></span></p><div><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></span></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/books/heres-how-chemical-companies-decide-whats-toxic-not-epa-or-fda">http://www.alternet.org/books/heres-how-chemical-companies-decide-whats-toxic-not-epa-or-fda</a></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em>an excerpt from the new book</em>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Take-Money-Corrupts-Democracy/dp/1632861097/?tag=alternorg08-20" style="text-decoration: none;">Nation on the Take</a>&nbsp;<em>by&nbsp;<b>Wendell Potter&nbsp;</b>& Nick Penniman&nbsp;(Bloomsbury Press, 2016):</em></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Arsenic</b>, like formaldehyde, can cause health and developmental problems and at high levels is linked to certain cancers. Columbia University professor Joseph Graziano jokes, darkly, that arsenic makes lead look like a vitamin. That’s because, as he told the Center for Public Integrity’s David Heath, it “sweeps across the body and impact[s] everything that’s going on, every organ system.”&nbsp;It’s in&nbsp;<b>weed killers</b>&nbsp;marketed to fight your lawn’s crabgrass, and, in many places, it’s in the water we drink.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">A 2008 draft assessment by the EPA estimated that arsenic was seventeen times more potent than previously thought.&nbsp;In assessing the impact of arsenic on women in particular, the agency estimated that if a hundred thousand women were to consume the legal limit of arsenic currently permitted, 730 would get bladder or lung cancer.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After seeing the draft assessment, the producers of arsenic-based pesticides that hired&nbsp;<b>Charlie Grizzle to lobby for them, Drexel Chemical Co. and Luxembourg-Pamol, began to take action, as did mining companies like Rio Tinto,</b>&nbsp;which also would have been affected by the regulation. As the&nbsp;<b>Center for Public Integrity</b>’s David Heath reported, a group of lobbyists,&nbsp;including Grizzle, set up a meeting with Representative&nbsp;<b>Mike Simpson, the Republican from Idaho</b>, who by 2015 had received a total of $8,000 in&nbsp;campaign donations from Grizzle, according to data compiled and analyzed&nbsp;by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">All it took to send the EPA’s draft assessment to the National Academy of Sciences for a review was for a congressman to slip one paragraph into in a 221-page spending bill. When Heath asked Simpson about the paragraph, he said he worried about small communities not being able to meet drinking water standards.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Such stealth maneuvers are not uncommon in Congress. A senator, for example, can<b>&nbsp;anonymously put a hold</b>&nbsp;on legislation, completely blocking it. Committee members can insert language written by lobbyists directly into a large spending bill before anyone has adequate time to review it. As Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, bemoaned to Center for Public Integrity reporter David Heath in June 2014: “It’s happening more and more in this Congress that we see less and less of what goes on behind the scenes, that members aren’t informed until the last minute. So things like this, major policy changes like this, can happen somewhat in the dark of the night with very little information to the public.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When confronted by a reporter, Simpson said he didn’t know that the paragraph inserted into the spending bill kept a weed killer containing arsenic on the market, and he said he had “no idea” that Grizzle had donated to his campaigns.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Delays continued in subsequent years as industry-funded scientists presented their views to the Academy, sometimes without disclosing their financial ties. (The Center for Public Integrity reported tha</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">t one such scientist suggested that an arsenic dose even higher than the current drinking water standard doesn’t cause cancer.) The result: in 2015, seven years after the EPA’s draft assessment that arsenic is considerably more dangerous than previously thought, many public health experts said the federal government was continuing to allow too much arsenic in our water and in products like weed killers.&nbsp;</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Nobody’s Looking Out for Our Welfare”</font></strong></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We have a broken Toxic Substance Control Act,” says Tom Neltner. That’s the big problem that “federal health officials, prominent academics and even many leaders of the chemical industry” agree on, the&nbsp;<em>Atlantic</em>’s senior health care editor, Dr. James Hamblin, wrote in 2014.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The obstacles for public health are (1) the vast majority of the eighty thousand industrial chemicals available for use are not regulated or even tested by the government, and (2) companies are not even required to submit most of them for testing.&nbsp;</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“What most Americans don’t realize is nobody’s looking out for their welfare,” Mount Sinai’s Philip Landrigan told us. “The great fear is always that there might be other chemicals out there that have never been tested but to which children are exposed.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition, the EPA (like the FDA) has to meet a very high standard before it can ban a toxin. The EPA has banned or limited only five.&nbsp;Weak laws even made it difficult to ban asbestos.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There were signs in 2015 that the chemical safety laws might be strengthened when legislation to update the laws for the first time in thirty-nine years received bipartisan support in the Senate. It would, among other things, require more frequent testing at the federal level and make it easier for the government to pull products off the shelves.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Sponsored by industry favorite David Vitter and New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall, who in the past has supported increased environmental protection, the bill even received kudos of sorts from some environmental advocacy groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund,</b>&nbsp;which view the legislation as an improvement over the broken status quo. Other green groups maintained it was much too weak.&nbsp;<b>Senator Barbara Boxer&nbsp;</b>was pushing a separate, more stringent bill that allowed for testing of more chemicals each year.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vitter’s spokesman wrote that the “legislation provides common-sense&nbsp;reforms that are necessary to update the United States’ forty year old&nbsp;chemical regulatory program. Senator Vitter has worked with colleagues&nbsp;across this aisle, stakeholders from all sectors, and the EPA to draft this legislation that will drastically increase EPA’s ability to ensure the safety of chemicals being used in the United States.” It soon became apparent, however, that the bill was being vetted—and possibly even written, at least in part—by industry lobbyists. Using metadata on a Microsoft Word document circulated by Udall, a reporter for Hearst Newspapers found that the document originated at the American Chemistry Council. Senator Boxer said she felt certain the industry wrote it, citing a Senate information technology staffer who investigated the issue.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Udall, who the&nbsp;<em>New York Times</em>&nbsp;suggested had formed an “unlikely alliance” with the chemical industry, maintained that the document originated in his office. One of his aides told Hearst that “it was shared with a number of stakeholders including at least one other senator’s office.<b>&nbsp;One of those stakeholders was the ACC.</b>”&nbsp;But the council did not deny authoring that draft of the bill. “There’s no way for anyone to tell,” a council spokesperson said. Others, including Udall’s office, said anyone could change some metadata. A spokesperson for Udall said the senator has been engaged with all groups on all sides of the issue.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Regardless of who wrote the bill’s language, the end product was more than palatable to the chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council called the bill the “culmination of a multi-year effort” to secure “compromise, common-sense” legislation that it characterized as “a balanced, science-driven solution that reassured the public that our products are safe and that keeps our economy growing.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The ten biggest chemical companies spent $154 million lobbying on the bill over 2013 and 2014</b>, the watchdog group MapLight found. In contrast, public interest, environmental, and medical groups together spent less than $18 million. The environmental groups spent $6.6 million.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Those chemical companies also contributed almost more than $4 million in campaign contributions to several candidates’ campaigns in the 2014 election as the sponsors were shepherding the bill through Congress, MapLight found. The<b>&nbsp;ACC also donated $150,000 to a super PAC supporting Vitter’s gubernatorial bid in Louisiana.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The ACC also spent $4 million plus on TV and radio advertising in support of the reelection of Udall and the industry’s other allies in Congress, the&nbsp;<em>Times</em>reported. The ads portrayed Udall as a man who brings “both sides together to get results.”&nbsp;According to the&nbsp;<em>Times</em>, Udall “emphatically rejects” that he was doing the industry’s bidding: “We can’t do something that is pie in the sky; we have to deal with reality,” he said.&nbsp;</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6/15</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245425-senate-panel-advances-3001b-bill-that-targets-environmental-regulations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced a $30.01 billion spending bill that takes aim at President Obama’s environmental regulations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill would fund the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department for fiscal 2016, which begins Oct. 1, by $400 million below the level Congress enacted for 2015 and $2.2 billion less than Obama’s request.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lawmakers voted 16-14 to advance the bill to the Senate floor. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the ranking member on the panel, signaled Democrats would oppose the bill because of its low funding allocation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Sen. Tom <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Udall</span> (D-N.M.), the top Democrat&nbsp;</b>on the subcommittee that oversees the bill, offered three separate amendments that would boost funding to various programs, strip all policy riders and specifically remove a policy rider regarding climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">All three were narrowly rejected by the GOP-led panel.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill, Udall said, would take aim at the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act by permanently weakening them.</font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republicans included provisions in the bill that would overturn a new EPA rule that asserts power over the nation’s waterways and would prevent the agency from writing a new rule on<b>&nbsp;ground-level ozone</b>&nbsp;pollution.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the measure, the EPA would also be banned from enforcing carbon limits for power plants in states that oppose that regulation, among others.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“These riders are terrible policy. They’re nothing more than a special interest giveaway to polluters. And they also have a proven track record of derailing the appropriations process,” Udall said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The panel also adopted an amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to list the lesser prairie chicken as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);" size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who offered the proposal, argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted prematurely last year by listing the species as endangered, and said his proposal would force the agency to allow conservation plans and “God’s work in providing rain” for the animal’s habitat to play out.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Sen.</b>&nbsp;Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairwoman of the subcommittee that oversees the bill, said while the bill “pulls back on EPA’s regulatory overreach,” it funds critical programs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill, for example, prioritizes funding for the National Park Service to perform maintenance in national parks, for the Bureau of Land Management’s conservation efforts such as those for protection the sage grouse, for the Forest Service and for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among others.&nbsp;</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div><p><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></b></p><p><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">udall, say it ain't so:</font></b></p><p><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/chemical-safety-law-rewrite-triggers-strong-reactions/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/chemical-safety-law-rewrite-triggers-strong-reactions/</font></a></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></p><p><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5/15</font></b></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What do you get when you let the chemical industry write a “chemical safety” bill?</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A bill that protects chemical companies, not consumers.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The last time Congress passed a chemical safety bill — the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — was in 1976. The TSCA “was&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ewg.org/key-issues/toxics/chemical-policy" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">broken from the start</a>,” according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), because it grandfathered in thousands of chemicals already on the market. It was so “broken and weak,” says EWG, that it didn’t even allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban asbestos, a known cause of cancer.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, 39 years later, tens of thousands of new chemicals have been introduced, the majority of which have never been safety tested by the EPA. These chemicals, more than 80,000 of them, are in the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the homes we live in.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It’s time for reform. But unfortunately, S.697 — which still doesn’t address asbestos — falls far short of accomplishing that. That could have something to do with the fact that the chemical industry has&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2015/03/chemical-industry-spending-surges-support-sham-reform" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">spent $190 million</a>&nbsp;lobbying for this bill.&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Democratic Sponsor Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) campaign received $49,050 from the Chemical industry in the 2014 cycle, plus $23,500 from lobbyists employed by the American Chemistry Council. Republican sponsor David Vitter’s (R-La.)&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">campaign received $20,600 in the 2014 cycle, and $14,300 from American Chemistry Council lobbyists. We need your voice to stop this bill.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On April 27 (2015), the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a rewritten version of S.697, sending it to the Senate floor for a vote. The revised bill gave slightly more protection to state chemical safety laws, by changing the grandfathered date to Jan. 1, 2015, instead of Aug. 1, 2015. The new version also no longer allows federal chemical rules to preempt state clean water and clear air laws.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the bill is still inadequate, according to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.):</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The legislation does nothing to ensure that terrifying disease clusters of children's cancers are addressed, and the killer of 10,000 Americans a year — asbestos — was entirely left out of the bill," Boxer said. "I will continue to call attention to the flaws of the bill and the improvements that are needed to protect our families."</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Boxer and her colleague Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced an<a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Boxer-Markey.pdf" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">opposing bill</a>,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;which&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=dbec8491-c006-4e04-9e44-416e78622e83" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">they say</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;offers far better protection than S. 697, which they say cripples state efforts to regulate toxic chemicals, while leaving the federal government without the resources needed to properly safety test them.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One of the bill’s biggest shortcomings is that it allows the EPA to review no more than 25 chemicals in the first three years. At that pace, it would take more than a century to address the backlog of chemicals in need of review. We already know that some chemicals, such as Bisphenol A (BPA), are&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076011001063" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">hormone disrupters</a>, yet BPA is still found in baby food containers. As for thousands of other unregulated chemicals, the effects are unknown.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the absence of federal action, states have taken the lead in monitoring toxic chemicals and setting safety standards for industry — 33 states have passed laws to include some form of monitoring or restrictions to harmful chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos and BPA. S.697, though it will grandfather in many of these state laws, will hinder states from taking stronger action in the future.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More on how chemicals are regulated&nbsp;<a href="http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2009012300" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">here</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2014071800" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">here</a>.</font></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More than half of U.S. states have a renewable standard or target in place that determines the amount of renewable energy they produce. Now, seven Democratic senators want the U.S. to follow suit, and are pushing for the country to establish a nationwide standard for renewable energy.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This week, the group of Democratic senators introduced legislation to establish a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) that would require utilities to get 30 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030.<b> U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM),</b> the bill’s lead sponsor, has been pushing for a national renewable standard for almost a decade, and helped pass similar legislation in the House prior to his 2008 election to the Senate.<br />It’s been about seven years since Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In announcing the bill, Udall said its passage would “help slow utility rate increases and boost private investment in states like New Mexico — all while combating climate change.” He further stated that with more than half the states having “widely successful RES policies” that “it’s time to go all in.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sen. Martin Heinrich (D), the other New Mexican senator, is a co-sponsor on the bill along with Sens. Edward Markey (D-MA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI).</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Heinrich said creating a national standard would “help unleash the full potential of America’s clean, homegrown energy while putting people to work at the same time.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An analysis published Tuesday by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) supports the New Mexican senators’ statements. In examining the impacts of a 30 percent renewable energy by 2030 national RES, the researchers found that renewable energy generation would be 57 percent higher than business as usual by 2030, and that it would save consumers a total of $25.1 billion on electricity and natural gas bills from 2015-2030.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report also found that local economies would benefit in a number of ways. A national RES would drive $294 billion in cumulative new capital investments over the next 15 years — $106 billion more than under a business-as-usual scenario. It would also provide $2.6 billion in cumulative property taxes received by local governments from 2015-2030 and generate $830 million in cumulative wind power land lease payments to rural landowners over that same time frame.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to UCS, the national RES would also put a significant dent in domestic power sector carbon dioxide emissions, which are responsible for nearly 40 percent of of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. UCS found that implementing the national RES would reduce power plant emissions by nearly 11 percent in 2030, and that the cumulative impact between 2015 and 2030 would be to cut carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector by 1.5 billion metric tons.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This additional 11 percent reduction would do a lot to help achieve the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan target of cutting national electricity emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It would also add a major element to the Obama Administration’s broader commitment to reduce overall U.S. emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 26 to 28 percent by 2025.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br />Electricity Generation Mix, Business as Usual and 30 Percent by 2030 National RES</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A national RES may seem like a stretch for the current Congress, but there may be more promise than usual this year, as the bill is one of a number of energy related proposals to be considered by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee over the next couple months. As the Washington Examiner notes, these are not high-profile bills that will elicit major attention similar to the recent Keystone XL saga, but rather “fairly technical” efforts that could have broad-ranging impacts on U.S. energy policy. They include things like updating the country’s aging grid, investing in energy efficiency, adjusting electricity markets to prevent price distortions, and funding new ways of extracting natural gas.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategy planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, told ThinkProgress that the clean energy and energy efficiency bills are part of a number of ideas coming forward from the Democratic minority to “ensure that any energy legislation is balanced.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said a number of bills on the Republican side have to do with oil and gas — initiatives that would do things like accelerate permitting and increase infrastructure — and that balancing these priorities out will be a major part of any large energy bill.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s been about seven years since Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill,” he said. “I think there’s an enormous and growing appetite on all sides to address the many issues that have come up over the years and the many changes that have occurred in America’s energy posture.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Holstein said that while it’s hard to tell yet exactly how this will all play out — especially considering that the House is even more divided than the Senate — even if the legislative process in this Congress “ends up being a dress rehearsal” for a renewed effort next Congress, “it’s still worth doing.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Udall said on Tuesday that he’d like it if the national RES became part of a larger energy bill being put together by Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chairwoman of the Senate’s energy committee.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If it becomes law, the national RES would be imposed incrementally, starting with an 8 percent requirement in 2016 — just about 1 percent higher than non-hydro renewable power generation in the U.S. in 2014 — before moving up to 12 percent in 2020 and eventually 30 percent in 2030. It would exclude municipal utilities and rural electricity coops and would not preempt higher standards already in place at the state level.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Udall appears to have his own source of renewable energy in pushing for a national renewable energy standard. He came closest during his time in the House, when he managed to pass a bill requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from clean energy sources by 2020. A similar version actually passed the Senate as well, ushered through by then-Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D), a fellow New Mexican and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. However, the bills were never reconciled between the two chambers, and in any case President George W. Bush would not have been amenable to signing the legislation.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Udall even tried to take advantage of the acrimonious Keystone XL approval debate in Congress earlier this year by offering an amendment to the legislation that would have established a 25-percent-by-2025 national RES, which ultimately failed 45-53.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For the time being, when Udall is home in New Mexico he can appreciate the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires 20 percent of utility’s power to come from renewable sources by 2020. Passed by Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson in 2007, even this standard has come under fire in recent years by House Republicans, who view it as government overreach and a threat to electricity prices.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In arid states like New Mexico, ramping up renewable energy output provides a particularly tangible benefit: it saves water. A recent study by New Mexico’s largest utility, PNM, found that renewable energy provided by the utility will save 382 million gallons of water by 2016.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Once a solar panel and a wind turbine is made and installed, neither one requires any water consumption,” Sanders Moore, executive director of Environment New Mexico, recently said while discussing the state’s RPS. “So based on that, we’re seeing a huge net benefit in water savings.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a blog post on the Senate’s opportunity to pass energy legislation, Franz Matzner at the Natural Resources Defense Council writes that the Senate should embrace proposals like Udall’s national RPS that build on the country’s growing foundation in clean energy.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Congress “should build a national energy bill with measures that move toward the shared goals of cleaner, safer, more sustainable energy,” he writes. “The roadmap is there. Congress just needs to stay on the path.”<br />Tags:</font></span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></span></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/18/1371650/-Chemical-lobby-set-to-gut-U-S-toxic-chemical-regulations#</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3/15</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2px; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/chemical-lobbyist-caught-drafting-new-law-414698563573" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" size="4"><big style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">Chemical lobbyist exposed as author of new bill to regulate industry</big>&nbsp;<small style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4;">(link to video segment)</small>:</font></a></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.2em 0px; padding: 20px; line-height: 18.2px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); border-top: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); background: rgb(246, 243, 236);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rachel Maddow reports on the discovery that a draft of a new law to make much-needed updates to regulations on the chemical industry was authored by the American Chemistry Council, the leading trade organization and lobbyist for the chemical industry</font></blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 18.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; The last time U.S. toxic chemical regulations were updated was 39 years ago. Since then many states have opted to enact stricter safety standards than those Federal standards of the past to keep pace with newer chemicals and innovations developed over the years as well as the latest methods to evaluate toxic chemical hazards more accurately. These state standards are now in jeopardy as new Federal regulations are in the making that would cap and essentially override safer more complete laws in some states. California is one of those states. There are many more.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2px; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp;A reporter from the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Questions-raised-on-authorship-of-chemicals-bill-6137823.php" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">San Francisco Chronicle</a>&nbsp;discovered that a Microsoft Word draft of the new Federal regulations soon on its way to congress was authored by the American Chemistry Council. The Lobbying firm has denied they wrote the Bill. Further investigation by IT experts proved that denial to be untrue.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4;" /></font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.2em 0px; padding: 20px; line-height: 18.2px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); border-top: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); background: rgb(246, 243, 236);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In recent days, a draft of the bill — considered the product of more than two years of negotiation and collaboration between Sen. David Vitter, R-La., Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and both chemical industry and environmental groups — was circulated by Udall’s office ahead of the hearing. The draft bill, obtained by Hearst Newspapers, is in the form of a Microsoft Word document. Rudimentary digital forensics — going to “advanced properties” in Word — shows the “company” of origin to be the American Chemistry Council.</font></blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 18.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senator Barbara Boxer weighed in:</font></span></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.2em 0px; padding: 20px; line-height: 18.2px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); border-top: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); background: rgb(246, 243, 236);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Call me old-fashioned, but a bill to protect the public from harmful chemicals should not be written by chemical industry lobbyists. The voices of our families must not be drowned out by the very industry whose documented harmful impacts must be addressed, or the whole exercise is a sham,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Monday.</font><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; font-stretch: normal;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Boxer, who chaired the committee when the Democrats held the majority, and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., have introduced an alternative version of the bill with much more stringent regulatory provisions.</font></p></blockquote><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 18.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Ken Cook, president of the&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.ewg.org/about-us/staff" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2px; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Environmental Working Group</a><span style="line-height: 18.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, who will testify against the bill at Wednesday’s hearing had this to say:</span></font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.2em 0px; padding: 20px; line-height: 18.2px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); border-top: 1px solid rgb(226, 226, 225); background: rgb(246, 243, 236);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“We’re apparently at the point in the minds of some people in the Congress that laws intended to regulate polluters are now written by the polluters themselves,”</font><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; font-stretch: normal;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></p></blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 18.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed. I'm glad some people are doing their jobs. And thank you Senator Ed Markey and others on top of this for showing how it's done.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2px; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">P.S. this story is a day or so old, but it is so important that I thought it worth repeating.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18.2px; font-stretch: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; - H/T to&nbsp;<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1371650/55920910#c5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">kfunk937</a>&nbsp;for posting this petition link:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/264/658/327/?z00m=22771723&redirectID=1622978190" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.4; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">Don't Abolish State Protections Against Toxic Chemicals</a></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;===</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ploy? &nbsp;at same time as gw 98-1 wicker</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">T?en Democratic senators have voted with Republicans to allow the progress of a bill to extend the Keystone oil pipeline, placing more political pressure on the White House to reconsider its proposed veto of the legislation.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The procedural motion was passed by 63 votes to 32, comfortably clearing the three-fifths majority needed to avoid a filibuster and falling just short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overcome a presidential veto when it comes to a final vote.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But some of the Democrats, who were also joined by Maine independent Angus King, may switch votes in future to avoid embarrassing Barack Obama who has said he is opposed to Congress interfering in a long-running administration review of the pipeline extension.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Keystone has become a symbolic battlefield for the administration’s climate change policy, with critics insisting that it will encourage the exploitation ofheavily-polluting Canadian tar sands and supporters claiming it will createthousands of jobs.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill will now see various amendments added over the coming weeks, a process which could ultimately decide on its level of support among Democrats.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was approved by the House of Representatives last week by 266-152 votes, a margin also short of the two-thirds majority in both chambers needed to overcome White House opposition.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Obama administration has stood by its decision to reject the bill, even though a Nebraska court decision in favour of the Keystone route removed one of its remaining objections.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></p><p /><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Democrats who joined senator King in voting for cloture on the motion to proceed included: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Warner of Virginia. King has said he would vote against final passage, and five senators have not voted at all yet.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font><br/>

lcv 2014

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: 0.5px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; background-color: rgb(244, 244, 244); display: inline !important;">Senator Tom Udall is running to represent New Mexico for a second term in the U.S. Senate. Tom Udall has followed in his family’s long history of public service, which includes his father Stewart Udall, a former Secretary of the Interior, his uncle Morris Udall, a former Congressman from Arizona, and his cousin Mark Udall, Colorado’s current senior Senator. Tom Udall served as Chief Counsel to the New Mexico Department of Health and Environment, New Mexico’s Attorney General, and Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008. Tom Udall recognizes not only the threat of climate change, but also the opportunity it presents to create jobs and lead the world in clean technologies. He has co-sponsored multiple pieces of legislation that would provide incentives, encourage investment, and mandate increased usage of clean technologies. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Tom Udall recognizes the need to protect our public lands and water resources, which is why he authored legislation that became law to protect 16,000 acres in New Mexico as wilderness and is working with the EPA to ensure that there is funding for adequate water infrastructure. Tom Udall has earned an excellent 97% lifetime score on LCV’s National Environmental Scorecard.

===

<i style=" font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Note: The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today approved an amended <i style=" font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">S.J. Res. 19,<i style=" font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4208" style=" text-decoration: none;">a constitutional amendment</a> proposed by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that aims to overturn <span style=" font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission<i style=" font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions relating to campaign finance.

==

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v FEC, American elections have been flooded with money: between the 2008 and 2012 elections, outside spending increased roughly 245 percent in presidential elections, 662 percent in House elections, and 1,338 percent in Senate elections.

The majority of known outside spending came from just a handful of donors, with 60 percent of Super PAC funding in 2012 coming from just 132 people, each donating at least a million dollars. Hundreds of millions more was spent by "dark money" nonprofits that keep their donors secret. This spending matters: multiple studies have shown that Congress' policy priorities are much more closely aligned with the preferences of the donor class, and detached from the interests and policy preferences of the majority of Americans, and that your chances of getting a meeting with a member of Congress and their staff are much greater if you are a donor.

It is against this backdrop that the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing June 3 on a constitutional amendment to not only reverse Citizens United and McCutcheon, but also the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision that established the notion of "money as speech."

“Our involvement in government should not depend on our bank account balances,” declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in his hearing testimony. “How could everyday working families afford to make their voices heard if money is free speech?"

Our current lawless political system, he said, results in "one set of billionaires pitted against another set of billionaires – we can argue all day about whose billionaires are right, and whose billionaires are wrong, or we can change the system."

Just a few years ago, the notion of amending the constitution to restore the ability of elected officials to regulate election spending -- and to restore a definition of the First Amendment that protects speech rather than money -- seemed like a pipe dream. Amendments introduced in 2010, just after Citizens United, attracted only a handful of sponsors.

But this year, SJR 19, the constitutional amendment introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), has <a href="http://blog.pfaw.org/content/43-senators-support-amendment-strategy-get-money-out-elections" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">forty-three senate sponsors</a>, and counting.

What seemed impossible in 2010 has become possible in 2014, thanks to the broad-based, bipartisan grassroots movement that emerged in the wake of Citizens United to push back against the dominant role of money in our political system and the notion that "money is speech."...

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/12504">http://www.prwatch.org/node/12504</a>

===

<a href="http://grist.org/news/bill-would-boost-renewables-to-25-percent-by-2025-has-no-chance-in-hell-of-passing/">http://grist.org/news/bill-would-boost-renewables-to-25-percent-by-2025-has-no-chance-in-hell-of-passing/</a>

<a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4850" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">Most states</a> in the union require utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. A new bill in Congress would take that strategy national.

Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) — cousins, as it happens — <a href="http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1463" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">introduced legislation</a> this week that would require utilities across the country to generate a quarter of their electricity from wind, solar, and other renewable sources by 2025.

That’s right in line with Colorado’s current renewable electricity standard, and it’s modest <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">compared to California’s</a>, which calls for utilities to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. Look abroad and it’s more modest still: <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-30/german-grid-seen-stable-even-with-renewables-only-supply.html" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">Germany generates 23 percent</a>of electricity from renewable sources, with a goal of reaching 80 percent by 2050. Around the world, <a href="http://climate-energy.blogs.panda.org/2013/09/21/wwf-enabling-environment-vital-to-ensure-scaling-up-of-renewable-energy-worldwide/" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">138 countries</a> have renewable energy goals or requirements in place.

“Clean energy creates jobs, spurs innovation, reduces global warming and makes us more energy independent,” <a href="http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3814" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">said Mark Udall</a>. “This common-sense proposal would extend Colorado’s successful effort to expand the use of renewable energy alongside natural gas and coal to the entire nation.”

But Congress isn’t about to pass anything of the sort. Because, ew, clean energy. The Udalls first introduced similar legislation in 2002, when they were both members of the House, then <a href="http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=994" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">introduced it again two years ago</a> in Senate. No luck so far — but bonus points for persistence.