fitzpatrick, Brian Rep G O P

lcv 71 highest gop?

carbon tax w. curbello

Problem Solvers Caucus is a bipartisan group in the United States House of Representatives that includes 58 members, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, who seek to foster bipartisan cooperation on key policy issues. Created in January 2017, the group is currently co-chaired by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).^[5]

===}:

an 9 24

Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, publisher of Democracy Docket, has been warning that if Vice President Kamala Harris defeats former President Donald Trump in November, far-right MAGA Republicans will try everything they can to overturn the election results. And those Trump loyalists, according to Elias, are much better organized in 2024 than they were in 2020.

Not all Republicans, however, are on board with election denialism. And some U.S. House Republicans, according to Politico's Sarah Ferris, have "signed a bipartisan pledge to uphold the results of the 2024 election."

More than 30 lawmakers serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ferris reports, signed the pledge. Most were Democrats, but a "half dozen" were Republicans — including Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska), who organized the effort with Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-New Jersey).

Other House Republicans who signed the pledge included Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon, and Reps. Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota and Anthony D'Esposito of New York State.

Bacon, in an official statement, said, "In America, we respect election results, especially once the courts and appeals work through the process. We fight hard to win during campaigns and then respect the results when the votes are counted."

Ferris notes that Trump "has continued to insist that he did not lose the election in 2020" and has been "stoking fear that he may again encourage his supporters to block certification of the election next January if he loses for a second time."

"None of the six Republicans who signed the pledge voted against certifying the 2020 election on January 6, 2021," the Politico reporter observes. "Several of them were not yet in office. A total of 139 House Republicans did vote against certifying President Joe Biden's victory.

READ MORE:['Nothing is off the table': Trump plans for 'bureaucratic bullying' of enemies if he wins

*Read Politico's full article at this link.

===

an 8 23

no lnx

'Rumor and innuendo': Vulnerable House Republicans threaten McCarthy’s path to Biden impeachment

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 23: Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) listens as Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) and Rep. Maria Salazar (R-FL) speak during a press conference on immigration outside the U.S. Capitol Building on May 23, 2023 in Washington, DC. During the bipartisan news conference lawmakers introduced the “Dignity Act,” which lawmakers expect will improve the application process for U.S. citizenship as well as increase security on both the northern and southern borders. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Elizabeth PrezaAugust 09, 2023

Several vulnerable House Republicans are expressing doubt about a possible impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy last month floated the possibility in an interview with Fox News.

On July 24, McCarthy told host Sean Hannity that investigations into the Biden family by the House Oversight Committee “are rising to the level of impeachment inquiry, which provides Congress the strongest power to get the rest of the knowledge and information needed.”

But, as NBC News reports, “ McCarthy can lose no more than four GOP votes” if he pursues an impeachment inquiry — and “the make-or-break votes will come from 18 politically vulnerable Republicans who represent districts Biden won in 2020 and other self-styled GOP pragmatists.”

READ MORE: Kevin McCarthy tells Hannity Biden family’s business is 'rising to the level of impeachment inquiry'

“Impeachment should not be political by any stretch,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said. “We’ve seen what happens when Congress acts in a political matter — it does not serve the interests of the American people in any way.”

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) echoed a similar sentiment.

“We’ve got to get back to a point where impeachment is what it was intended to be,” Fitzpatrick told NBC News. “I feel like, you know, both in the last cycle and in this cycle, we’re converting into essentially a vote of no confidence in the British Parliament. And I don’t want to see our country go down that path.”

READ MORE: 'Unbelievably irresponsible': CNN slammed over 'bizarre' and 'reckless' report on GOP impeachment plans

While he concedes “it’s too early for a formal impeachment inquiry,” Rep. Don Bacon, (R-NE) is keeping the door open.

NBC reports the freshman representative “said he believes the president was ‘more involved’ with his son's business dealings than he admitted and that the GOP investigations should continue.”

But, Bacon warned, “We should have more confidence that actual high crimes and misdemeanors occurred before starting a formal impeachment inquiry.”

READ MORE: House Republicans’ Biden 'bombshell' keeps failing to materialize: analysis

To that effect, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), a former county prosecutor, noted he’s heard “a lot of rumor and innuendo” about the Biden family, “but that’s not fact to me.”

“I think there has to be due process that we follow, and I’ve not seen any of that today,” Joyce said.

For Lawler, the representative from New York, “the question to me right now is do the investigations — are they producing enough facts and evidence that warrant taking it to the next step?”

“I don’t think it’s there at the moment,” Lawler said. “But these committees are doing their job.”

“Some of the stuff obviously deserves further review,” Joyce, the former prosecutor, noted. “but there is nothing hard in front of us at this moment to say that any of that is true.”

READ MORE: Fox News host: President Biden’s move to protect Grand Canyon land a ploy to fund Russian government

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'Cruel and shortsighted': Progressives blast Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling deal ›

New analysis fact-checks McCarthy’s claim that Biden has cost families $7400 ›

Kevin McCarthy dispels right-wing conspiracy that President Biden has dementia ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

McCarthy says Biden family allegations are 'rising to the level of ... ›

How Biden and McCarthy struck a debt limit deal and staved off a ... ›

House Republicans line up behind McCarthy on the Biden ... ›

https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/michael-flynn/

Retired army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's allies reportedly planned to gather "intelligence" on Republican electors in key states former President Donald Trump lost in hopes of distancing them from the election audits, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and House Select Committee investigators have learned. GUK

Former whistleblower Everett Stern recently spoke with the investigating panel and FBI agents where he shared details about Flynn's associates.

Speaking to The Guardian, Stern, head of the Tactical Rabbit intelligence firm and a current Senate candidate, also revealed Flynn's allies reached out to him. He reportedly provided evidence, which included text messages, emails, and other correspondence to support his claims.

The individuals he was in contact with included Velma Anne Ruth, along with two additional Flynn allies: Al Hartman, a real estate mogul in Houston, Texas, and former army Green Beret Ivan Raiklin, both of whom advocated for election audits in multiple states.

Two of Flynn's associates, who are said to be part of a far-right extremist organization known as the Patriot Caucus, were the first to approach him back in April of last year. At the time, they were reportedly part of a "scheme to seek potentially damaging information on two Republican members of Congress to prod them to back an audit of the 2020 vote that Joe Biden won."

Stern revealed Flynn's associates were in search of incriminating campaign financial information and other negative intel on Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), who both supported Trump's impeachment. They'd reportedly hoped the dirt would be a way to convince Toomey Fitzpatrick to support Trump's baseless claims of voter fraud which suggested that President Joe Biden's election win was illegitimate.

Per The Guardian:

"The efforts by Flynn’s Patriot Caucus allies were launched after Trump failed to block Biden from taking office, and are part of a wider drive by Trump loyalists and Flynn to help boost Trump’s political fortunes via more state audits nationwide into false charges that Biden’s win was rigged, and elect like-minded candidates in key states to top electoral offices."

Although Stern reached out to the FBI last June, it remains unclear whether or not the agency is still pursuing the allegations.

https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/exxonmobil-climate-tax/

no lnx

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

Elliott Negin and Independent Media Institute October 13, 2021

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

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

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

Backing Climate Science Deniers

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

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

In fact, the opposite is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snubbing Carbon Tax Proponents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

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

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

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

New Carbon Tax Bill Suggests a Future Republican Shift on Climate Change

On Thursday, July 19 The Hill reported that the Republican controlled Congress passed anon-binding resolutionsaying a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions "would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States."

Butthe next Monday, a Republican duo introduced and co-sponsored the MARKET CHOICE Act (H.R. 6463)that would implement a carbon tax and funnel the proceeds towards improving infrastructure.

The two approaches, Time Magazine reported Thursday, could represent the past and future of the Republican party.

"The pendulum will swing," former Republican South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis, who heads the non-profit RepublicEn, which promotes conservative solutions for environmental problems, told Time. "And when that pendulum swings…it may just be the solution you don't want on climate."

The two congressmen who introduced and co-sponsored the carbon tax bill could be the beginning of that swing.

Carlos Curbelo, the Florida Representative who introduced the bill, represents a district stretching from Key West to outside Miami.

He has been a unique Republican voice on the reality and threat of climate change since he was first elected in 2014, according to Grist.

"I tell my skeptical colleagues: When my district is underwater, I'll move to their district and run against them," he told Grist. "That usually breaks the ice."

He formed the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus with fellow Floridian and Democratic Congressperson Ted Deutch, which is designed to have an even number of Republican and Democrat members.

As of now, Time reports it has 43 Republican members, even though many still vote against climate action despite claiming to believe in its necessity.

"We're seeing trends in the House that should give us all hope," Curbelo told Time.

The bill's co-sponsor, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted in line with the environment 71 percent of the time in 2017 according to the League of Conservation Voters' scorecard, the highest percentage of any Congressional Republican, Grist reported.

One reason a carbon tax might be a gateway climate proposal for Republicans is that it is actually favored by companies who see climate policy as inevitable, and prefer a tax to more complicated regulations, Time explained.

On Wednesday, 34 major companies including BP America, Shell and General Motors wrote a letter to Curbelo thanking him for introducing the bill, though they did not endorse it outright.

"We believe that an economy-wide, market-based approach to valuing or pricing carbon, when carefully crafted, can both strengthen our economy and reduce carbon emissions by encouraging technological innovation and stimulating new investments in infrastructure, products, and services," the letter said.

Curbelo's current bill is not likely to pass, given the opinions of the rest of the Republican majority in Congress, but it might model a way forward for the party in the future. Time reported two polls by the Alliance of Market Solutions and the Pew Research Center respectively that showed that more than half of younger Republicans care about climate change and that almost 25 percent of people under 30 who identified as Republican in 2015 had since left the party.

However, Emilie Prattico, director of development at We Mean Business, a private-sector climate mobilization non-profit, cautioned in a Huffington Post opinion piece thatcarbon tax supporters could do better than Curbelo's bill.

While it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 27 to 32 percent by 2025 and 30 to 40 percent by 2030, its other provisions would not go far enough to adequately address climate change.

It would devote as much as 70 percent of generated revenue to updating existing fossil-fuel-based transportation infrastructure and only a small percent to developing carbon-free transport options and it would allow emitters a chance to perform their way out of having to obey Clean Air Act regulations if they followed the law.

"A successful carbon tax bill, whether it is proposed by Democrats, Republicans or both, would not only impose a levy on fossil fuels but steer the economy toward innovation, less-polluting alternatives for high-emitting sectors, and fairness to consumers and citizens," Prattico wrote.

nice map]

https://www.ecowatch.com/league-of-conservation-voters-scorecard-2540884519.html

Republicans in Congress Flunk Environment and Public Health Report Card With Average Grade of 1%

Congressional Republican lawmakers have set record lows on the 2017 League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard, released Tuesday.

The LCV, which has been scoring lawmakers' actions on environment, public health and climate issues for nearly 50 years, awarded Senate Republicans a record low average 1 percent score, with 46 Senators receiving a score of zero—meaning "they voted against the environment and public health at every opportunity" in 2017.

House Republicans earned an average of five percent, with the lauded GOP ClimateSolutions Caucus earning a scant 16 percent average.

"There's no getting around it: at the federal level, 2017 was an unmitigated disaster for the environment and public health with President Trump and his Cabinet quickly becoming the most anti-environmental administration in our nation's history," the report said.

As reported by Mother Jones:

"'We've seen the parties have gotten further and further apart,' says Tiernan Sittenfeld, LCV's senior vice president for government affairs, 'and more Democrats have recognized that good climate politics is good politics.'

... The exception is Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who earned the highest of any Republican with 71 percent—a solid C-minus.

'It's unfortunately that 71 percent is now such an outlier,' Sittenfeld notes, 'because it used to be that a number of Republicans voted pro environment.'"

ThinkProgress pointed out that the administration's attacks on the environment and public health have continued incessantly in 2018:

"By all accounts, the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda shows no signs of slowing down in 2018. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently announced plans to reorganize the agency and shutter a program that funds research into how chemicals impact human health, while Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke recently reiterated plans to open a historic amount of the United States' coast to offshore drilling."