LEGISLATURE

=lost?congress 2 is post 9/16see also millionaires, legislation, staffershtml 1220 predicament =

TOOLS: http://www.opencongress.org/people/bills/412567_Jim_Bridenstine  gives voted with and ~ most https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr2042 ===how to fix booktv
<span class="time" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-weight: 600; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 0.85em; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; display: block; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><time datetime="2020-12-01" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">dECEMBER 19, 2020...The American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Kosar, Lee Drutman of the New American Foundation, and James Madison University…

---...Sadly, Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much these days, including the need to protect our environment. It shouldn't be this way, it didn't used to be and we're doing all we can to make sure it's not this way in the future.</time><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?507131-1/congress-overwhelmed" class="title" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; width: 194.391px; float: left; min-width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But, as we release our environmental scorecard for 2017, we want to not only applaud the Democrats who scored 100 percent, but also cheer on those members of both parties who boldly stood up for our planet this year.</a><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?507131-1/congress-overwhelmed" class="title" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; width: 194.391px; float: left; min-width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Overall, the U.S. Senate had a score of 47 percent and the U.S. House of Representatives scored 45 percent, which does not bode well for our air or water.</a><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?507131-1/congress-overwhelmed" class="title" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; width: 194.391px; float: left; min-width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The good news is that 139 members from the two branches voted with us 100 percent of the time, which means our planet and our families are represented by a lot of real environmental champs.</a><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?507131-1/congress-overwhelmed" class="title" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; transition: color 0.35s ease 0s; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; width: 194.391px; float: left; min-width: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">And on a number of issues, the environment received bipartisan support. In particular, a cadre of Republicans in the U.S. House supported funding to make public transit available and to ensure that the </a><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" style="text-decoration-line: none;">EPA</a> had enough money to do its job protecting our air and water. In the Senate, limiting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" style="text-decoration-line: none;">methane</a> pollution was the big bipartisan winner.Unfortunately, with 145 of our federal decision-makers scoring 0 percent, it's obvious we have a lot more work to do to make sure our elected officials represent the majority of Americans who want to see a cleaner, greener, healthier planet for future generations.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/environment-america-scorecard-2515982183.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/environment-america-scorecard-2515982183.html</a><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances">https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances</a><table class="DataTable dataTable no-footer" id="DataTables_Table_0" role="grid" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-spacing: 0px; width: 688px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Darrell-Issa?cid=N00007017&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Darrell Issa (R-Calif)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$330,050,015</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Jared-Polis?cid=N00029127&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Jared Polis (D-Colo)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$313,556,221</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Mark-Warner?cid=N00002097&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Mark Warner (D-Va)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$238,157,630</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/John-K-Delaney?cid=N00033897&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">John K Delaney (D-Md)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$232,816,089</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Dave-Trott?cid=N00035607&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Dave Trott (R-Mich)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$177,149,145</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Vernon-Buchanan?cid=N00027626&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$115,534,558</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Nancy-Pelosi?cid=N00007360&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$100,643,521</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Scott-Peters?cid=N00033591&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Scott Peters (D-Calif)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$95,569,028</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Richard-Blumenthal?cid=N00031685&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$81,745,158</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Dianne-Feinstein?cid=N00007364&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$79,067,057</td></tr></tbody></table>---Not all politicians come into office wealthy – but many leave that way. Here are the top 10 winners of the past decade.<div class="table-wrap u-mt2" tabindex="0" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 2em 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); overflow-x: scroll;"><div id="DataTables_Table_2_wrapper" class="dataTables_wrapper no-footer" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; outline: none;"><table class="DataTable dataTable no-footer" id="DataTables_Table_2" role="grid" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-spacing: 0px; width: 688px;"><thead style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><tr role="row" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><th class="sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="DataTables_Table_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Name: activate to sort column ascending" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.58824rem 0px 0px; vertical-align: middle; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-image: url(" assets="assets" icons="icons" arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg="arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-position="background-position" right="right" px="px" center="center" border-bottom="border-bottom" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" text-align="text-align" left="left" width="width">Name</th><th class="number sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="DataTables_Table_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Growth Percentage: activate to sort column ascending" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 1.76471rem 0px 0px; vertical-align: middle; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-image: url(" assets="assets" icons="icons" arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg="arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-position="background-position" right="right" px="px" center="center" border-bottom="border-bottom" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" text-align="text-align" width="width">Growth Percentage</th><th class="number sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="DataTables_Table_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Avg. Wealth 2005: activate to sort column ascending" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 1.76471rem 0px 0px; vertical-align: middle; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-image: url(" assets="assets" icons="icons" arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg="arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-position="background-position" right="right" px="px" center="center" border-bottom="border-bottom" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" text-align="text-align" width="width">Avg. Wealth 2005</th><th class="number sorting" tabindex="0" aria-controls="DataTables_Table_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" aria-label="Avg. Wealth 2015: activate to sort column ascending" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 1.76471rem 0px 0px; vertical-align: middle; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-image: url(" assets="assets" icons="icons" arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg="arrow-both-dd5f374084489add793555a117dcadfdeb32f5f601fd37781811813305d0665f.svg" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-position="background-position" right="right" px="px" center="center" border-bottom="border-bottom" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" text-align="text-align" width="width">Avg. Wealth 2015</th></tr></thead><tbody style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Ken-Calvert?cid=N00007099&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Calvert, Ken (R-Calif)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">4900.1%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">-$99,997</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$4,800,003</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Jeffrey-Lane-Fortenberry?cid=N00026631&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Fortenberry, Jeffrey Lane (R-Neb)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">4457.9%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$267,511</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$12,193,002</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Mac-Thornberry?cid=N00006052&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Thornberry, Mac (R-Texas)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">3973.0%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">-$16,499</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$639,005</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/David-Scott?cid=N00024871&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Scott, David (D-Ga)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">2994.3%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$81,537</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$2,523,001</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Linda-Sanchez?cid=N00024870&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Sanchez, Linda (D-Calif)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">2441.6%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">-$32,500</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$761,010</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Collin-C-Peterson?cid=N00004558&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Peterson, Collin C (D-Minn)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">1933.1%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$83,001</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$1,687,509</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Sheila-Jackson-Lee?cid=N00005818&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-Texas)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">1921.3%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$175,505</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$3,547,506</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Roy-Blunt?cid=N00005195&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Blunt, Roy (R-Mo)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">1658.7%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$231,502</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$4,071,509</td></tr><tr role="row" class="odd" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Susan-M-Collins?cid=N00000491&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Collins, Susan M (R-Maine)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">1570.9%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$223,002</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$3,726,047</td></tr><tr role="row" class="even" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit;"><td style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth/Ted-Poe?cid=N00026457&year=2015" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; touch-action: manipulation; background-color: transparent; transition: background-color 150ms ease-in-out, border 150ms ease-in-out, color 150ms ease-in-out; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;">Poe, Ted (R-Texas)</a></td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">1290.5%</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$32,003</td><td class="number" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0.88235rem 1.76471rem 0.88235rem 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); text-align: right;">$445,008</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><h2 class="date-header" style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; position: static; clear: both; border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(168, 188, 215); padding: 3px; line-height: 19.5px;">January 08, 2013</h2><div class="entry-category-blog entry-category-donald_trump entry-category-john_edwards entry-category-national entry-author-tom_jensen entry-type-post entry" id="entry-6a0133f2dd8001970b017ee716e9f5970d" style="position: static; overflow: hidden; clear: both; width: 629px; margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 19.5px;"><div class="entry-inner"><h3 class="entry-header" style="margin: 1px 0px 10px; border: 0px; line-height: normal;">Congress somewhere below cockroaches, traffic jams, and Nickelback in Americans' esteem</h3><div class="entry-content" style="position: static; clear: both; margin: 10px 0px;"><div class="entry-body" style="clear: both;">Our newest national poll finds that Congress only has a 9% favorability rating with 85% of voters viewing it in a negative light. We've seen poll after poll after poll over the last year talking about how unpopular Congress is but really, what's the difference between an 11% or a 9% or a 7% favorability rating? So we decided to take a different approach and test Congress' popularity against 26 different things. And what we found is that Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and even Nickelback.Here's what we found:It's gross to have lice but at least they can be removed in a way that given the recent reelection rates members of Congress evidently can't: Lice 67 Congress 19Brussel sprouts may have been disgusting as a kid, but evidently they're now a lot less disgusting than Congress: Brussel Sprouts 69 Congress 23The NFL replacement refs may have screwed everything up, but voters think Congress is screwing everything up even worse: Replacement Refs 56 Congressmen 29 (the breakdown among Packers fans might be a little bit different).Colonoscopies are not a terribly pleasant experience but at least they have some redeeming value that most voters aren't seeing in Congress: Colonoscopies 58 Congress 31And you can make the same point about root canals: Root Canals 56 Congress 32You might get a bad deal from a used car salesmen, but voters evidently think they're getting an even worse deal from Congress: Used Car Salesmen 57 Congress 32Being stuff in traffic sucks, but voters are even less happy about being stuck with this Congress: Traffic Jams 56 Congress 34America might have had to bail out France multiple times over the years but voters still have a more charitable opinion of it than Congress: France 46 Congress 37Carnies may use loaded dice, but voters still think they have a better chance of winning with them than Congress: Carnies 39 Congress 31It may be true that everyone hates Nickelback, but apparently everyone hates Congress even more: Nickelback 39 Congress 32Genghis Khan did a lot of bad stuff but I guess it's faded from voters' minds in a way that Congress' recent misdeeds haven't: Genghis Khan 41 Congress 37DC political pundits and Donald Trump aren't held in very high esteem by the population, but they still both manage to just barely edge Congress: DC political pundits 37 Congress 34 and Donald Trump 44 Congress 42Cockroaches are a pretty good reason to call the exterminator but voters might be even more concerned if their homes were infested with members of Congress: Cockroaches 45 Congress 43Now the news isn't all bad for Congress:By relatively close margins it beats out Lindsey Lohan (45/41), playground bullies (43/38), and telemarketers (45/35). And it posts wider margins over the Kardashians (49/36), John Edwards (45/29), lobbyists (48/30), Fidel Castro (54/32), Gonorrhea (53/28), Ebola (53/25), Communism (57/23), North Korea (61/26), and meth labs (60/21)But when you're less popular than cockroaches, Genghis Khan, traffic jams, and yes even Nickelback, well, it might be time to reevaluate.Full results <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_Natl_010813.pdf" target="self">here</a>PPP</div></div></div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>6/16 congress:</div><div>
</div><div><p align="left" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467389966505_12246" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; padding: 0px; line-height: 22px; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> attacks on our environment are extremely widespread. As of today, appropriations bills include dangerous riders that would:<div align="left" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467389966505_12248" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 12px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><ul id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467389966505_12247" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin: 2px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 40px;"><li style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Let mining companies off the hook from financial responsibility for cleaning up the messes they leave behind</li><li style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Prevent current plans to phase out old-growth logging in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska</li><li id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467389966505_12249" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Block Endangered Species Act protections for several imperiled species and undermine the scientific and legal process established to protect imperiled species</li><li style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Prevent implementation of the National Ocean Policy, a landmark policy designed to safeguard our oceans and coasts</li><li style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Prevent the EPA from limiting carbon pollution from new and existing fossil fuel power plants</li><li id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467389966505_12280" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Undermine the Clean Water Rule, which protects drinking water for roughly one in three Americans</li><li id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467389966505_12279" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Block first-ever national standards to reduce methane pollution from oil and gas, an extremely powerful climate pollutant</li><li style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Undermine new safeguards to protect farm workers from pesticides</li><li id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467389966505_12250" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px;">Roll back environmental safeguards and curtail public participation in order to increase logging on federal forest lands</li></ul></div></div> ==3/16http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/14/climate-change-deniers-congress/According to a new report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 59 percent of the House Republican caucus and 70 percent of Senate Republicans refuse to accept the reality of climate change. This means there are a total of 182 climate change deniers in the House and Senate who collectively represent more than 200 million American citizens (based on their district/state size that they represent in Congress).So how is it possible that the majority of Americans are willing to accept science yet their own representatives ignore it? The answer, as usual, comes down to money.The Center for American Progress report shows that the fossil fuel industry has given more $73 million to these science-denying politicians; $10 million of which came in just the last 12 months, perhaps spurred on by recent reports showing that 2015 once again broke temperature records or maybe concerned about the falling demand for fossil fuels. But whatever the reason, that $73 million is apparently all it takes to ignore the desires of 200 million concerned American citizens. ==exec order but gop congr did not fight?

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11012016/congress-climate-change-omnibus-budget-bill-flood-standard-obamaPresident Obama's plan to safeguard the nation from increasing flood risk due to climate change was quietly green-lighted by Congress last month in the 2016 omnibus budget bill.It marks one of the only actions Congress took on global warming in all of 2015, and it came as a surprise considering the longstanding opposition from Republicans. And it is a critical one, several policy experts said. It will impact billions of dollars of federally funded construction projects across the country, from highways and bridges to hospitals and housing complexes, at a time when flooding in the U.S. is getting worse every year because of climate change."The policy illustrates the awareness that we should not build things that are vulnerable to flooding now or in the future," said Rob Moore, a policy analyst and director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Water and Climate Team. "That may not seem like a revolutionary idea, but unfortunately it is. We have a long history of building things that easily get soggy."Obama's plan, executive order No. 13690, mandates that all federally funded projects located in a floodplain be built higher and stronger than previously required. It is the first update to the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard since the policy was created 38 years ago. It applies to both new construction and rebuilding following a disaster.Under the old standards, enacted by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, buildings in the floodplain had to be elevated to the 100-year flood level. Under Obama's executive order, buildings must now be elevated 2 or 3 feet above the 100-year flood level (the higher standard is for "critical" infrastructure, like hospitals), or at the 500-year flood level. A third option is for federal agencies  to analyze future climate change scenarios and build according to those projections, such as for sea level rise or expected heavier rain events.... https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/04/15/111169/release-cap-analysis-shows-anti-environmental-priorities-dominate-first-100-days-of-new-congress-but-no-results-to-show/april 2015 D.C. — According to a Center for American Progress analysis of roll call votes, the 114th Congress has cast more roll call votes on energy and environmental issues in its first 100 days than on any other legislative issue, with none of the energy and environmental proposals voted on becoming law.Thirty percent of the votes cast in the 114th Congress were on energy- and environment-related topics, more than any other legislative area. The Senate alone cast more than 44 percent of its votes on fossil-fuel and anti-environmental priorities, including approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, blocking action to address climate change, and selling America’s public lands.“With close to three-quarters of a billion dollars from coal, oil, and gas companies behind them, the new Congress spent its first 100 days pushing divisive and unpopular proposals that have gone nowhere,” said Matt Lee-Ashley, Senior Fellow and the Director of Public Lands at CAP. “Congressional leaders must now choose whether to drive their anti-environment agenda deeper into a ditch or whether to align their priorities with American families who want more renewable energy and better protections for public lands, public health, and clean drinking water.”CAP’s analysis found that on 74 percent of the energy and environmental votes, a majority of senators supported the anti-environment position. Public opinion research commissioned by CAP shows that the majority of Americans widely oppose many of the proposals that Senate leaders have chosen to prioritize, including efforts to remove key protections for land, water, and wildlife and to block the creation of new national parks.An earlier CAP analysis found that fossil-fuel interests spent more than $721 million to help elect and influence the agenda of the 114th Congress.Click here to read the column.  For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, contact Tom Caiazza at tcaiazza@americanprogress.org or 202.481.7141. 
http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/18/omnibus-spending-billCongressional Republicans Deliver Early Christmas Gift to Big Oil, Exxon and Koch BrothersThis early Christmas gift to Big Oil, ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers from Congressional Republicans will send American jobs overseas, rip up more iconic American landscapes to pump oil that nobody needs, and increase the carbon pollution that’s driving the climate crisis.Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans have yet to recognize that the entire world, including even the biggest oil producing states like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia just agreed to set an expiration date on fossil fuels and power the world with clean energy.
By Leda HutaExecutive DirectorEndangered Species Coaliton This election isn’t good news for wildlife. Although the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed by Richard Nixon and passed with bipartisan support, times have changed. Politicians now use endangered species to score cheap political points, scapegoating wildlife protections for complex problems. Relying on misleading, tired old refrains like fish vs. farmer, they ignore root causes and real solutions in favor of dismantling wildlife protections that will do little to address problems they care about.In the House, Committee for Natural Resources Chair (an endangered species ally) Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) will lose his leadership. With the Republicans taking over, Congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA), the Ranking Republican, is poised to become Chairman. Congressman Hastings, elected under the Contract with America banner, received a League of Conservation Voters (LCV) score of 0% most years. On endangered species, he supported President Bush’s crippling of science in endangered species decisions. He advocated for the Columbia River to be prioritized for irrigation instead of wildlife protections under the ESA. And he voted for Congressman Pombo’s 2005 Extinction Bill to dismantle endangered species protections. Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT), ranking member of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee and Western Caucus Chairman wants to deslist the wolf via Congress and to open more public land to drilling. The Congressman states that the ESA “overemphasizes listing” (even though listed species are much less likely to go extinct), opposes the listing of Sage grouse as endangered, blames the Sonoran Pronghorn for our immigration problems, and reproaches endangered species for California’s drier conditions. The current Ranking Minority Member of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) — with a 0% LCV score — opposes protecting the ecosystem and endangered species of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The former Chair of the committee, Don Young (R-AK) created the ESA Task Force chaired by Congressman Richard Pombo, leading to Pombo’s ultimately unsuccessful Extinction Bill. Other wildlife foes on the committee — each with an LCV score of 0-4% and on the wrong side of endangered species issues — include: Congressmen Paul Broun (R-GA), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), John Fleming (R-LA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Unfortunately, one of Pombo’s staunches allies — Congressman Steve Pearce (R-NM) — is back in his old seat. Last time around, Congressman Pearce went after the Mexican wolf reintroduction program, stating that nothing is more attractive to wolves than the sound of a crying baby. If he gets back on this committee, Congressman Pearce could once again make quite a team with the other wildlife foes, unrestrained by any moderate, pro-wildlife Republicans (none of whom currently serve on the committee). Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is the Ranking Minority Member in line to take over the Appropriations Committee. He consistently voted against endangered species, even cosponsoring a bill that weakened the ESA, under the guise of flood control. He vehemently opposed the protection of the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat (much cuter than it sounds) and hired a lobbying firm to find ways of weakening protections for it and the endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly.Congressman Mike Simpson (R-ID) — a member of Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner’s inner circle–is in line for Chairman of Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, which approves U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) budgets. While he has been a conservationist on some issues, like wilderness designation for the Boulder-White Clouds range, there are still strong reasons for concern, namely his LCV score of 6%, his legislation to delist wolves and his co-sponsorship of legislation to repeal the designation of critical habitat. In the Senate, the news appears better only on the surface. There were some very important wins, like Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But, active endangered species foes like Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) are also back in. And here, Democrats are problematic, entertaining exemptions to the ESA for salmon and wolves. Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Max Baucus (D-MT) are particularly in positions from which they could do a lot of damage. If they pursue their exemptions strategy, we’ll see a precedent whereby Congress gets into the wildlife management business, while hacking away at the ESA. Insider sources claim we’re likely to see this issue in the lame duck session, probably attached to an appropriations bill.6/15=http://www.globalpossibilities.org/congressional-republicans-damn-the-environment-full-cuts-ahead/By Ben Adler GRIST In what has recently become a common ritual in American politics, Congress’ Republican majority is moving forward with its own set of appropriations bills, rather than negotiating a budget with President Obama or the Democrats in Congress. Surprise! Their bills take extreme positions — for corporate interests; against public health and safety. In particular, the appropriations bills governing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Interior (DOI) would decimate environmental spending and repeal huge chunks of federal regulatory authority — including, crucially, EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.Republicans in both the House and the Senate have written and passed the EPA/DOI appropriations out of their respective appropriations committees on party-line votes. There are slight differences between the House and Senate versions, but the basic contours and spending levels are the same. Both would drastically cut spending to hold it down to the levels laid out by the sequestration process defined in the Budget Control Act of 2011.Remember sequestration — the fall-back budget-cutting plan designed to be so broadbrush and draconian that both parties would come to terms on a real deficit-reducing plan rather than face such a politically painful outcome? Thanks to Republican unwillingness to raise tax revenue, sequestration actually went into effect; we’re still living under it. Now Republicans are simply demanding that domestic spending cuts under sequestration be maintained, while the defense budget is allowed to grow. Meanwhile, they are attaching “policy riders” to the environmental appropriations bills that would take us back to the days before President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.But the GOP has a problem: They don’t control all the levers of power. President Obama won’t sign any budget that repeals the EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution. Senate Democrats, who can filibuster appropriations bills, won’t allow it to pass anyway. Nor will Senate Democrats agree to such severe budget cuts. In a press conference Thursday, Senate Minority LeaderHarry Reid (D-Nev.) said, “Republicans know full well that Democrats cannot and will not support bills they are bringing to the floor … They know the President said he’s going to veto them.”Nonetheless, the contents of these Republican appropriations bills matter. They lay out the Republican baseline for budget negotiations, which sets the agenda — or at least half of it — for the ultimate budget compromise. And some of the smaller policy riders could make it into the final version. These bills also tell us what Republicans would do if they controlled the White House and Congress.There are two main ways that congressional Republicans are trying to undermine environmental protection in their budget bills: through spending cuts that make it practically impossible for EPA and Interior to do their jobs, and through policy riders that make it explicitly and legally impossible.Relative to Obama’s budget requests, the Republicans would cut roughly $2.2 billion total from the two agencies — around half from each — to stay in line with the sequestration spending levels. Here’s what that would mean:For EPA, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “This reduced level of funding would significantly undermine implementation of the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule.” The former, of course, has huge implications for climate change. The Clean Power Plan would cut our energy-related emissions by 26 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030 from the 2005 level. (Really, the cuts are about half of that, because we’ve already cut more than 13 percent thanks to the renewable and natural gas boom.)That would mean that we couldn’t meet our climate pledge from the 2009 Copenhagen Accord of an economy-wide 17 percent drop from 2005 levels by 2020. That, in turn, would undermine our international credibility to negotiate a stronger deal in Paris this December. As OMB notes, “Failing to address climate change will also exacerbate poverty and contribute to environmental degradation in developing countries, potentially resulting in resource shortages, political instability, and conflict.”The EPA cuts would also affect local governments that receive grants from the agency for activities like cleaning up water or contaminated industrial sites. As OMB points out, “EPA does not protect the environment or public health alone; often States and Tribes are the ones implementing environmental programs through delegated authorities. However, the bill would reduce grants to States and Tribes to carry out activities such as water quality permitting, air monitoring, and hazardous waste management programs by $118 million, or 10 percent, below the President’s Budget. In addition, grants to local communities to revitalize contaminated brownfields are reduced by $35 million, or 32 percent.”Department of the Interior cuts will hamper the department’s ability to deal with growing problems caused by climate change. Wildfires, for example, are becoming more severe due to more extreme heat waves and severe droughts. But the congressional Republicans fail to provide funding for Obama’s proposals to enhance wildfire-fighting preparedness or to pony up for similar programs in other areas vulnerable to climate change, such as federal efforts to combat coastal erosion. Funding for parks and national recreation areas would be cut by almost 40 percent from the president’s request. They would also cut more than $300 million from funding for Native American health care programs and facilities of the Indian Health Service by more than $300 million. As OMB observes, “This would result in inadequate funding for the provision of health care to a population that faces greater sickness and poverty, on average, than the national population.” The Smithsonian Institution would lose $116 million.And that’s all just the spending cuts. The policy riders are even worse, because they don’t just make it difficult for agencies to carry out their mission, but they actually ban them from doing it. There are around a dozen important policy riders in both the House and Senate bills, but here are the biggest ones:Preventing or disabling of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to limit carbon pollution from power plants. The Senate version would allow states to opt out of the plan, which — as anyone following the implementation of Obamacare knows — is a recipe for disaster. The House version goes even further by prohibiting any of EPA’s funding from being used to implement the Clean Power Plan. In effect, that prohibits it from being implemented at all.Riders in both the House and Senate bills would block EPA’s Clean Water Rule. The rule is an effort by EPA, following Supreme Court decisions on the Clean Water Act’s reach, to clarify what rules are under its jurisdiction. For example, it will incorporate tributaries whose health affects major rivers downstream. This displeases Republicans because anything that stands in the way of making a buck off despoiling nature may upset their contributors. “[Business interests] don’t want smaller streams or wetlands protected so, for example, they can build a subdivision over them,” explains Alex Taurel, deputy legislative director at the League of Conservation Voters. Taurel says he is confident, though, that Obama will veto any bill that stands in the way of the Clean Water Rule.Increasing ozone pollution. The Obama administration, after years of delay, finally decided to go with scientists over industry lobbyists and lower the amount of ground-level ozone, aka smog, that EPA deems safe from 75 parts per billion to between 65 and 70 ppb. In addition to directly benefiting the health of millions of Americans, especially those with asthma, this would indirectly help fight climate change. That’s because cracking down on ozone means cracking down on its sources, which are also the source of climate pollution: power plants, factories, and cars.And you know how most Republicans feel about cracking down on power plants, factories, and cars. Their bills would stop EPA from lowering the ozone standard until 85 percent of “non-attainment” counties — meaning counties not yet in compliance with the current standard — have reached compliance. Aside from the apparent arbitrariness of the 85 percent figure, this doesn’t make sense intellectually. Even if we have a lot of catching up to do, the scientific finding regarding what level of ozone is safe for human health simply is what it is — it isn’t changed by the fact that our air is far worse than that in many places. As Sierra Club legislative director Melinda Pierce puts it, “They’re saying we have to make a baby step before assessing the level of safe pollution for humans.”Killing off endangered species. When a species gets endangered status, restrictions on dangerous practices like oil and gas drilling kick in to protect its habitat. That makes fossil fuel companies unhappy — and when fossil fuel companies are unhappy, so are Republicans. That’s why they have attached riders to prevent certain species, such as gray wolves and the sage grouse, from being declared endangered. These issues are lower-profile than the battle over the Clean Power Plan, so there is a chance that the Obama administration will cave on some of them. “I’m not surprised at some of these potshots at endangered species,” says Pierce. “Those are the riders that have squeaked through in the past.”Despite having to fight a war to protect progress on multiple fronts, environmental lobbyists are surprisingly optimistic. Republicans simply don’t have the votes in the Senate to get their way, nor control of the White House. Their only lever to force Obama and the Senate Democrats’ hand is to threaten to shut down the government — but when they did that in 2013 it damaged their popularity.That doesn’t mean they won’t do it again: after all, they didn’t suffer any consequence in the 2014 midterms, and the average Republican congressman’s biggest fear is losing a primary to a Tea Party challenger, not a general election to a Democrat. On the other hand, their desire to win back the presidency might lead the GOP to be more careful about damaging their party brand going into a presidential election year. Moreover, Republicans are riven by internal divisions between their extremist and establishment wings, and they may not even be able to get their whole party on board for this far-right legislation.“There are Republican members of Congress for whom you can’t cut EPA funding enough,” says Taurel. “But with such big cuts, you won’t find Democratic votes for this bill. So [Republicans] need to keep their caucus together, and it’s hard to find a [budget] number that doesn’t lose either moderates or conservatives.” If they fail to pass the EPA/Interior bill when it comes to the floor of the full House for a vote, they will be in a much weaker position when negotiating with Obama and the Senate.Taurel is probably being overly optimistic, though: The number of Republican moderates who support clean air and clean water has dwindled to almost none. The most likely outcome is that Republicans will pass their budget, and it will be up to Senate Democrats and the president to stand firm.

==

Republican War on VegetablesExperts say to cut down on meat for the sake of our health and the environment. Republicans react like 3-year-olds.By Lindsay Abrams / Salon June 26, 2015http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/republican-war-vegetablesNew recommendations released earlier this year by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), an independent group of doctors and nutritionists, say we should cut down on meat for the sake of our health and the environment. In response, congressional Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum.But because “you can’t make us eat more fruits and vegetables” sounds kind of petulant, they’re pretending their objections are all about the science.The report, which informs the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that are updated every five years, found that “a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet.” This is the first time the sustainability of our dietary choices has been taken into consideration by the DGAC; according to the report, it is “essential to ensure a healthy food supply will be available for future generations.”Yet the move has predictably been met with hostility, particularly on the part of the meat industry, which accused the recommendations of being “flawed” and “nonsensical.”Republicans agree. This past Wednesday, the House approved two spending bills that would completely alter the way the government is permitted to adapt the DGAC’s evidence-based recommendations. They do so by raising that standard of evidence: the agencies that form the Dietary Guidelines, they say, can only rely on the very strongest science in these matters. The DGAC rates its evidence on a three-level scale — “strong,” “moderate” and “limited” — and the science supporting a plant-based diet was deemed “moderate”: too low, by the bills’ standards, to be relevant.The bills are, in effect, a giant roadblock to progress pushed through under the guise of reasonability. That’s because the term “strong,” as defined by the DGAC, is an extremely difficult ideal to obtain — it’s only when a large number of studies are able to reach near-uniform conclusions that any piece of evidence will be granted that classification. According to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, straightforward health advice included in past guidelines, like “try to spend less time sitting in front of the T.V.” and “eat less fast food,” would fail to quality under the new standards House Republicans are demanding. This new directive to “eat more fruits and vegetables,” for that matter, also seems pretty common-sensical.“Research evolves and we expect it to change,” panel chairman Barbara Millen told the Associated Press in defense of recommendations that rely on “moderate” evidence. “That doesn’t negate the importance of a large body of consistent data that may have limitations of a certain kind.”The riders, along with a similar bill passed last week by a Senate subcommittee, also require that the guidelines “shall be limited in scope to only matters of diet and nutrient intake” — that excludes consideration of whether one’s diet is actively harming the environment, as well as policy recommendations for how the dietary and fitness advice should be implemented. But hey, at least our hamburgers would be safe.Just what is it that has Republicans crying, “Let them eat steak?” It’s likely, in part, a Ron Swanson-style attempt to preserve the “classic” American meat and potatoes diet. Surely, it is apiece with a pattern of redefining nutrition to fit an agenda that extends back to Reagan’s infamous (only somewhat apocryphal) “ketchup is a vegetable” controversy. And as Ariana Eunjung Cha writes at the Washington Post, it’s probably not a coincidence that the majority of the meat industry’s political contributions go to the GOP. It’s safe to say the outcry isn’t actually about the science, because as anyone who’s following the climate change “debate” knows well, Republicans are happy to reject even the most rigorous of scientific evidence when it challenges their ideology.But the argument for why we should consider cutting down on meat in favor of plants has become more and more convincing, and it defies a number of food myths that vegetarians (ahem) are constantly having to answer for: most prominently, the idea that you can’t get enough protein without meat. In a recent talk held at the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Sustainable Foods Institute, Stanford University scientist Christopher Gardner and food systems consultant Arlin Wasserman destroyed that misconception: Plant-based foods, they told a somewhat surprised audience (of food and nutrition folks, no less), are more than capable of meeting human requirements for the essential amino acids. When put on the spot, that same audience was at a loss as to how much protein the average American requires per day — the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) is about 50 grams. Yet we consume, on average, twice that amount: a full 50 grams of unnecessary excess that aside from being unhealthy is hastening climate change and contributing to a whole host of other environmental problems.It’s well-known by now that meat, as a food source, is inefficient. But what was most shocking about Gardner and Wasserman’s presentation was just how big of an impact cutting down on meat — not, crucially, cutting it out altogether — could have. If Americans started sticking to the RDA of protein — more than enough to meet their needs — andthey sourced 25 percent of that protein from plants, they said, the equivalent savings in carbon dioxide emissions would constitute 27 percent of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas reduction goal. It would be, to put it another way, the equivalent of “turning off the U.K.”That’s an astounding benefit, even if it isn’t one that’s likely to resonate with Republican leadership. But when anyone fights this hard against something this simple, it’s worth asking whose interests they’re really trying to protect.Lindsay Abrams is a staff writer at Salon, reporting on all things sustainable. Follow her on Twitter @readingirl, email labrams@salon.com proposal has prompted an outcry from the meat lobby, which has argued that the Obama administration is going too far in efforts to guide what Americans eat. "Hands off my hot dog," is the rallying cry of the North American Meat Institute's Change.org petition.Now Congressional Republicans are pushing back with two bills that would make the government consider only nutrition and diet when considering the advisory committee's advice. While the proposed legislation doesn't address the meat issue directly, it changes the threshold for the science that the departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services should use when they issue their official recommendations at the end of this year.Let's be clear: The bills say the recommendations should be supported by only the strongest science. The plant-based diet advice from the committee is based on "moderate" evidence. The Senate version was approved by a subcommittee last week, and the House version was approved by the appropriations committee on Wednesday.Rep. Robert Aderhold (R-Ala.) told the Associated Press that the goal of the legislation "should not be to 'dumb down' the standards but instead increase the science certainty of each guideline."It isn't a coincidence that individuals and political action committees associated with big meat companies including Tyson Foods and Smithfield Foods tend to give most of their contributions to Republicans. "The industry is a strong supporter of the GOP, and has given the party more than three-quarters of the $10 million of its contributions made since the 1990 election cycle," according to Center for Responsive Politics Opensecrets.org project.ref wapo 6/15=3/15Earthjustice asks, “Why so much climate change denial in Congress?” They answer, “Follow the money.”Check out this infographic and see for yourself the 163 members of Congress that deny the basic tenets of climate science. Then follow the money and see that on average, climate deniersin Congress take 3.5 times more “dirty energy money.”What’s Earthjustice’s solution? “Join the movement” and “demand strong climate action now.”=lcv 2013 Senate COMMITTEE CHAIR SCORE RANKING MEMBER SCOREAgriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Stabenow (MI) 100 Cochran (MS) 31Appropriations Mikulski (MD) 92 Shelby (AL) 23Commerce, Science and Transportation Rockefeller (WV) 85 Thune (SD) 8Energy and Natural Resources Wyden (OR) 100 Murkowski (AK) 38Environment and Public Works Boxer (CA) 100 Vitter (LA) 15HOUSE COMMITTEE LEADER AVERAGE CHAIRS 95 RANKING MEMBERS 23   House COMMITTEE CHAIR SCORE RANKING MEMBER SCOREAgriculture Lucas (OK-03) 11 Peterson (MN-07) 14Appropriations Rogers, Harold (KY-05) 4 Lowey (NY-17) 96Energy and Commerce Upton (MI-06) 4 Waxman (CA-30) 93Natural Resources Hastings (WA-04) 4 DeFazio (OR-04)Markey (MA-07)9371Science, Space, and Technology Smith, Lamar (TX-21) 7 Johnson, Eddie Bernice (TX-30) 93Transportation and Infrastructure Shuster (PA-09) 11 Rahall (WV-03) 46HOUSE COMMITTEE LEADER AVERAGE CHAIRS 7 RANKING MEMBERS 72=lcv 2013U.S. Senate Average57%U.S. House Average43%   MEMBERMAX. EST. NET WORTH  Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)$451.1 millionRep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)$435.4 millionRep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)$366.2 millionSen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)$294.9 millionRep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)$285.1 millionSen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)$283.1 millionSen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)$231.2 millionRep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)$201.5 millionSen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)$136.2 millionSen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)$108.1 millionCOMBINED NET WORTH:$2.8 BILLION For instance, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) ranks as the wealthiest member of the 112th Congress, according to the Center's analysis of 2010 financial disclosures. Issa's minimum estimated net worth in 2010 was $195 million, while his maximum estimated net worth was more than $700 million. That gives Issa an average net worth of $448 million.  Meanwhile, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) ranks as the wealthiest House Democrat. Polis, who has spent about $7 million of his own money on his campaigns since 2007, has an average estimated net worth of $143 million.  That's not good enough to rank him as the No. 2 wealthiest member of Congress though. In fact, it only ranks him as No. 6* wealthiest current lawmaker.  Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.),* the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks NBA team, all rank higher.  McCaul's average estimated net worth in 2010 stood at $380 million, while Kerry's stood at about $232 million, Warner's at about $193 million and Kohl's at about $174 million.  Kerry's sizeable net worth is thanks, largely, to the assets of his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry.  All members of Congress are required to report not only their own holdings but also that of their spouses and any dependents. However, calculating the exact value of many of their investments is impossible.  The top bracket of assets held by senators' spouses is simply "more than $1 million," so many lawmakers' families' net worth are likely undervalued. For instance, some estimate that Heinz Kerry's net worth may exceed $1 billion.  Notably, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who places as the No. 13* richest member of Congress with an average estimated net worth of about $60 million, ranks as the wealthiest Senate Republican.  At the other end of the spectrum, a handful of members of Congress are definitely in debt.  No matter how you slice the information on the congressional disclosure forms for Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), for instance, her net worth is below zero. Her maximum net worth is a negative $15,000, while her minimum net worth is a negative $50,000.  A similar predicament afflicts Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Louis Gohmert (R-Texas), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.).  Notably, Hastings, whose minimum estimated net worth is $7.3 million in debt and whose maximum estimated net worth is $2.1 million in debt, ranks as the poorest member of Congress, by the Center's tally.===http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/07/top-recipients-of-lobbyists-cash-2013-an-opensecrets-analysis.htmlTop 10 Recipients of Contributions from Lobbyists in 2013