Sunday, April 19, 2015

New Poll Shows the More You Know about the Boston 2024 Bid, the Less Likely You Are to Support It

On Friday, the Western New England Polling Institute released a statewide poll on Boston’s 2024 Summer Olympics bid. It found that 46% of Massachusetts voters oppose the bid while only 40% of voters support it. When the poll looked at all adults, instead of just registered voters, it was slightly closer, but the edge was still to the opposition: 43% opposition and 42% support.

Boston area voters registered the strongest opposition: 48% opposed the bid, while only 35% supported it. North Shore and South Shore voters opposed the bid 47% to 40%.  Central MA voters opposed it 46% to 40%. Western MA voters, by contrast, supported it 54% to 34%.

But this regional variation wasn’t the most interesting find. The poll also asked voters how much information they have heard about the Olympic bid, and the results showed that the more information people had heard, the more likely they were to oppose the bid.

Of those who said they had heard “a lot” of information, 62% opposed the bid, and only 27% supported it. Of those who said that they had heard “some” information, 53% opposed the bid, and 35% supported it. Of those who said that they had heard just “a little” about the bid,” 45% supported it, and 39% opposed it. Of those who heard that they had heard nothing at all about the bid (“none at all”), 51% supported it, and 29% opposed it.

In other words, the more people knew about the bid, the less likely they were to support it.

The relationship between information and position on Boston 2024 immediately reminded me of a poll from the Globe from last June, the first publicly available poll on the Olympic bid.
That poll found slim support (47% to 43%) statewide for the bid, and it, like this new poll, also showed Metro Boston more opposed than other parts of the state and Western Mass more supportive.

But what really stood out in that poll was what happened when you presented respondents with the arguments from both sides. The pollster presented the following two statements to respondents and then asked which statement came “closest to [their] own view.”
Supporters of Boston’s plan to pursue the 2024 Olympics say that hosting the summer games will provide Boston and the region with a lasting legacy of improved lives, a stronger economy, a more modern infrastructure, and a community with a stronger sense of connection and vision.

Opponents say that the likely costs do not outweigh the potential benefits. They say that hosting the 2024 summer games would take significant investments in our infrastructure and cost between $10 to $20 billion dollars – which could be better spent on education, housing, and transportation. Based on what on you know at this time, which statement comes closest to your own view?
63% sided with the opponents, and only 29% sided with the supporters. A majority of respondents from every region sided with the opposition.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Which 7 Democrats Just Voted to Repeal the Estate Tax?

Continuing the string of tax-related votes from yesterday, House Republicans brought up their bill to repeal the estate tax entirely.

Barely anyone in the US actually has to pay the estate tax. In 2016, only 5,400 estates in the whole country--the wealthiest 0.2 percent--would owe any estate tax.

Repealing the estate tax would reduce tax revenue by $269 billion over the next decade. Next year, taxable estates would get a tax cut averaging $3 million each, with the 318 estates worth at least $50 million getting $20 million each.

The so-called "Death Tax Repeal Act" passed 240 to 179.

Only 3 Republicans voted against it: David Jolly (FL-13), Walter Jones (NC-03), and Scott Rigell (VA-02).

7 Democrats voted for this giveaway to the super-rich:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

How many estates in each of their states would benefit from the bill they just voted for?

Ashford (NE): 60
Bishop (GA): 100
Costa (CA): 970
Cuellar (TX): 340
Peterson (MN): 60
Ruppersberger (MD): 70
Sinema (AZ): 60

27 Dems Join Republicans in Scapegoating Federal Workers on Tax Day.

In honor of Tax Day, Congress decided to pass some tax-themed bills yesterday. I would like to highlight one of them, the so-called "Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2015."

This bill would prohibit anyone with tax delinquencies from working for the federal government.
Here is how its sponsor, Jason Chaffetz (UT-03), talks about his bill:
"We can make sure we get the best federal employees, but weed out the bad apples. I want to see people on both sides of the aisle say, let's pat the backs of the overwhelming majority of patriotic, hardworking, dedicated employees, but we're going to get rid of the bad apples," Chaffetz said.
As it's clear to see from his rhetoric, this bill is not so much about accountability as it is about tarnishing the image of federal workers and, of course, government in general. 
According to The Hill in the article linked above, the tax delinquency rate among federal employees last year was 3.1%, less than half that of the general public (8.7%).

Moreover, if someone is delinquent on taxes, firing them is counterproductive. It is easier to collect back taxes from someone who makes money than it is from someone who doesn't.

The Democratic leadership urged a NO on this bill.

Democrats laid out their reasons why:
But Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), whose Northern Virginia district includes thousands of federal workers working in or near Washington, D.C., said the bill unfairly targeted civil servants.
"We must hold our civil servants to the highest standards. They have just as much an obligation as anyone else to responsibly pay their taxes on time and in full. But this legislation exaggerates the issue and then scapegoats the federal workforce," Beyer said in a statement.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who also has a large group of federal workers in his district, said the bill seemed meant to appease people who are dissatisfied with government as a whole.

"What is this all about? This is about frankly saying government is bad and the people who work for it aren't so hot either," Hoyer said.
Since the bill was called up under suspension (and thus needed a 2/3 majority for passage), the 266 to 160 wasn't enough for it to pass. 
But what's important here is how members voted.

Three Republicans--Barbara Comstock (VA-10), David Jolly (FL-13), and Tom Reed (NY-23)--voted against it. Comstock represents the DC exurbs and thus has a large population of federal workers in her district.

And 27 Democrats voted for it:

Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Anne McLane Kuster (NH-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Seth Moulton (MA-06)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Which 45 Democrats Just Voted to Weaken Dodd-Frank, Undercut Mortgage Protections?

Yesterday, the House voted on two bills to weaken Dodd-Frank, undercut mortgage protections, and open the door to higher fees on borrowers.

The two bills were H.R. 650 "Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act" and H.R. 685 "The Mortgage Choice Act of 2015."

Americans for Financial Reform wrote to Congress last week opposing these two bills:
H.R. 650, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2015, would make homeownership more costly for those who can least afford it. It would do this by raising the interest rate and points and fees trigger for protections under the high-cost mortgage protections of HOEPA for manufactured housing loans. This bill would not expand access to sustainable credit, but would strip away protections already created by Congress and implemented by the CFPB. If this bill became law it would permit an interest rate of close to 14% in today’s market for a 15- or 20-year loan on a family’s home mortgage without enhanced protections. In comparison, the going rate for traditional real-estate mortgages is currently around 4%.
H.R. 685, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2015, would reintroduce some of the high fees that borrowers faced in the lead up to the mortgage crisis, fees that the new mortgage rules were designed to prevent. It would create a loophole to the 3% points and fees threshold in the Qualified Mortgage (mortgage affordability) rules by excluding fees paid to title insurance companies affiliated with the lender. Increased loan fees would lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in needless mortgage fee expenses for each borrower on such loans, and encourage further price gouging in an already broken title insurance market.
Obama has already said that he plans to veto both bills if they reach his desk (here and here).

Nevertheless, some Democrats still went along with Republicans to do the bidding of their donors.
The Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2015 passed 263 to 162.

One Republican--Walter Jones (NC-03)--voted against it.

22 Democrats voted for it:
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Seth Moulton (MA-06)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

The Mortgage Choice Act of 2015 passed 286 to 140.

Again, Walter Jones was the sole Republican no.

45 Democrats voted for this bill:

Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Joyce Beatty (OH-03)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Brendan Boyle (PA-13)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Debbie Dingell (MI-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Al Green (TX-09)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Brenda Lawrence (MI-14)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Seth Moulton (MA-06)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
David Scott (GA-13)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)

Of particular note are Senate candidates Tammy Duckworth (IL) and Patrick Murphy (FL).

Whitehouse, Boxer, Warren, Franken, Sanders to Governors: Don't Listen to McConnell on the EPA

Last month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sent a letter to the National Governors Association, telling the governors of the 50 states to disobey the EPA's new regulations for carbon pollution.

Yesterday, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Al Franken (D-MN), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wrote to the NGA to tell governors to ignore Mitch and pay attention to the many expert voices across the Bluegrass State instead.

The letter highlights how stakeholders in the business and academic community across Kentucky believe that action on climate change is needed. The letter concludes, "[F]ailing to act gives up your state’s right to set its own course of action toward a clean energy future. His [McConnell's] is not the voice from ahead saying the trail is not safe; his is the voice obstinately staying behind saying, 'Let’s not even try.'"

Here is the text of the letter:
Dear Governors:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, from Kentucky, recently wrote to you urging defiance of the climate change laws and regulations of the United States government, namely, the Environmental Protection Agency’s forthcoming Clean Power Plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants. As you evaluate that advice, you might want to consider what other Kentucky voters say about climate change.
Kentucky is already crafting its plan for complying with the Clean Power Plan. The Commonwealth of Kentucky’s decision to work with the EPA and prepare a plan was based, according to the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, on what “the overwhelming majority of our stakeholders are telling us.”
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources’ “Wildlife Action Plan” quotes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thus: “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” The Kentucky Wildlife Action Plan reports that “Climate change has the potential to exacerbate existing conservation threats…in Kentucky by altering both terrestrial and aquatic systems.” Kentucky’s cities—Lexington, Louisville, Frankfort, Bowling Green, and Villa Hills-have signed the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement to (quoting the city of Lexington) “act locally to reduce the impacts of climate change by lowering (manmade) greenhouse gas emissions.”
Even fossil fuel companies get it in Kentucky. Columbia Gas of Kentucky pledges to “Meet the Climate Challenge,” “through business activities which promote sustained economic growth in a manner consistent with our environmental obligations,” including “reasonable policies addressing climate change” and “appropriately crafted legislation on climate change.”
Kentucky Woodlands Magazine reports that “The world is changing right before our eyes…climate change is happening as you read this article,” and describes the result as “global climate weirdness.” Horses matter to Kentucky, and Horse and Rider magazine has reported on how climate change might affect the spread of infectious disease, harm horses’ health, and have a huge economic impact. Horse and Rider turned to Dr. Craig Carter of the University of Kentucky, an expert in equine infectious disease, who said, “It’s not just horses (and people) at risk…climate change affects all forms of life.” According to Dr. Carter, “It’s a scary thing to watch.”
At the University of Kentucky, Paul Vincelli, a professor at the University of Kentucky’s Cooperative Extension Service, says this: “In the scientific community, it is widely accepted that the global climate is changing, and that human activities which produce ‘greenhouse gases’ are a principal cause. Greenhouse gases have a strong capacity to trap heat in the lower atmosphere, even though they are present at trace concentrations.” Vincelli concludes: “The trapped heat is driving many of the recent changes in the Earth’s climate, including rising temperatures in the oceans, on Earth’s surface, and in the lower atmosphere.” The University of Kentucky warns: “Regardless of what you may read on blogs or in the media, there is almost no meaningful scientific controversy on these points.”
The Wildcats are not alone. Kentucky State University has won a Climate Change Fellowship to “engage college students in climate change education and action” and “in-depth training on climate change, how to best teach the basics of climate change.” Western Kentucky University hosts the Kentucky Climate Center on their campus in Bowling Green. Eastern Kentucky University offers courses on global climate change, and has an Environmental Research Institute whose website links right to the IPCC work on climate change. Northern Kentucky University has signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment to “climate neutrality,” i.e. having “no net greenhouse gas emissions.”
Senator McConnell’s own alma mater, the University of Louisville, has sponsored talks about “how climate change is a measureable reality and how people have contributed to the trends”; bearing “personal witness of the detrimental effects of global climate change over 25 years of polar exploring”; and about “fragile soil ecosystems and their role in climate change”; and has held “Climate Change Teach-Ins,” where students, faculty and staff joined together “to inform, inspire and educate others about the climate change crisis.”

Before you take advice about climate change from Senator McConnell please consider first what so many knowledgeable voices from the Bluegrass State are saying about climate change, and second how failing to act gives up your state’s right to set its own course of action toward a clean energy future. His is not the voice from ahead saying the trail is not safe; his is the voice obstinately staying behind saying, “Let’s not even try.”
Whitehouse and Boxer serve on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Franken and Warren serve on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Bernie Sanders serves on both.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Obama's Complicated and Contradictory Environmental Two Press Releases

On Tuesday, two back-to-back press releases from the Sierra Club in response to announcements from the Obama administration highlighted the administration's contradictory environmental record perfectly.

The first press release was on the White House's submission of the US's 2025 emissions target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in advance of the COP21 talks in Paris this December.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This morning, the United States announced its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the country’s highly-anticipated commitment to climate action in the run up to the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris later this year. As other countries have announced their INDCs -- including Mexico, Switzerland, the European Union, and Norway -- the U.S. has announced an ambitious plan for action, including cutting carbon pollution by up to 28 percent by 2025.

As a new poll released yesterday found, today’s announcement aligns with the priorities of the American people. The poll found that 72 percent of Americans support the U.S. signing an international climate agreement.

In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune released the following statement:

We applaud the Obama Administration for following through on the ambitious commitment made last November with China by pledging clear, significant action to tackle the climate crisis and protect our children and grandchildren. We’ve seen the effects of unmitigated carbon pollution take their toll around the world, but this announcement is further proof that the U.S. is stepping up to lead the world in pursuing solutions.
“Momentum for real climate action is building at a historic rate. With our nation moving away from coal and the world embracing clean energy at a record pace, this announcement and others like it open the door to meet the 2 degree celsius goal needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. In the coming months, we expect additional ambitious commitments to pour in that will further prove the world is ready to act and keep us on the right track to Paris and beyond.
Just hours later, the Sierra Club issued another press release: this time, on the Department of the Interior's decision to open the doors for oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean:
Anchorage, Alaska —Ignoring its own environmental review, the U.S. Department of the Interior has opened the door for drilling in the remote and iconic Arctic Ocean. The agency announced today that it is reaffirming controversial Bush-era Arctic oil leases, after a court-ordered re-analysis of the lease sale decision showed that opening the Chukchi Sea to oil drilling will have even more dramatic and long-lasting effects and risks than previously disclosed.
In January 2014, in litigation brought by Earthjustice on behalf of fourteen conservation and Alaska Native groups, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Chukchi Lease Sale 193 was held unlawfully. This marked the second time the massive offshore oil and gas sale had been sent back by the courts. Interior’s supplemental environmental impact statement released in February concluded that drilling in the Chukchi Sea will have significant negative and long-lasting impacts on our waters, animals and Arctic communities. It concluded there is a 75 percent risk of one or more large oil spill when these leases are developed.  There is no way to clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic Ocean.  Further, Arctic oil development undermines the administration’s efforts to address climate change and transition to a clean energy future. But, Interior reaffirmed the leases anyway.

Interior rushed the process of reconsidering the leases, issuing a flawed final environmental impact statement less than two months after it received hundreds of thousands of comments on the draft.  Rather than take the time fully to assess the impacts and alternatives of leasing in the Chukchi Sea, Interior catered to Shell Oil’s desire to drill as early as this summer. Interior should not compound today’s misstep by rushing to approve Shell’s plans to drill this summer, which can only now be formally reviewed by the department.  Shell’s planned drilling is even bigger, dirtier, and louder than in 2012, calling for more sound disturbances and harassment of whales and seals, than the company's previous plans and does not address adequately the company’s failed efforts to drill in 2012.  Interior should take additional time to evaluate Shell’s drilling plans.
"As the U.S. prepares to take over the Arctic Council it's more important than ever to show leadership in keeping dirty fuels in the ground, especially in the Arctic. Permitting new drilling in the Arctic Ocean is tremendously risky for the climate, but also for our waters, wildlife and the communities that rely on them,” said Dan Ritzman, Alaska program director for Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign.
That's right: on the same day that Obama submitted the US's emissions target to the UNFCC, he opened up remote parts of the Arctic Ocean for oil drilling. 

This, to me, reflected so well the contradictory nature of Obama's record on energy, climate, and environment, a record of pushing and undermining climate action at the very same time.

35 Senators and 84 Representatives Affirm Support for Emissions Target Obama Submitted to the UNFCC

On Tuesday, the White House submitted the US's 2025 emissions target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in preparation for the climate talks in Paris later this year

The co-chairs of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change---Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Ed Markey (D-MA) and Representatives Chris Van Hollen (MD-08), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), and Bobby Rush (IL-01)--led a group of 35 senators and 84 representatives today in a letter to President Obama affirming their support.

Here is the text of the letter:
March 31, 2015

Dear President Obama,

Thank you for your leadership in responding to the serious challenge of climate change. We applaud and support your Climate Action Plan, the joint announcement with China establishing ambitious carbon pollution reduction targets, and the national commitment to the Green Climate Fund. These actions are critical to protect Americans from the most dangerous effects of climate change.

Americans are already shouldering the costs of climate change, and these costs are getting worse. Climate change is driving more severe drought and wildfires in the West, larger and more frequent floods in the Midwest, and sea level rise and greater storm damage along our coasts. Vulnerable populations, like children with asthma and the elderly, are suffering from higher levels of smog in our cities and longer, more severe heat waves. Farmers and ranchers are struggling with crop and livestock losses from drought. Increasingly acidic oceans are harming shellfish populations and threatening fisheries. Communities are struggling to pay for infrastructure damaged by fires, more extreme storms, and coastal erosion.

One of the three pillars of the Climate Action Plan is to lead international efforts to address global climate change. As a nation that has contributed more than a quarter of all global carbon pollution, it is our responsibility to lead. As a nation already feeling the effects and costs of climate change, it is also in our national interest to do so. In order to solve the problem of climate change, it is essential that the United States has allies in cutting carbon pollution. As we have seen time and time again, other countries will join us, if America leads the way.

As the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) prepare to meet at the end of the year, they have agreed that each nation will pledge to reduce its carbon pollution in an amount and manner to be determined by each nation and that puts the world on a strong trajectory to address climate change. Proactive engagement in these negotiations, backed up by domestic climate action, is the best way to protect our nation’s interests and ensure every country does its fair share.

The strong target announced by the United States, along with the reciprocal commitments from China and the European Union, sets the stage for a meaningful climate agreement this year. Because the U.S. and China are the largest two emitters of carbon pollution and together with the E.U. are collectively responsible for more than half of the world’s energy sector emissions, the recent commitments by our countries represent significant progress. This progress is strengthened by the recent U.S.-India commitment to work together to achieve a successful and ambitious global climate agreement this year. The United States’ pledge of $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund continues to demonstrate our history of partnering with the least developed countries to help them grow their economies in ways that take into account the impacts of climate change.
We stand ready to help you seize the opportunity to strengthen the global response to climate change. Your Administration has made significant progress in reducing U.S. emissions, including through improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency standards and other areas that are saving consumers and businesses money, reducing air pollution, creating jobs, and putting America back in control of our energy security. We applaud the Administration’s continued use of its existing authority to cut carbon pollution, in particular EPA’s standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act, and your efforts under the UNFCC.

Thank you again for your leadership in fighting devastating climate change to protect American families today and for generations to come.
Here are the 35 senators who signed the letter: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Here are the 11 that did not sign:
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
And here are the 84 House Democrats who signed:
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Ted Lieu (CA-33)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
John Larson (CT-01)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Corrine Brown (FL-05)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
Mark Takai (HI-01)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Seth Moulton (MA-06)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Ann McLane Kuster (NH-02)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Charles Rangel (NY-13)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Louise Slaughter (NY-25)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Brendan Boyle (PA-13)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)  
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Donald Beyer (VA-08)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Pete Welch (VT)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)