These 89 Democrats Voted to Cut $8.7 Billion from Food Stamps

Today, the House passed the 2014 Farm Bill 251 to 166.

162 Republicans voted for it. 63 voted against it.

103 Democrats voted against it. 89 voted for it.

The Farm Bill contains $8.7 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. This translates to a $90 per month cut to beneficiaries. This cut follows November's $5 billion cut from the program, the "hunger cliff" that the Democrats themselves created.

The deal also restricts the USDA from "advertising the SNAP program through [TV], radio and billboard advertisements."

Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz all voted for the bill.

14 members of the Progressive Caucus voted for it: Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Corinne Brown (FL-05), Andre Carson (IN-07), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Sam Farr (CA-20), Lois Frankel (FL-22), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Ben Lujan (NM-03), Rick  Nolan (MN-08), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), and Peter Welch (VT).

Two gubernatorial candidates--Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) and Mike Michaud (ME-02) voted for it.
Three senatorial candidates--Bruce Braley (IA-01), Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01), and Gary Peters (MI-09)--voted for it.

Here is the list of the 89 Democrats who voted for the bill:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
John Carney (DE)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Anne Kuster (NH-02)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Dave Loebsack (IA-02)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Ben Lujan (NM-03)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA-35)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
David Price (NC-04)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Pete Welch (VT)

Weren't Democrats supposed to be focusing on inequality now? Somehow the party leadership didn't get the message.

State of the Union: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly--Annotated, with Links

I did a thorough annotation of the SOTU speech earlier today on the Daily Kos website.

When Articles Belie Their Headlines

Getting a good headline is very important in framing an article. It sets the tone of the piece and hints at the overall argument. However, sometimes, articles belie their headlines. I've come across too glaring examples of this over the past few days.

On Friday, Huffington Post published an article by Sam Stein entitled "Obama's First State Of The Union Marked A Turning Point, One His Old Advisers Now Regret." The funny thing is, though, how the titular advisers seem largely absent from the article itself.

The framing of the article implies that Obama's advisers regret their austerity turn in late 2009/early 2010, expressed clearly in his first State of the Union address in January 2010. Remember, of course, that he was the one who created the Simpson-Bowles Commission shortly thereafter.

Obama advocated "belt-tightening," that cliched and awkward metaphor that always has overtones of masochism:

"Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions," Obama said. "The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year. "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years," Obama added. "Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will."

So, let's look at what the old advisers are saying, per Stein. Here's former OMB director Pete Orszag:

"Looking back, I remain disappointed that we were not able to embrace with gusto and then remain fully committed to the 'barbell' approach, which combines up-front stimulus and back-loaded deficit reduction," said Peter Orszag, who was Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget at the time. "In retrospect, which always provides more clarity than is available at the moment, the time to have doubled down on that approach (including rhetorically) was probably around the 2010 State of the Union."

Let me translate "back-loaded deficit reduction" for you: cutting Social Security and Medicare. Orszag has been a consistent advocate of such granny-starving policies. Stein quotes Berkeley economist Brad DeLong:

"It made it impossible for those who wanted a sane macroeconomic policy to argue for a second round of fiscal stimulus, because even the president agreed that the time was to tighten belts," said Brad DeLong, professor of economics and chair of the political economy major at the University of California, Berkeley.

DeLong, however, was not one of Obama's advisers.

Stein later quotes AFL-CIO policy director Damon Silvers:

"The pivot towards austerity and away from jobs in early 2010 was a catastrophically destructive decision," said Damon Silvers, director of policy and special counsel for the AFL-CIO.

Silvers, however, was not an adviser.

Stein quotes Jared Bernstein, who was an adviser to Biden. He thus can sort of count as an adviser to Obama, but indirectly. "White House adviser" would be more apt.

"That is a level of austerity that would make Wolfgang Schaeuble [the German finance minister] blush," said Jared Bernstein, then Vice President Joseph Biden's top economic adviser.
...
"It was a mistake," said Bernstein, who, to this day, jokingly says he "blocked out" the memory of that State of the Union. "The perception was that the public viewed stimulus spending as wasteful and deficit reduction as responsible," he said. "And even though many members of the economic team and I think even the president himself recognized that the economy would be better served by a more-stimulus fiscal policy, I think the politics ended up informing the economic policy in a pretty damaging way."

And he quotes Evan Bayh, who was a senator, not an adviser (and an awful senator at that!):

"You have to remember that speech didn't occur in a vacuum it was really at the beginning of the full-throated counterattack by the tea party forces," said former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), one of the Democrats who cheered the president's debt reduction focus. "With regard to the spending freeze and capping pay and all that, those were nods to the general public to prove you are not completely tone-deaf.

"2010 was not 2009. A lot had happened in between there," Bayh added. "The president had to take into account the general environment in which he was operating. Did he have some sort of philosophical epiphany and was that a major inflection point? My answer would be no. He was acknowledging the tone of the times."

What does the article tell us about "Obama's old advisers"? We learn that Orszag is sad he didn't get a "Grand Bargain" and that Bernstein (if we are willing to call him an adviser to Obama, rather than more aptly the "White House") thinks austerity was bad. Bernstein, however, does want to cut Social Security, as his colleagues at CBPP do.

In short, two of Obama's former advisers are sad that they didn't get the type of Grand Bargain (short-term stimulus combined with cuts to social insurance programs) that Pete Peterson wants. The headline implies some type of actual self-reflection. If only.

Another example of an article belying its headline is the article "Social Responsibility Weighs Heavy on Economic Chieftains at Davos" in Andrew Ross Sorkin's Wall Street-coddling Dealbook section of the New York Times.

There are more words in that article showing Davos attendees shunning social responsibility than showing them expressing it. I counted. (254 words vs. 247 words)

This article on "social responsibility" is full of rich people complaining.

Here's an example of a rich guy complaining and wanting to be anonymous so that he doesn't look like he is complaining:

“It used to be just bankers that were bashed,” the chief executive of a large European consumer goods company said with a sigh after coming out of his morning trance. He spoke on condition of anonymity, perhaps not wanting to seem as if he was complaining. “Now it’s all of us.”

And here's someone complaining about taxes, again anonymously:

Tax increases on the wealthy were less popular. Even the tax increase of roughly 0.5 percent on those making half a million dollars or more proposed by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio prompted many to warn that this would “send the wrong signal” and shift incentives too far. “It might be enough to persuade people to move out of the city,” said a New York-based fund manager.

And here are three paragraphs devoted to a rich Republican donor who hates Obama:

Indeed, some at Davos bristled at any notion of directly taking money from their wallets. For Anthony Scaramucci, the head of the investment firm SkyBridge Capital, attendees must work on creating more opportunities for others to climb the economic ladder. But anything more drastic, he said, was out of the question.

Mr. Scaramucci, who is a prominent Republican donor in the United States, said that he had noticed some hints of economic populism here. He placed some of the blame for that on President Obama and others who, he said, argue that the “cool thing” is to redistribute wealth.

Referring to Paul Singer, the head of the $23 billion hedge fund Elliott Management and a Forum attendee, Mr. Scaramucci said, “To take it from Paul and give it to someone else, I think that’s unfair.”

So where's the social responsibility in this article?

Well, 115 of the 247 words related to social responsibility are about the Pope giving a speech.

Then we have this rather crude simulation of refugee life:

For those wanting to experience real hardship (for an hour or so) there were multiple sessions each day that attempted to simulate what it is like to be a refugee in a camp. During these sessions actors dressed up as soldiers stormed in, pretending to beat up another actor dressed up as a refugee and firing fake gunshots. Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook and Peter Brabeck-Letmathe of Nestle were among the executives who participated.

An hour or so? Quite different from the days, weeks, months, and years that actually refugees have in this situation. The experiences are not comparable, and you shouldn't need to go through a suffering simulation in order to support policies to alleviate suffering.

And then there was tax evader Richard Branson encouraging philanthropy, the preferred version of "social responsibility" by the plutocratic class.

Many, of course, agreed. Richard Branson of Virgin said those lucky enough to have “made wealth” should support philanthropic causes. “Once you have paid for breakfast, lunch and dinner, once you have paid for your children’s education, once you have a roof over your head, you don’t need that much more,” he said, urging fellow billionaires to give generously.

Davos attendees are having such a change of heart this year!

Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats?

Not when the yachts are crushing everything else in the water:

DeFazio, Grijalva, and 107 Other House Dems Call on Interior to Protect More Public Lands

Yesterday, Representatives Pete DeFazio (OR-04) and Raul Grijalva (AZ-09) of the House Natural Resources Committee sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell urging her to protect more land under the Antiquities Act. 107 other House Democrats co-signed the letter.

The 112th Congress, as the letter points out, was the first Congress in forty years to fail to permanently protect any of the nation's treasured landscapes. The track record of the current Congress (113th) is not looking particularly good either. The House Natural Resources Committee has held hearings for only eight of 37 land designation proposals offered this Congress, and only one has thus far passed.

The Antiquities Act, signed into law in 1906 by Teddy Roosevelt, gives the president the authority to protect and conserve public lands through the issuance of executive orders. The president can designate "National Monuments" for preservation/conservation. "National Park" designation, however, must go through Congress and, consequently, takes more time.

In his first term, Obama had a pretty abysmal record at protecting public lands. Unless something radically changes, he will end up protecting fewer acres of public lands administratively than George W. Bush did.


Obama has been much more willing to open lands up for oil and gas drilling:

Here is the text of the Democrats' letter:

Dear Secretary Jewell:

We are writing in response to your recent comments about the Antiquities Act and your ongoing commitment to conservation and historic preservation on Federal land. Only Congress has the authority to establish National Parks, Forests, and wilderness areas, but there is a long tradition of the conservation initiatives spearheaded by the President.

Since the 1906 passage of the Antiquities Act, Presidents have had the authority to establish National Monuments. This is an important tool that has led to the protection of some our most iconic landscapes and valuable cultural resources, including the Grand Canyon and the recently enacted Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument. Some initiatives require Presidential leadership and should not be bogged down by political infighting and paralysis, increasingly common characteristics of Congress.

In today’s deeply partisan environment, it’s becoming nearly impossible for Congress to make critical conservation decisions.  The 112th Congress was the first Congress in 40 years that failed to permanently protect any of America’s treasured landscapes. The current Congress is on a path to repeat that abysmal record. There are 37 land designation bills sitting before Congress that have broad public support. Unfortunately, Congress is failing to act.  The House Natural Resources Committee has only held hearings on 8 of these proposals and only one has moved beyond markup and passed the House. With only 121 legislative days scheduled for 2014, the time to act is running out. Many of these proposals are excellent candidates for an Antiquities Act designation by the President.

On April 16, 2013, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation held a hearing on a suite of bills designed to dilute the Presidential authority outlined in the Antiquities Act. The theme of the hearing was overreach with a strong emphasis placed on the need to make the National Monument process more inclusive by requiring Congressional approval. As you know, Congress already has the opportunity to take the lead but is choosing to shun this role. Conservation and historic preservation initiatives with broad public support should not have to be sidelined or stalled because of political paralysis. Gateway communities throughout the country benefit from Federal conservation efforts; resources are protected, visitor experience is enhanced, and local economies are enhanced. At National Parks alone, visitors spend more than $35 million per day. Our most significant resources deserve our attention.

Again, we are encouraged by your enthusiasm, and we look forward to your leadership to help identify appropriate sites for conservation and preservation. When Congress is unable to advance conservation legislation, the importance of the Antiquities Act is increasingly apparent.

15 of the voting members of the House Committee on Natural Resources signed the letter: Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06)
Grace Napolitano (CA-38)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-07)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Niki Tsongas (MA-03)
Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)

Only two voting Democratic members of HCNR did not sign: Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01) and Steven Horsford (NV-04).

Here are the rest of the co-signers:

Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
George Miller (CA-11)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Anna G. 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)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
John B. Larson (CT-01)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Bill Keating (MA-09)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Sander Levin (MI-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Diana Titus (NV-01)
Ann McLane Kuster (NH-02)
Michelle Luan Grisham (MN-01)
Ben Lujan (NM-03)
Tim Bishop (NY-01)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Jerrold Nadler (NY-10)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Joseph Crowley (NY-14)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Louise Slaughter (NY-25)
David Price (NC-04)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
David Ciciline (RI-01)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Donna Christensen (VI)

A Sobering Look at Past Exit Polls in Light of Recent GOP Misogyny

Over the past few days, we've seen a number of misogynistic comments coming out of the GOP. Whether we're talking about the Texas GOP's attacks on Wendy Davis, Rep. Steve Pearce's belief that women should voluntarily submit to their husbands, or Mike Huckabee's Uncle Sugar comment, we've seen that the GOP is not very good at talking respectfully about women. This, combined with their policies, has driven the "war on women" frame adopted by the Democratic Party.

However, a look at exit polling highlights the sobering fact that many women, particularly white women and married women, like the GOP just fine.

In 2012, Romney beat Obama among white women 56% to 42%, a margin of 14 points. And that's not unusual, as the exit polling done by the New York Times shows.

As you can see, Bill Clinton was the only Democrat between 1972 and 2012 to have beaten a Republican among white women. He tied George H. W. Bush in 1992 and beat Bob Dole in 1996. However, in 1996, he still didn't have a majority of white women, only a plurality (akin to his share of the general popular vote as well).

That chart, however, does show that a significant gap between white men and white women began to emerge in the 1980s.

1972: +2 Republican
1976: +2 Republican
1980: +14 Democrat
1984: +11 Democrat
1988: +14 Democrat
1992: +3 Democrat
1996: +16 Democrat
2000: +23 Democrat
2004: +14 Democrat
2008: +9 Democrat

There has also been a gap between black men and black women (an average of about 14 points, a bigger gap than between white men and white women), although Obama largely erased that gap in 2008.

Let's look at two Senate races from 2012 in which the GOP candidate's comments about women played a significant role: Missouri and Indiana. During the lead-up to those elections, I remember hearing many people say that they could not imagine how any woman could vote for a candidate like Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock.

Missouri

In Missouri, Claire McCaskill beat Todd Akin 55% to 39%.

McCaskill had a 22% lead with female voters:

However, her lead quickly dissipates when we look at sub-demographics.

For example, McCaskill only beat Akin by 5% among white female voters:

Among married women, McCaskill's lead over Akin shrunk to 1%. Given the nature of exit polling, we should probably call that a statistical tie.

Given those numbers, I think we can infer that Todd Akin won a majority of married white women.
This race did, however, contrast sharply with the presidential race. The Senate race saw a 34 point shift to the left among white women, 32 points among married women, and 29 points among unmarried women compared to the presidential race. The corresponding male categories shifted 22, 16, and 28, respectively.

Indiana

In Indiana, Joe Donnelly beat Richard Mourdock 50% to 44%.

Donnelly won female voters overall by 12 points:

He only won the vote of white women by 2 points:

And he lost the vote of married women by 4 points:

This race did, however, contrast with the presidential race.  The Senate race saw
20 point shift to the Democrats among white women, 15 points among married women, and 15 points among unmarried women compared to the presidential race and the Senate race. The corresponding male categories shifted 16, 22, and 10, respectively.


These shifts are interesting when you realize how little difference there was in policy terms between these Republicans and Romney.

Democracy Versus the National Security State

Last Friday, Obama gave a speech on the NSA and a full-throated defense of the surveillance state. The cover story of the current edition of the establishment center-left magazine The New Republic is a full-throated defense of the surveillance state by a good friend of the Clintons. And today, we are celebrating the legacy of a civil rights leader who, like others in the civil rights movement, was subject to an obsessive surveillance campaign by FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover.

What a great time to talk about the relationship of democracy to the national security state!

The other day, I was reminded of an article a friend of mine read amidst her Ph.D. research and then sent to me. The article--"Democracy Versus the National Security State" by Marcus Raskin--was written in 1976 during the investigations of the Church Committee. It remains just as relevant today.
Marcus Raskin is the co-founder of the progressive think tank the Institute of Policy Studies. In the early 1960s, he was an assistant on national security affairs and disarmament to McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's National Security Advisor. Because of his opposition to the escalation of the Vietnam War, Raskin was reassigned to the Bureau of the Budget. In 1963, he and Richard Barnet, a State Department official in the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, left their positions in the government to form a think tank that would critique official government policy--IPS.

In the aforementioned article, Raskin argues that the national security state that had emerged in the postwar/Cold War era States was a “constitutional deformation which menaces the freedom and well-being of its citizenry, and which poses a danger to world civilization.” The article, published in Law and Contemporary Problems (40, No. 3, 189-220), called on the legal profession to take on that deformation and to push for a democratic, deliberative, peaceful, and just society.

Read the rest here.

John Podesta Delivers Passive-Aggressive Response to Green Groups, Ignores Key Concerns

On Thursday, a group of 18 prominent environmental groups wrote to President Obama criticizing his "all-of-the-above" energy strategy. The letter highlighted how such a strategy, with its emphasis on boosting oil and natural gas production, undermines his professed commitment to combating climate change both domestically and internationally.

The letter, which addressed the many dangers of increased fossil fuel extraction, highlighted three policy issues of concern: the Keystone XL pipeline, fracking on public lands, and drilling in the Arctic. State Department studies on the Keystone XL pipeline have been riddled with conflicts of interest. Obama has protected fewer public lands than his predecessors, instead opening up lands to oil and gas drilling.  The administration is also strongly supportive of drilling in the Arctic.

USTR Michael Froman has been lobbying the EU to weaken their fuel quality standards and accept dirty tar sands oil. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, under negotiation, is likely to increase fracking and enable major polluters like Exxon Mobil to sue governments for unlimited cash compensation.
Although the administration has made efforts to improve energy efficiency and clean energy, it has undermined its own efforts in policies like those noted above.

Yesterday, John Podesta, who recently joined the White House to work on climate among other issues, wrote a very passive-aggressive response to the environmental groups, ignoring their key concerns and criticizing them for daring to challenge the president's efforts. He just spouts out the president's accomplishments and then spends some time speaking of how bad Republicans are. He does not, at any point, substantively engage with the letter the green groups sent.

I am writing in response to your January 16 letter to President Obama regarding climate change.

President Obama understands that climate change poses a significant threat to our environment, to public health and to our economy. He believes it is imperative that we act to address these threats and that doing so provides an opportunity for the United States to lead in the development and deployment of clean energy technologies needed to reduce emissions. For these reasons, the President has taken steps to address the climate change challenge throughout the last five years, including a issuing a bold Climate Action Plan in June of 2013.

The Climate Action Plan builds on major progress during the President’s first term, including: historic fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles that will cut 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution, cut oil consumption by 12 billion barrels of oil, and save consumer $1.7 trillion over the lifetime of the program; energy efficiency standards for appliances that will cut pollution and save consumers and businesses hundreds of dollars in the coming decades; historic support for renewable energy that has helped to drive down technology costs and more than doubled generation of electricity from wind and solar. These steps by the Obama Administration have contributed to significant decreases in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; 2012 emissions of carbon dioxide were at their lowest levels in nearly twenty years.

The Climate Action Plan outlined by President Obama in a historic speech at Georgetown in June of 2013 builds on these measures, and commits to additional steps to cut the emissions of carbon pollution, prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to combat global climate change. The breadth of the plan makes it impossible to detail these steps in this letter, but key commitments to continue to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions include establishing the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants, a multi-sector strategy to reduce methane emissions, action to limit the use of HFCs and promote the use of more climate-friendly alternatives, additional DOE energy efficiency standards, and additional fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy duty vehicles.

We have made significant progress in implementing the plan in the last seven months, and I attach for your review a recent report that details this work. However, significant work lies ahead in meeting the commitments outlined in the Climate Action Plan. In addition, opposition to key components of the plan remains. Last week, the White House had to fight off anti-environmental Appropriations riders, including one that would have prevented the EPA from implementing regulations to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants under section 11(d) of the Clean Air Act, and would have prevented the Administration from moving forward with Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards. On the day your letter arrived, the Senate Minority Leader filed a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn rules to regulate CO2 emissions from new power plants.

Given this context, I was surprised that you chose to send your January 16 letter to President Obama. The President has been leading the transition, to low-carbon energy sources, and understands the need to consider a balanced approach to all forms of energy development, including oil and gas production.

With respect to meeting the threats posed by a rapidly changing climate, implementation of the Climate Action Plan must and will remain the focus of our efforts. In the meantime, we will continue to welcome your advice, based on your very long experience on how to convince the American public of the need and opportunity to transform dirty energy systems to ones that are cleaner and more efficient.

When reading Podesta's letter, I caught a few typos. I reproduced the letter as written, but I wanted to point those out: 

"including a issuing a bold Climate Action Plan" [extra letter]

"save consumer $1.7 trillion over the lifetime of the program" [missing "s"]

"leading the transition, to low-carbon energy sources" [extraneous comma]

He must have been so worked up with passive-aggressive anger that he didn't edit his own formal letter.

Green Groups to Obama: Your All-of-the-Above Strategy Will Lead to Climate Disaster

Earlier this week, a group of 18 senators started a Climate Action Task Force to bring greater attention to the issue of climate change and to build momentum for action.

Yesterday, a group of 18 green groups wrote a letter to President Obama criticizing his "all of the above" energy strategy. The letter highlighted how such a strategy undermines his professed commitment to combating climate change both domestically and internationally.

The letter stressed that reducing dependence on "foreign oil" is not sufficient: we must reduce dependence on oil and other fossil fuels regardless of origin.

The letter also emphasized how pursuing fossil fuels will prevent the further expansion of the clean energy that we need for a carbon-free economy and energy system and will prolong the injustices that the current fossil fuel-driven system produces.

An “all of the above” strategy is a compromise that future generations can’t afford. It fails to prioritize clean energy and solutions that have already begun to replace fossil fuels, revitalize American industry, and save American money. It increases environmental injustice while it locks in the extraction of fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic climate future. It threatens our health, our homes, our most sensitive public lands, our oceans and our most precious wild places. Such a policy accelerates development of fuel sources that can negate the important progress you’ve already made on lowering U.S. carbon pollution, and it undermines U.S. credibility in the international community.

The letter asks that the President consider reducing carbon emissions a top priority when making decisions on Keystone XL, fracking on public lands, and drilling in the arctic. 

The following organizations signed on to the letter:

American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Energy Action Coalition, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Native American Rights Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Population Connection, Sierra Club, Voices for Progress

The text of the letter is below:

We applaud the actions you have taken to reduce economy-wide carbon pollution and your commitment last June “to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution” and “lead the world in a coordinated assault on climate change.” We look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve these goals.

In that speech, you referenced in the past you had put forward an “all of the above” energy strategy, yet noted that we cannot just drill our way out of our energy and climate challenge. WE believe that continued reliance on an “all of the above” energy strategy would be fundamentally at odds with your goal of cutting carbon pollution and would undermine our nation’s capacity to respond to the threat of climate disruption. With record-high atmospheric concentrations and the rising threat of extreme heat, drought, wildfires and super storms, America’s energy policies must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not simply reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

We understand that the U.S. cannot immediately end its use of fossil fuels and we also appreciate the advantages of being more energy independent. But an “all of the above” approach that places virtually no limits on whether, when, where or how fossil fuels are extracted ignores the impacts of carbon-intensive fuels and is wrong for America’s future. America requires an ambitious energy vision that reduces consumption of these fuels in order to meet the scale of the climate crisis.

An “all of the above” strategy is a compromise that future generations can’t afford. It fails to prioritize clean energy and solutions that have already begun to replace fossil fuels, revitalize American industry, and save American money. It increases environmental injustice while it locks in the extraction of fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic climate future. It threatens our health, our homes, our most sensitive public lands, our oceans and our most precious wild places. Such a policy accelerates development of fuel sources that can negate the important progress you’ve already made on lowering U.S. carbon pollution, and it undermines U.S. credibility in the international community.

Mr. President, we were very heartened by your commitment that the climate impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would be “absolutely critical” to the decision and that it would be contrary to the “national interest” to approve a project that would “significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” We believe that a climate impact lens should be applied to all decisions regarding new fossil fuel development, and urge that a “carbon-reducing clean energy” strategy rather than an “all of the above” strategy become the operative paradigm for your administration’s energy decisions.

In the coming months your administration will be making key decisions regarding fossil fuel development – including the Keystone XL pipeline, fracking on public lands, and drilling in the Arctic ocean – that will either set us on a path to achieve the clean energy future we all envision or will significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. We urge you to make the climate impacts and emission increases critical considerations in each of these decisions.

Mr. President, we applaud you for your commitment to tackle the climate crisis and to build an economy powered by energy that is clean, safe, secure, and sustainable.

Warren, Sanders, and 10 Other Senators Write Letter to Reid Opposing Fast-Track Authority

Last week, Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 into the Senate Finance Committee to renew fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Earlier today, a group of 12 senators sent a letter to Senate Majority Harry Reid conveying their opposition to the renewal of fast-track authority and an antiquated system of trade oversight.

The senators on the letter were Al Franken  (MN), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Christopher Murphy (CT), Bernie Sanders (VT), Tom Harkin (IA), Carl Levin (MI), Jeff Merkely (OR), Jack Reed (RI), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Edward Markey (MA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).

Sherrod Brown (OH)'s name comes to mind as a notable omission. He, however, sits on the Senate Finance Committee, and the letter makes clear that it is coming from non-Committee members who want to voice their concerns.

Earlier this week, Wikileaks released the Environment section of the TPP draft as they had done with the Intellectual Property section earlier.

The text of the letter is below:

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We write to you today about the upcoming trade agenda. More specifically, we are writing to express deep concern about the prospect of renewing the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) – better known as Fast Track – that lapsed in 2007. As the TPA that was enacted over a decade ago is inadequate for addressing the complex trade agreements of the 21st century, it is clear that renewal of TPA in a form that resembles that framework would be unacceptable. Instead, TPA must be replaced with a new trade agreement negotiation and approval process appropriate to 21st century trade agreements and consistent with the constitutional role of Congress in trade.

As you know, the United States is currently negotiating two significant trade agreements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Together, these two agreements would encompass more than 60 percent of the global economy and more than half of U.S. trade. Prior to the consideration of these agreements, there are a number of trade policy initiatives that will require Congressional attention, including consideration of TPA and reauthorizing the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. As these initiatives come up for consideration, potentially in a package, we believe it is imperative that we improve upon Congressional consultation, while also including provisions to maximize economic and job growth at home.

It has been more than ten years since Congress considered legislation granting Trade Promotion Authority. In that time, the global economy has changed, and with it our trade policy. The trade agreements currently being negotiated are complex economic arrangements between large groups of nations encompassing a wide variety of issues ranging from state-owned enterprises to intellectual property. They have profound effects on our nation’s economy and laws and the communities that we represent. As such, the terms of Congressional involvement require a number of reforms. Specifically, the last TPA framework created a Congressional Oversight Group (COG) that has proven ineffective at meaningfully increasing member involvement or understanding of our trade negotiations. We must do better. Any bill reestablishing an expedited legislative process for approving trade agreements must improve upon this consultation body, broaden the scope of members to include those beyond the committees of jurisdiction, improve access to negotiating information for Congress and the public, and institute strong mechanisms to certify that our negotiating objectives are achieved.

We are also concerned about any larger trade package of which such legislation spelling out a new approval process would be a part. While TAA can be an essential component of our trade policy, we need a broader effort to ensure American workers are competing on a fair and even playing field. A large trade package should also include provisions to promote our nation’s competitiveness. For instance, for far too long our trade policies have hurt our domestic manufacturing sector instead of helping it. We must not allow our global competitors to continue challenging American leadership in manufacturing an innovation. We believe any package should include provisions to address currency manipulation, stronger mechanisms to address unfair labor practices, the ability of communities to preserve their values, strong trade enforcement policies and should  provide innovative solutions to finance improvements to our crumbling infrastructure.

We look forward to working with you to achieve these goals. We understand that the Senate Finance Committee may soon take up legislation on the trade agreement approval process, and as non-Committee members, we believe that we must use this moment to advance a more comprehensive approach to trade policy that prepares workers and businesses to take advantage of new opportunities and promote domestic production and jobs. And we must not return to an outdated and inadequate legislative process for shaping and approving trade agreements. Thank you.

Sen. Boxer and 17 Other Senators Launch Climate Action Task Force. Did Your Senator Join?

Last week, I wrote a diary about how Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) were about to launch a Climate Action Task Force in the Senate to bring more attention to the issue of climate change via hearings, legislative battles, internal briefings, among other means, and to build outside support (religious groups, businesses, etc.) in order to counteract the power of fossil fuel interests.

Yesterday, the Task Force officially launched today with 18 members, all from the Democratic caucus (as to be expected).

In the press conference, Boxer acknowledged that legislation like the fee-and-dividend bill she introduced with Senator Bernie Sanders last year would not have the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster but stressed that the Task Force would seek to alter the political climate to make such legislation possible.

Boxer had invited Republican colleagues to join the Task Force; unsurprisingly, none of them accepted her offer. Several members of the Task Force expressed their desire to have Republicans join them on the issue:

“How about we get five Republicans from coastal states whose states are already suffering from sea level rise, droughts, floods and all the rest of it?'' Boxer said. "I'm not going to walk into that issue -- that I have to have 100 percent of Democrats. I don't need 100 percent of Democrats. All I need is a majority of Democrats and Republicans and we will change this place and we will make sure that our grandchildren have a safe planet." …..
"We have to tell Republicans that if they ultimately want to stop the hemorrhaging from young voters in this country, they need to start paying attention to this issue, because only 3 percent of voters 18 to 34 don't believe that climate change is really happening,'' Murphy said. ``Eighty percent of that same cohort of voters support President Obama's climate action plan and three-fourths of young voters would vote against a member of Congress who stands in the way of that plan.''
….
King acknowledged the "partisan cast'' to the task force, but said for all the talk in Washington about piling debts onto grandchildren, "the most solemn responsibility we have is to leave our descendents with the planet in as good a shape or better than we found it.''

Boxer said she hoped to enlist Republicans from coastal states such as Florida's Marco Rubio. Much of Miami faces inundation from rising seas.

"Florida is a nightmare waiting to happen,'' Boxer said. "I could mention every Republican from a coastal state, they ought to be with us. They ought to be leading the charge. And that's our goal, to wake up Congress.''

Last spring, during the budget vote-a-rama, only one Republican--Susan Collins of Maine--voted against prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Boxer seems to acknowledge that winning over a Mary Landrieu or a Joe Manchin is a lost cause and thinks that coastal Republicans might be a better bet because of the tangible impact on their constituents. However, the incentives are just not there right now. By opposing climate action, you can get a lot of money. And since support for climate action tends to be broad but shallow among the public and since the media ignores the issue, you won't risk losing votes by opposing climate action. So legislators go with the money. Until that calculus changes, legislative action will not happen.

The 18 senators in the Task Force are the following:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

The natural constituencies for the Climate Action Task Force would be the members of the Environmental and Public Works Committee (EPW) and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Boxer, Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, and Booker (in rank order) are all on EPW.
The Democrats on EPW who are not (yet) in the Task Force are Max Baucus (MT), Carper (DE), and Gillibrand (NY).

Cantwell, Sanders, Franken, Schatz, and Heinrich all serve on the Energy Committee.
The Democrats on Energy who are not (yet) in the Task Force are Ron Wyden (OR), Tim Johnson (SD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Mark Udall (CO), Joe Manchin (WV), and Tammy Baldwin (WI). Landrieu and Manchin are pretty much lost causes on climate and energy issues.

Of the senators on these two committees, Gillibrand and Baldwin strike me as the ones most supportive of climate action who have not yet joined the Boxer-Whitehouse Task Force.

Critics Say that latest NYT headline on WV chemical spill uses bad framing

On A8 of the print version (and also online) today, the New York Times featured an article on the history of weak environmental regulation surrounding the Freedom Industries chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia.

The headline? "Critics Say Chemical Spill Highlights Lax West Virginia Regulations"

Yes, to the New York Times, this is apparently a matter of he said/she said debate. The lax regulations in West Virginia are a mere allegation, an interpretation from a group of "critics." Some might view the regulations as weak, but others--the headline implies--might not. And who is the Times to judge?
Interestingly, the introduction in the NYT digest email hints at a far better title and frame:

The chemical spill in West Virginia has brought renewed focus on the state's troubled history of environmental disasters.

"Chemical Spill Brings Renewed Focus to Lax West Virginia Regulations" 

 

The language of "focus" still places the origin of critique outside, but it does not resort to evasion in the way the current headline does.

The article begins by noting that the storage facility had not been inspected since 1991--even though it was close to a water source.

“We can’t just point a single finger at this company,” said Angela Rosser, the executive director of West Virginia Rivers Coalition. “We need to look at our entire system and give some serious thought to making some serious reform and valuing our natural resources over industry interests.”

She said lawmakers have yet to explain why the storage facility was allowed to sit on the river and so close to a water treatment plant that is the largest in the state.
Ms. Rosser and others noted that the site of the spill has not been subject to a state or federal inspection since 1991. West Virginia law does not require inspections for chemical storage facilities — only for production facilities.

The article also highlights the recent history of violations of environmental and safety regulations:

This is not the first chemical accident to hit West Virginia’s Kanawha Valley.
After an explosion at a West Virginia chemical plant owned by Bayer CropScience killed two employees in 2008, a 2010 congressional investigation found that managers refused for several hours to tell emergency responders the nature of the blast or the toxic chemical it released. It also found that they later misused a law intended to keep information from terrorists to try to stop federal investigators from learning what had happened. The plant manufactured the same chemical that was processed in a giant 1985 explosion that killed 10,000 in Bhopal, India.

West Virginia is also no stranger to accidents in the coal industry.

In 2012, federal prosecutors charged David C. Hughart, a top executive at Massey Energy, a West Virginia coal operator, with a felony count and a second misdemeanor conspiracy count related to the deaths of 29 coal miners in a 2009 explosion at West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch mine. Prosecutors said that Mr. Hughart and others knowingly conspired to violate safety laws at Massey’s mines and worked to hide those violations by giving advance warnings of surprise inspections by the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

In 2009, an investigation by The New York Times found that hundreds of workplaces in West Virginia had violated pollution laws without paying fines. In interviews at the time, current and former West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection employees said their enforcement efforts had been undermined by bureaucratic disorganization; a departmental preference to let polluters escape punishment if they promised to try harder; and a revolving door of regulators who left for higher-paying jobs at the companies they once policed.

The article also features commentary from environmental activists and lawyers in the state:

“West Virginia has a pattern of resisting federal oversight and what they consider E.P.A. interference, and that really puts workers and the population at risk,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a lecturer in environmental health at George Washington University.

“Whenever you have a discharge of a pollutant or a hazardous substance you have potential violation of the environmental laws,” said Booth Goodwin, the United States attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, according to a news report on WVVA.com.

In June 2009, four environmental groups petitioned the E.P.A. to take over much of West Virginia’s handling of the Clean Water Act, citing a “nearly complete breakdown” in the state.

“Historically, there had been a questionable enforcement ethic,” said Matthew Crum, a former state mining director at the state’s Department of Environmental Protection.
Cindy Rank, chairwoman of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy’s mining committee, said that the coal lobby has wielded great influence in crafting state environmental regulations. “Accidents are always preventable. For the most part I think that’s true in these disasters that keep happening,” she said. She recalled negotiations over a groundwater protection bill from the early 1990s. “We swallowed hard and allowed the coal industry to get away with a lot in that bill,” she said.

The only alternative picture comes from Randy Huffman, the secretary of the state's Department of Environmental Protection:

But Mr. Huffman disputed that accusation, noting that West Virginia’s economy is more heavily dependent than other states on the coal and chemical industries. “Based upon the types of industrial activity, how does it compare to the rest of the country? It’s not in context.” Although he added, “That’s no excuse for any incident where someone gets hurt.”

However, that argument amounts to little more than "Our regulations are weak because we are all captured by the coal industry." The message is ultimately the same. 

The article provides evidence past and present of a weak regulatory system captured by coal and chemical interests and the human and environmental damage that results. It should have a headline to match.

Freedom's Just Another Word....

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." ~Janis Joplin, "Me and Bobby McGee" [lyrics by Kris Kristofferson]

In the context of the song itself, the line has a positive connotation. It evokes the removal of all constraints--in the particular case, for the two youthful individuals on a road trip. However, taken in a different way, the line can have a somewhat darker connotation: You have nothing left to lose because you never had anything to start--or have since seen it all taken from you--or have nothing you can lose because the little you have is essential.

Poverty is having nothing (left to lose).
Having nothing left to lose is freedom.
Poverty is freedom.

I think many of us would beg to differ with the conclusions of that little syllogism. Deprivation and denial of access to resources render any formal freedom meaningless.

I was thinking about the relationship between freedom and poverty recently after reading about the havoc that the ironically named Freedom Industries has wreaked on Charleston, West Virginia, and the surrounding counties.

Thursday morning, the chemical 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol (MCHM),which is used to wash coal of impurities, spilled from the Freedom Industries tank into the river. West Virginia American Water did not notify customers until that evening, and since then, 300,000 West Virginians have been without safe drinking water and the governor has declared a state of emergency. Symptoms of MCHM exposure include  “severe burning in throat, severe eye irritation, non-stop vomiting, trouble breathing or severe skin irritation such as skin blistering.”

The event, particularly because of the name of the company, calls to mind key differences in how the left and right conceptualize freedom. To the right, freedom refers to Freedom Industries' ability to carry out its work with minimal environmental regulation or oversight. The market is freedom. Government regulation is a constraint. It is inimical to freedom. Freedom means that the state does not interfere with the actions of the boss, either over employees or over the community. And freedom means that the boss and the corporation s/he heads have no responsibilities to said community. Freedom means never having to say you're sorry (you being the corporate executive).

However, to those on the left, Freedom Industries is, in fact, an oppressor. By denying people access to clean water, it has constrained their ability to have autonomy over their own lives, to exercise their will (harmonious with those of others), and to participate in making the decisions that affect them. Bad health, an inevitable result of the spill, is inimical to freedom since it constrains action and limits agency. As West Virginia is the second poorest state in the nation, many of its residents do not have the means to spend time indefinitely in a hotel or on vacation while waiting for their home to be safe again. They are effectively trapped. When a company like Freedom tramples on the will, wealth, and well-being of the communities around it, it is taking away their freedom.

House Brings in the New Year with a Vote against Environmental Protection

Yesterday, the House passed the creatively and misleadingly named Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013 (H.R. 2279), a bill aimed at meddling with the EPA and curtailing environmental protections.

Here is the summary provided by The Hill:

Specifically, it removes a requirement that the EPA revise solid waste disposal regulations every three years, and prohibits the government from imposing solid waste regulations on states that overlap current state-wide rules.

Other language in the bill would require all federally owned facilities to comply with state rules on hazardous substances, and require the government to consult more closely with states before imposing cleanup requirements under Superfund, the federal program that funds the cleanup of abandoned waste sites.

The legislation would also ensure that if a state has rules requiring companies in polluting industries to post a bond or offer other financial sureties for possible cleanup costs, those rules cannot be affected by possible rules the EPA might develop in the future.

Business and polluter interests see H.R. 2279 as a way to curtail the practice they label "sue and settle", in which environmental groups sue the EPA for non-performance of its duties resulting from missed deadlines and the EPA enters the settlement process. The linked editorial offers an amusing view of how "free market" think tanks write about environmentalists.

Democrats were critical of the bill because of how it would slow down cleanups and pass their costs onto the taxpayer:

But several Democrats criticized the legislation as an attempt to weaken current law. Many argued that the bonding language would let companies avoid the cost of cleaning up pollution, and pass those costs onto taxpayers.

"The outcome of enacting this bill should be obvious," said House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). "If polluters don't pay to clean up their pollution, then it just becomes one more burden to the taxpayer, and none of us should want that."

Others argued that the bill could further confuse how the federal government and the states must work together on clean-up efforts, which could slow down that process. That argument was also made by the Obama administration earlier this week, in a statement saying President Obama would veto the bill.

"H.R. 2279 would unnecessarily increase the potential for litigation between the Federal government and the States, negatively impacting the timeliness and number of cleanups," the White House wrote.

"The administration already works closely with the States to ensure that remedial goals for the protection of public health are met and that the states' preferences and requirements are taken into account," the White House wrote.

The bill passed 225 to 188 on mostly partisan lines. 

4 Republicans voted against it:

Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)

5 Democrats voted for it:

Jim Costa (CA-16)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)

Paul Tonko (NY-20) introduced an amendment to block the implementation of the bill if any provision increases litigation, reduces funds for, or delays clean-up of contaminated sites. It failed 190 to 227.

Republicans Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) and Chris Gibson (NY-19) voted for it. Democrats Collin Peterson (MN-07) and Nick Rahall (WV-03) voted against it.

Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09) introduced an amendment to eliminate language that would expand eligibility for sites being listed on the national priorities list of cleanup sites. It failed 189 to 228.

Chris Gibson (NY-19) was the lone Republican supporter. Pete Gallego (TX-23) and Collin Peterson (MN-07) were the sole Democratic opponents.

Another Year, Another Climate Task Force

Yesterday, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) announced the creation of a Climate Action Task Force in the Senate for "going on the offensive" on the issue and building momentum for action. The Climate Action Task Force, which consists of 12 Democrats so far per Boxer, will launch officially next Tuesday. The Task Force's activities will include public events, floor speeches, and increased engagement with outside partners like religious organizations and businesses.

Boxer said that the Task Force will focus more on general advocacy than on specific legislation but that it could help build momentum on bills on fuel economy, alternative fuels, and fuel efficiency. Boxer said that she does not know whether the Task Force will take a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline--even though she herself strongly opposes it. Frankly, the Task Force seems pretty hollow if it won't commit to opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.

The creation of "task forces" in the Senate on this issue is not new. On January 24th of last year, Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse announced the creation of a Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change.

Last year also featured stillborn efforts by Senate Democrats at drumming up support for climate action.

Eleven months ago, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders introduced comprehensive climate legislation in the form of a pair of bills--the Climate Protection Act and the Sustainable Energy Act. Their legislation would impose a fee on carbon pollution emissions. Some of the revenue would be returned to consumers as rebates to offset any price increases they might incur ("fee and dividend"), and some of the revenue would go to significant investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. In their press conference on February 14, 2013, they were joined by Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org; Mike Brune, executive director of Sierra Club; Tara McGuiness, executive director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund; Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s energy director; and Meg Power of the National Community Action Foundation.

Since their referral to committee, the companion bills have lain dormant.

A month later, Reps. Henry Waxman and Earl Blumenauer and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz released draft carbon pricing legislation for feedback from stakeholder groups and the public. No formal legislation has yet to be introduced.

If the new Task Force can get the media to talk about climate change more, then great. However, calling legislation a long shot would be generous.

Let's look at the roadblocks in the Senate.

Any legislation would have to pass the EPW Committee first.

The eight Republicans on EPW are uniformly hostile to climate action:

David Vitter (R-LA)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
John Boozman (R-AK)
Deb Fischer (R-NE)

Let’s look at the 10 members of the Democratic caucus:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)

The Senate took a few relevant votes during the budget vote-a-rama last March.

Jim Inhofe introduced an amendment to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. It failed 47 to 52.

Thankfully, no committee members voted for it.

Sheldon Whitehouse offered an amendment in support of carbon pricing, which failed 41 to 58.

There was one vote from the committee: Max Baucus.

Roy Blunt (R-MO) offered an amendment to require a point of order against any carbon pricing legislation. It failed 53 to 46.

There was one vote from the committee: Max Baucus.

John Hoeven (R-ND) offered an amendment in support of the Keystone XL pipeline. It passed 62 to 37.

Two members of the committee voted for it: Max Baucus and Tom Carper.

Boxer offered an amendment herself to protect US interests in making a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline. It failed 33 to 66.

Three members of the committee voted against it: Baucus, Carper, and Udall.

In four out of five climate-related votes, Max Baucus cast the environmentally unfriendly vote. Let us assume, then, that he will likely oppose any climate legislation in EPW. The vote then becomes a 9-9 tie, and the legislation dies.

However, Max Baucus may not be in the Senate for much longer if the confirmation process for his appointment to US ambassador to China goes quickly. Let’s make the assumption (a very unlikely one) that the interim senator that Governor Steve Bullock appoints is willing to vote for said climate legislation, and the legislation passes Committee.

It would then go to the full Senate.

Let’s look at the votes again. The Inhofe amendment to prohibit EPA regulation of greenhouse gases won the support of Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Susan Collins (R-ME) was the bill’s sole Republican opponent.

In other words, a climate bill—even a weak one—would likely begin with a ceiling of 53 votes.
But there are a number of other votes that would be far from guaranteed. Max Baucus (D-MT), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Claire McCaskill (R-MO), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) joined the aforementioned three climate unfriendly coal-and/or-oil state Democrats in supporting the requirement for a point of order against carbon pricing legislation. Susan Collins joined her fellow Republicans here as well.

That puts a possible ceiling of 47 votes.

And I haven’t even looked at the Energy Committee yet, another place where legislation could originate. That Committee has 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin are two of those Democrats. All climate-related legislation is DOA.

By all means, Democrats should bring more attention to climate. Talking about it more can help make the public view it as more of a priority. But legislation isn't going anywhere.

OpenSecrets: For the First Time, A Majority of Congressmembers are Millionaires

For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, an analysis of financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics showed earlier today.

Of 534 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, according to disclosures filed last year by all members of Congress and candidates. The median net worth for the 530 current lawmakers who were in Congress as of the May filing deadline was $1,008,767 -- an increase from last year when it was $966,000. In addition, at least one of the members elected since then, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), is a millionaire, according to forms she filed as a candidate. (There is currently one vacancy in Congress.) ...
Breaking the numbers down further, congressional Democrats had a median net worth of $1.04 million, while congressional Republicans had a median net worth of almost exactly $1 million. In both cases, the figures are up from last year, when the numbers were $990,000 and $907,000, respectively.

The median net worth for all House members was $896,000 -- that's up from $856,000 in 2011 -- with House Democrats (median net worth: $929,000) holding an edge over House Republicans (median net worth: $884,000). The median net worth for both House Republicans and Democrats was higher than in 2011.

Similarly, the median net worth for all senators increased to $2.7 million from $2.5 million, but in that body it was the Republicans who were better-off. Senate Democrats reported a median net worth of $1.7 million (a decline from 2011's $2.4 million), compared to Senate Republicans, at $2.9 million (an increase from $2.5 million).

In both 2010 and 2011, the median net worth in the country was approximately $68,828 according to the Census. The Federal Reserve had a higher estimate for 2010, around $77,300. I would infer that these numbers have not changed drastically since then (although they might have ticked up slightly). Even if I'm extra-generous in estimating post-2011 change, the median member of Congress would still have a net worth between 10 and 15 times greater than the average American.

Earlier today, I read that Congress is likely to settle on a Farm Bill that cuts $8.7 billion from food stamps, which translates to a $90 reduction in monthly benefits for SNAP recipients. And I read that the Senate is nearing a deal to extend long-term unemployment benefits by extending the sequestration cuts for a year, cutting the time frame of UI benefits, and reducing disability insurance benefits.

Such stories are clearly related. When most members of Congress are millionaires, the daily experience of the poor and the struggling will simply not seem as real to them. The poor are another country in their eyes. And, frankly, one could say the same about their relationship with much of the middle-class as well.

A 2011 study from professors at Northwestern University found that those in the 1% are more likely than other groups to see the federal budget deficit as the country's most pressing problem and to prefer free markets and philanthropy rather than government action to address social problems. When I first read that report, one chart in particular struck me, the one on opinions regarding the government's role in job creation.


Senators and Representatives likely socialize with members of their own social class, an echo chamber of elite opinion.

A hundred years ago, Victor Berger, the first Socialist elected to Congress, and Anne Martin, the first woman to run for Senate, criticized Congress as a "soviet of lawyers (and bankers)." Plus ça change...

House GOP talking points say SKILLS Act would have helped the unemployed. Here's why they're wrong.

On Tuesday, Washington Post's Robert Costa published the House GOP's talking points on the long-term unemployment insurance extension.


In their discussion of their "job creation" bills, House GOP leaders highlight the SKILLS Act in particular.

I'll commend the GOP for their continued skill at creating bill names around acronyms. The bill's full name was Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act. It was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC-05) back in February.

The House passed the SKILLS Act on a vote of 215 to 202.

Only two Democrats voted for it: John Barrow (GA-12) and Jim Matheson (UT-04). No surprises there.

14 Republicans opposed it:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Jim Bridenstine (OK-01)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Paul Cook (CA-08)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Michael Grimm (NY-11)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Pete King (NY-02)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Gary Miller (CA-31)
Jon Runyan (NJ-03)
Michael Turner (OH-10)

So, what did the SKILLS Act do?

Here's the AFL-CIO's summary of some of the bill in its letter to representatives urging opposition:

(1) Consolidate categorical programs and combine funding streams into a single Workforce Investment Fund that would give states wide discretion to pick and choose eligible groups of participants, make programs more vulnerable to cuts, and pit one group of workers against another in competition for limited resources. It would inevitably lead to fewer services for dislocated workers and the degradation of services to Native Americans, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, ex-offenders, refugees, older Americans, disadvantaged youth in Job Corps centers, and other vulnerable groups.

(2) Eliminate Wagner-Peyser Employment Services and ignore the fact that the Wagner-Peyser system is charged with other duties that are only tangentially related to WIA, such as the certification of the use of foreign labor by employers, and the strong financial and structural relationship between the Employment Service and the State unemployment insurance systems. Financed primarily by the Federal UI trust fund, the Employment Service enforces the UI work test, a key feature of determining ongoing eligibility for UI benefits and, in times of high unemployment, states often reassign Employment Service workers to help with the legally complex function of processing UI claims.

(3) Eliminate the mandate for labor representation on state and local boards, simply ignoring the need for a workforce development system that features balanced representation among all stakeholders who are currently involved in programs that strengthen our nation’s workforce

WIA = Workforce Investment Act

Wagner-Peyser Employment Services = labor exchanges that connect individuals seeking employment and employers looking to hire

Basically, the SKILLS Act would "help" the unemployed by pitting disadvantaged groups against each other and weakening the power of labor. That sounds par for the course for the House GOP and a bad deal for the unemployed and American workers in general.

Cockroaches, Cher, and an Obama Official Pushing a Grand Bargain

In case you don't get the joke in the title, it's a reference to the line "When the world is destroyed by a nuclear holocaust there will be two survivors: cockroaches and Cher."

Yesterday, Gene Sperling, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, was pushing for a "grand bargain" again:

Gene Sperling, the director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said Sunday that Obama is offering congressional Republicans “a grand bargain on jobs. He has said he would be willing to do corporate tax reform that lowers rates to 28 percent, simplifies taxes for small businesses, but do it together with a major infrastructure investment.”

This isn't the same as the "cutting Medicare and Social Security and getting chump change from the rich" grand bargain, but it's also a plan clearly designed to curry favor from the 1%. 

 

Corporate profits have been hitting record highs recently.

At the same time, the share of corporate taxes as a percentage of total tax revenue has been at or near historic lows:

According to a USA Today analysis from October, 57 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 have paid effective tax rates of zero.  Moreover, a report from 2011 found that 30 major US companies had found ways to pay effective tax rates of less than zero.
Clearly, it's time to cut corporate tax rates!

Bernie Sanders Wants to Know Whether the NSA Has Been Spying on Congress

Earlier today, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of the most vocal critics of the NSA in the Senate, sent a letter to NSA director General Keith Alexander asking him whether the NSA has been spying on members of Congress.

I've included the text of the letter below.

Dear General Alexander:

I am deeply concerned about recent revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence agencies are collecting enormous amounts of information about phone calls that Americans make, emails that we send, and websites that we visit. In my view, these actions are clearly unconstitutional. As U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon wrote recently, the NSA programs are “almost Orwellian.”

Equally disturbing was to learn that the NSA has been involved in listening in on the phone calls made by government leaders of countries such as Brazil, Germany, France, Mexico, and other U.S. allies. This particular revelation has caused serious foreign policy setbacks for the United States, weakened our ability to work cooperatively with our allies, and caused an increase in anti-American sentiment throughout the world.
Indeed, we must be vigilant and aggressive in protecting the American people from the very real danger of terrorist attacks. I believe, however, that we can do that effectively without undermining the constitutional rights that make us a free country.

I am writing today to ask you one very simple question. Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials? “Spying” would include gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this very important matter. I look forward to working with you on this issue in the near future.

NAFTA at 20: An Unhappy Birthday and a Look at the Roll Call Votes on "Free" Trade Deals

On December 8, 1993, when Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) into law, he spoke in glowing terms about its future effects:

I believe we have made a decision now that will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace.

NAFTA took effect just over three weeks later: January 1, 2014. Today is its 20th birthday. Clinton's promises, which were likely just lies to begin with, have not materialized.

Last weekend, Public Citizen released a report on the twenty-year legacy of NAFTA. Public Citizen found that many of the results of NAFTA were the exact opposite of what its boosters had promised. Such results include a $181 billion trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, 1 million net U.S. jobs lost, larger agricultural trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, and more than $360 million paid to corporations through “investor-state” suits attacking domestic policies such as toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies, and others geared toward environmental protection and the public interests. The report also highlighted how US. companies like Chrysler and Caterpillar, who promised to create specific numbers of jobs upon NAFTA's approvals, quickly fired U.S. workers and relocated to Mexico. NAFTA trade and investment trends, particularly the displacement of manufacturing jobs, have contributed to downward wage pressure and growing inequality.

NAFTA has also had a detrimental effect on Mexican workers as well. The increased export of U.S. subsidized corn destroyed the livelihoods of 1 million Mexican campesino farmers and the roughly 1.4 million workers whose livelihoods depended on such agriculture. The displacement of such workers has created downward wage pressure, and 60% of the rural population in Mexico still falls below the poverty line, despite the promises made by NAFTA's boosters.

Let's take a look back at the vote on NAFTA back in 1993.

NAFTA passed the Senate 61 to 38. Democrats were almost evenly split: 27 YEA, 26 NAY (and 1 not in attendance for the vote). Republicans voted for it by a larger margin: 34 YEA to 12 NAY.

7 of the NAY votes are still in the Senate: 6 D, 1 R.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

9 of the YEA votes are still in the Senate: 6 R, 3 D.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Tom Harkin (R-IA)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)

8 former Representatives who voted NAY are now in the Senate: 5 D, 2 R, 1 I.
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

7 former Representatives who voted YEA are now in the Senate: 5 D, 2 R.
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

NAFTA passed the House 234 to 200. House Democrats voted against it 156 to 102. Republicans supported it 132 to 43. The sole Independent—Bernie Sanders—voted against it.

In other words, a Democratic president signed a bill against the wishes of 60% of the House Democratic caucus.

Republican margins in favor of NAFTA were about 3:1 both houses.
30 NAFTA supporters are still in the House: 17 R, 13 D.

The 17 Republicans:
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Buck McKeon (CA-25)
Ken Calvert (CA-42)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Bill Young (FL-13)
Dave Camp (MI-04)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
Pete King (NY-02)
Howard Coble (NC-06)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Bob Goodlatte (VA_06)
Frank Wolf (VA-10)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Tom Petri (WI-06)

The 13 Democrats:
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
David Price (NC-04)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)

40 NAFTA opponents are still in the House: 8 Republicans and 32 Democrats.

The 8 Republicans:
Don Young (AK)
Ed Royce (CA-39)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
John Mica (FL-07)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Hal Rogers (KY-05)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)

The 32 Democrats:
George Miller (CA-11)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Corrinne Brown (FL-05)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Sander Levin (MI-09)
John Dingell (MI-12)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Rob Andrews (NJ-01)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
José Serrano (NY-15)
Eliot Angel (NY-16)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Louis Slaughter (NY-25)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)

Like Bill Clinton, Obama has been fully willing to pass "free" trade deals despite majority opposition from his own party in Congress, particularly the House.

The United States Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 262 to 167. House Democrats, however, opposed it 158 to 31.

It passed the Senate 66 to 33. However, the members of the Senate Democratic caucus opposed it 31 to 22.

The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 300 to 129. However, House Democrats opposed it 123 to 66.

It passed the Senate 77 to 22. Democratic caucus support was the inverse of what it was for the Colombia deal: 31 to 22 in favor.

The United States-Korea Trade Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 278 to 151. However, House Democrats opposed it 130 to 59.

It passed the Senate 83 to 15. The Democratic caucus supported it 38 to 14.

What we see clearly here is that, although the Senate Democrats can be awful (Surprise!), the so-called "free trade" deals designed that offshore jobs and increase corporate privilege consistently face majority opposition within the House Democratic caucus.

I cross-checked the three roll call votes to find out which Democrats voted against each bill. I though this would be a useful exercise, considering that the TPP and TTIP loom in the future.

84 sitting House Democrats voted against all three bills:

Rob Andrews (NJ-01)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Brian Higgins (NY-26)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
William Keating (MA-09)
Dan Kildee (MI-5)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Ben Luján (NM-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
George Miller (CA-11)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)

Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

Louise Slaughter (NY-25) and Frederica Wilson (FL-24) were not in attendance for any of the votes. Louise Slaughter voted against NAFTA, and I would assume she would have opposed these as well. I can't say either way for Wilson.

12 Democrats in the Senate consistently voted against the so-called “free trade” deals.

Richard Blumenthal (CT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Bob Casey (PA)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Joe Manchin (WV)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Jack Reed (RI)
Harry Reid (NV)
Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Jon Tester (MT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was not in attendance for the vote Korean “free trade” bill, but he voted against the other two (and NAFTA) and is vocal in his criticism of such trade policy.

Six current Senate Democrats voted against all three bills when they were in the House:

Tammy Baldwin (WI)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Martin Heinrich (NM)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Ed Markey (MA)
Chris Murphy (CT)