House GOP Votes to Expand Drilling on Federal Lands. Which 10 Dems Joined Them?

Today, the House passed the deceptively named “Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act,” a bill that expands offshore drilling on federal lands but would not actually address the problem of high gasoline prices.

Among other things, the bill would do the following:

•    Direct the Interior Department to develop a new five-year offshore leasing plan that makes available for oil and gas exploration and development at least 50% of the unleased coastal areas with the most potential for energy production.

•    Require said plan to establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal under the Administration’s current 2012–2017 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing plan of 3 million barrels of oil per day and 10 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day by 2027 (which is triple current production levels).

•    Require that drilling be allowed off the coasts of California, South Carolina, and Virginia, and statutorily reorganizes the Interior Department agencies that oversee offshore leasing and permitting, safety inspections and revenue collection.

•    Require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease at least 25% of lands nominated by the oil and gas industry and to automatically approve any permit which has not been formally decided upon within 60 days.

•    Direct federal land managers to manage lands for the primary purpose of energy and mineral production, making all other uses, like hunting, fishing, camping, grazing, and conservation, secondary.

The bill passed 229 to 185.

219 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted for it. 179 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted against it.

Here are those 10 oil-loving Democrats:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)  
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)

And here are the 6 Republicans who voted no:

Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Jon Runyan (NJ-03)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)

There were roll call votes for 7 amendments. I will highlight two of them.

Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) offered an amendment to require companies holding leases which allow them to drill on public lands off-shore without paying a royalty to renegotiate those leases prior to bidding on new leases issued pursuant to Title I of the Act.

It failed 179 to 229. 174 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted for it. 217 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted against it.

The five Republican supporters were Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08), Chris Gibson (NY-19), Walter Jones (NC-03), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02), and Chris Smith (NJ-04).

Here are the 12 Democrats:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)  
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

Pete DeFazio (OR-04) offered an amendment to authorize $10 million of the revenue generated by the underlying bill for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use existing authority to limit speculation in energy markets. If House Republicans claim that the bill was intended to lower gas prices, clearly they would support this.

Surprising no one, they did not. The amendment failed 189 to 223.

4 Republicans voted for it: Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08), Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01), Chris Gibson (NY-19), and Walter Jones (NC-03).

Two Democrats opposed it: Jim Cooper (TN-05) and Jim Matheson (UT-04).

46 Democrats Join GOP in Latest Anti-Environment Crusade

Yesterday, the House GOP advanced its war on environmental protection with H.R. 6, the comically named "Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act."

The bill would require the Department of Energy to issue final decisions on almost all of the 26 pending applications for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in the next 90 days. Rushing these decisions takes away the necessary time to conduct thorough environmental reviews.

The "global freedom" part of the title refers to the claim from the bill's proponents that the legislation is necessary in order to provide natural gas to Ukraine. However, gas would not even be coming out of the terminals for three to four years and would be more likely to go to Asia, where prices are higher.

The bill passed 266 to 150. 220 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted for it. 148 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against it.

Those 2 Republicans were Chris Gibson (NY-19) and Walter Jones (NC-03).

Here are the 46 Democrats:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Susan DelBene (WA-01)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Ben Luján (NM-03)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Krysten Sinema (AZ-09)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)

Former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' New Job? Destroying Teachers Unions.

Many of Obama's former aides are quite skilled at buckraking, as Noam Scheiber reported in an excellent article in the New Republic last year. And Obama alums Anita Dunn and Jim Messina have shown themselves to be principle-less political hacks, working for the Tories across the pond.

Obama alums Robert Gibbs (press secretary), Ben LaBolt (campaign spokesperson), and and Jon Jones (digital strategist) are now taking up a new cause in their buckraking quest: destroying teachers unions.

The Incite Agency, founded by former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and former Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt, will lead a national public relations drive to support a series of lawsuits aimed at challenging tenure, seniority and other job protections that teachers unions have defended ferociously. LaBolt and another former Obama aide, Jon Jones — the first digital strategist of the 2008 campaign — will take the lead in the public relations initiative.

…

The national legal campaign is being organized by Campbell Brown, a former CNN anchor who told POLITICO that she has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent months to get the effort off the ground. She intends to start with a lawsuit in New York, to be filed within the next few weeks, and follow up with similar cases around the country. Her plans for the New York lawsuit were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Brown’s campaign will be modeled on the recent Vergara v. California decision, which dealt a major blow to teachers unions. In that case, a state judge earlier this month struck down California’s tenure system and other job protections embedded in state law, ruling that they deprived students of their constitutional right to a quality education because they shielded even the most incompetent teachers from dismissal. Teachers unions have said they will appeal.

Unsurprisingly, Students Matter, the group behind the Vergara decision, doesn't seem to care one bit about the imbalances in funding between poor and rich school district or the vast inequality in material conditions for students. And never mind that job protections help create a more stable workforce, which has clear benefits for students. I expect nothing different from Campbell Brown's group. 

And I almost burst out laughing after reading this paragraph:

Brown said she sees a parallel to the fight for gay marriage, noting that the legal fight around California’s Proposition 8 sparked a public conversation that she credits with changing attitudes and increasing acceptance of same-sex unions. “It entirely changed the dialogue,” she said.

We already know that Obama's Secretary of Education Arne Duncan hates job protections for teachers unions, so that Obama alums would as well is--alas--hardly surprising.

Which 17 Democrats Voted to Weaken Regulations on Oil and Gas Pipelines?

Today, the House passed the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 3301), a bill designed to open up the export market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and reduce environmental review for oil and natural gas pipelines, making it easier for pipelines like Keystone XL to get approved.

H.R. 3301 weakens the process for federal approval of oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines that cross the border with Canada or Mexico by narrowing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applicability to only the piece of the pipeline actually crossing the border. The bill also allows any project found not to be in the public interest under the current permitting process to reapply under the new weaker process. It would exempt all modifications to existing cross-border pipelines, even major expansions, from federal review. The bill also allows for unlimited exports of liquefied natural gas to anywhere in the world as long as the LNG passes through Canada or Mexico.

It passed 238 to 173.

221 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted for it. 172 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it. The sole Republican was Walter Jones (NC-03).

Here are the 17 Democrats:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
William Enyart (IL-12)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Sean Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
William Owens (NY-21)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

Last year, 19 Democrats voted for a bill designed to expedite the Keystone XL approval process.
Five Democrats who voted for the bill last year voted against the one today:

Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Sean Maloney (NY-12)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

And three Democrats who voted against the bill last year voted for the one today:

Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)

46 House Democrats Join GOP in Trying to Prevent the CFTC from Doing Its Job

Today, the House passed the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act by 265 to 144. 219 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted for it. 143 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against it.

The bill authorizes spending on the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) through fiscal year 2018. However--unsurprisingly--it seeks to prevent the CFTC from doing its job. It requires the CFTC to conduct burdensome cost-benefit analyses of proposed regulations, which will cause further delays in rule-making and open up more opportunity for industry lobbying. It also restricts the CFTC’s ability to oversee the derivatives market.  It also continues the chronic problem of underfunding that has plagued the CFTC for years.

Here is the statement Americans for Financial Reform released on the bill:

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has a huge role to play in protecting consumers and the economy against fraud, price manipulation, and reckless speculation. Originally created to oversee the commodity futures markets, the CFTC now also bears most of the responsibility for regulating over-the-counter derivatives or “swaps,” the complex financial instruments that helped bring on the financial and economic meltdown of 2008.

Unfortunately, HR 4413 would seriously interfere with the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission and defend our economic security. It would do this by saddling the Commission with onerous new “cost benefit” analysis and procedural requirements, creating fresh grounds for delay and legal challenge, and tilting the playing field still further in the direction of narrow industry special interests. (These problems remain, despite the approval of a cosmetic amendment that attempts to alter the standard of judicial review for CFTC cost-benefit analysis.)

HR 4413 would also dangerously undermine the new transparency and safety rules put in place for the derivatives markets by sharply restricting the CFTC’s ability to oversee derivatives transactions conducted through foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks, even when such transactions have the clear potential to do grievous damage to the U.S. economy. We need look no further than the recent examples of the credit default swaps sold by AIG’s London-based financial products division, or JP Morgan’s ”London Whale” trades, to see how foreign derivatives activities can threaten the U.S. economy.

The legislation also fails to address a key existing threat to the CFTC’s work: totally inadequate funding. Alone among financial regulators, the CFTC is wholly dependent on the appropriations process, and therefore uniquely vulnerable to political pressure. In the wake of the financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which vastly expanded the CFTC’s mission. Since that time, however, many lawmakers have paid far too much attention to the pleas of influential companies seeking to avoid the rules, and the agency has been chronically under-funded. What it now needs, more than anything, is a budget commensurate with its responsibilities. To get there, the CFTC needs what other financial regulatory agencies already have: some form of self-funding, such as a tiny fee on the markets it regulates.

While it is bad news that this legislation passed the House, it is important to note that a solid majority of House Democrats voted against it, while the Obama administration issued a strong statement of opposition. The misguided provisions of HR 4413 are unlikely to be taken up by the Senate.

The House CFTC reauthorization bill does contain a number of ideas that deserve debate on their own merits, including customer protection proposals aimed at preventing the kind of end-user losses seen in the MF Global case. But it is counter-productive to put such provisions into legislation that ignores the key issue of adequate funding and seems designed, at heart, more to undermine than to assist the CFTC in performing its critical functions.

Here are the 46 Democrats who voted for it: 

 

John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Susan DelBene (WA-01)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Gloria Negrette McLeod (CA-35)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
David Scott (GA-13)
Krysten Sinema (AZ-09)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

The lone Republican opponent was Walter Jones (NC-03).

Last Night, Only 12 Democrats Stood Up for Separation of Church and State

Yesterday, the House passed the World War II Memorial Prayer Act by a large margin of 370 to 12.
This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to add an inscription of FDR's D-Day prayer to the WWII Memorial.

Last year, the ACLU--along with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Hindu American Foundation, and the Interfaith Alliance--wrote to Senator Rob Portman (the bill's sponsor in the Senate) and Senator Mark Udall of Subcommittee on National Parks in the Committee on Energy & Natural Resources to express their concerns regarding the First Amendment implications of the bill:

We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our concerns about S. 1044, the “World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013.” This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to add an inscription of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the WWII Memorial.

Religious freedom is a fundamental and defining feature of our national character. Given our robust, longstanding commitment to the freedom of religion and belief, it is no surprise that the United States is among the most religious, and religiously diverse, in the world. Our religious diversity is one of our nation’s greatest strengths.

This bill, however, shows a lack of respect for that great diversity. It endorses the false notion that all veterans will be honored by a war memorial that includes a prayer proponents characterize as reflecting our country’s “Judeo-Christian heritage and values.” In fact, Department of Defense reports show that nearly one-third of all current members of the U.S. Armed Forces identify as non-Christian. Likewise, many of our veterans and citizens come from a variety of religious backgrounds, or have no religious belief; thus, it is inappropriate to honor the “power of prayer” in a national memorial.
Memorials are designed to bring our country together in a unified reflection of our past. Indeed, the WWII Memorial’s stated purpose is national unity. Instead of uniting us as we remember the sacrifices of those who served, the inclusion of this prayer on the memorial would be divisive: IT would send a strong message to those who do not share the same religious beliefs expressed in this prayer that they are excluded and “not full members of the…community.”

The memorial, as it currently stands, appropriately honors those who served and encompasses the entirety of that war. The World war II Memorial Commission and the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) carefully chose the thirteen inscriptions already included on the memorial. The inscriptions contain inspiring quotes spanning from the beginning of U.S. involvement in the war following the attacks on Pearl Harbor to the war’s end, and already include a quote about D-Day and two quotes from President Roosevelt. These commissions thoroughly deliberated which inscriptions to include, selecting quotations that onor those who served and commemorate the events of World War II. As the National Park Service explained at a hearing on this legislation in the 112th Congress, “This design we see today was painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberation and spirited public debate.” The ABMC and National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which was designated by Congress to consult on the design of the Memorial, have stated that “no additional elements should be inserted into this carefully designed Memorial.”

The First Amendment affords special protections to freedom of religion. Because of these protections, each of us is free to believe, or not believe, according to the dictates of our conscience. The effect of this bill, however, is to co-opt religion for political purposes, which harms the beliefs of everyone.

Thank you for allowing us to share our concerns with S. 1044.

Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Jewish Committee (AJC)
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Hindu American Foundation
Interfaith Alliance

Unfortunately, as I noted earlier, only 12 members of Congress--all Democrats--voted against the bill.

 

They were the following: 

 

Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Niki Tsongas (MA-03)

22 Democrats were not in attendance for the vote. I would think that Barbara Lee (CA-13) would have voted no had she been present.

Only 67 Democrats Voted Against the Bloated Pentagon Budget

Yesterday, the House passed the FY 2015 appropriations bill for the Department of Defense 340 to 73.

219 Republicans and 121 Democrats voted for it. 67 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted against it.
Here are the 67 Democrats that should be commended for their vote.

Karen Bass (CA-37)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
André Carson (IN-07)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
Hank Johnson  (GA-04)
William Keating (MA-09)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
George Miller (CA-11)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

However, just a few months ago, 85 Democrats voted NO on the NDAA.

What accounts for the difference?

Five Democrats who voted against the NDAA weren’t in attendance today.

Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)

Karen Bass (CA-37), a NO vote today, was not in attendance for the NDAA vote.

That gives us a net of -4. What about the rest?

7 Democrats who supported the NDAA opposed the Pentagon appropriations bill.

André Carson (IN-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
That puts us at +3.

Then, there were 21 Democrats who opposed the NDAA but voted for the Pentagon appropriations bill.

Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Gloria Negrette McLeod (CA-35)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
David Price (NC-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)

The 6 GOP opponents were Justin Amash (MI-03), Jimmy Duncan (TN-02), Walter Jones (NC-03), Raul Labrador (ID-01), Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48), and Steve Stockman (TX-36).

Only 64 Democrats Voted to Oppose Arming the Rebels in Syria

Continuing my series of roll call diaries....

Republican Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01) offered an amendment to the Pentagon appropriations bill to prohibit the use of funds to provide weapons in Syria.

 It failed 167 to 244.

64 Democrats and 103 Republicans voted for it. 121 Republicans and 123 Democrats voted against it.
Who were the 64 Democrats who took a stand against military meddling?

John Barrow (GA-12)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Brian Higgins (NY-26)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
Hank Johnson  (GA-04)
William Keating (MA-09)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)

Only 62 Members of Congress Voted Against Police Militarization Last Night

During the amendment voting for "defense" appropriations last night, Alan Grayson (FL-09) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.

There was a great article in the New York Times last week on the militarization of local police. The DOD Excess Personal Property Program is at best just a colossal waste of money. At its worst, it can ruin--or end--innocent lives.

The amendment failed 62 to 355. 19 Republicans and 43 Democrats voted for it. 210 Republicans and 145 Democrats voted against it.

Here are the 19 Republicans:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Jim Bridenstine (OK-01)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
Scott Perry (PA-04)
Tom Petri (WI-06)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
John Shimkus (IL-15)
Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Steve Stockman (TX-36)

Here are the 43 Democrats:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Kathy Castor (FL)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Hank Johnson (GA)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (CA-02)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
George Miller (CA-11)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA-35)
Beto O'Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Ed Perlmutter(CO-07)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
John Sarbanes (MD-02)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Louise Slaughter (NY-25)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)

Which 44 Democrats Want Another Iraq War?

Yesterday, during the “defense” appropriations amendment voting, progressive champion Barbara Lee (CA-13) offered three anti-war amendments.

First, she offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for conducting combat operations in Iraq.

The amendment failed 165 to 250.

142 Democrats and 23 Republicans voted for it. 206 Republicans and 44 Democrats voted against it.
Who were those 44 Democrats?

John Barrow (GA-12)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
John Carney (DE)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Matt Cartwright (PA-13)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
David Price (NC-04)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Next, she offered an amendment to to prohibit use of funds to be obligated or expended pursuant to the (2001) Authorization for Use of Military of Force after December 31, 2014.

It failed 157 to 260.

137 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted for it. 208 Republicans and 52 Democrats voted against it.
Who were those 52 Democrats?

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Eddie B. Johnson (TX-30)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)

Then, she offered an amendment to prohibit use of funds to be obligated or expended pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

It failed 182 to 231.

151 Democrats and 31 Republicans voted for it. 35 Democrats and 196 Republicans voted against it.
Who were the 35 Democrats?

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Matt Cartwright (PA-13)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18_)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)

Which 17 Democrats Want to Indefinitely Detain 58 Innocent People?

This week, the House is completing its 2015 "defense" appropriations. I would like to highlight two amendments that received votes today.

First, Republican Jackie Walorski (IN-02) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to transfer or release any Gitmo detainee to Yemen who is or was held, detained, or otherwise in the custody of DOD on or after June 24, 2009.

Of the 149 prisoners still being held at Guantanamo, over half (78, to be exact) have been cleared for release. Of those 78, 58 are from Yemen.

In other words, the amendment seeks to hold 58 people in prison indefinitely without cause in conditions deemed torture by the UN.

It passed 238 to 179.

221 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted for it. 175 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted against it.
Here are the 17 Democrats:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-03)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
David Scott (GA-13)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

And here are the 4 Republicans:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)
Glen Thompson (PA-05)

The amendment—unfortunately—did even better this year than it did last year.

Last year, only 11 Democrats supported it. It lost the support of Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) and Kurt Schrader (OR-05) but picked up the support of Corinne Brown, Henry Cuellar, Joe Garcia, Gene Green, Mike McIntyre, Patrick Murphy, Collin Peterson, and David Scott.

Last year, 5 Republicans broke party lines to oppose it. Amash and Massie were a part of both contingents. Joe Heck (NV-03), Walter Jones (NC-03), and Doug Lamborn (CO-05) voted against it last year but for it this year. Mark Sanford (SC-01) and Glen Thompson (PA-05) did the reverse.

The other amendment I wanted to highlight was an environmental one.

Democrat Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) offered an amendment to reallocate $3.4 million from research, development, and evaluation at the Air Force to the environmental restoration of formerly used defense sites.

The amendment failed 179 to 242. 175 Democrats and 4 Republicans supported it. 224 Republicans and 18 Democrats opposed it.

Here are the 18 Democrats:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Michelle Lujan Grisham
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Mike McIntyre (NC-03)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
David Scott (GA-13)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)

The four Republicans were Jimmy Duncan (TN-02), Chris Gibson (NY-19), Walter Jones (NC-03), and Tom Petri (WI-06).

I will highlight other noteworthy votes as they come up.

Even if the Democrats Keep the Senate, the Republicans Could Still Control the Energy Committee

After Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) was confirmed as US Ambassador to China, the Senate had a game of musical (committee) chairs. Ron Wyden (D-OR) took over the Finance Committee from Baucus, and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) took over the Energy Committee from Wyden.

Let's see what our new Energy chair has been doing lately.

Climate Progress, 6/9/2014

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is scheduled to hold an event at her state’s biggest coal-fired power plant on Monday, in a move designed to highlight her opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed limits on carbon pollution from coal plants.

Problem is, the coal plant she’s highlighting — the Big Cajun 2 power plant in New Roads, La. — is one of the nation’s dirtiest, most known for being the subject a high-profile U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit over its toxic emissions. What’s more, the CEO of the company that owns the plant recently said he believes that EPA should be regulating carbon pollution from coal plants, perplexing some as to why she chose to put a spotlight on that plant.

“It’s really weird that she would choose one of the largest polluters in the nation to highlight her opposition to these protections,” said, Jenna Garland, deputy press secretary at the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “Based on the CEO’s public statements, I’m not too sure he’s going to be happy about this.”

Huffington Post, 6/18/2014

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved a bill on Wednesday that would force approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. But the bill isn't expected to go up for a vote in the full Senate any time soon.

The bill, cosponsored by committee Chairwoman Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), passed on a 12-10, mostly party-line vote. Landrieu and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) were the only two Democrats voting for it, the Wall Street Journal reports.

...

The bill's Democratic supporters also pledged to keep Keystone in the spotlight. "Today was the latest skirmish, and, unlike some, I'm not giving up until it is built," said Landrieu in a statement. "I’ve been in a lot of tough fights over the years, and the ones that matter the most are the toughest. I won’t give up on Keystone until we get it built, and I will press for a vote on the Senate floor."

The bill in question (S. 2280) is supported by the full Republican caucus but only 11 Democrats, including Landrieu. 

The other Democrats are Mark Pryor (AR), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT), Mark Warner (VA), Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Begich (AK), Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), and John Walsh (MT).

A bill with the support of only 20% of the Democratic caucus can sail through the "Democratic"-controlled Energy Committee because the two most environmentally unfriendly Democrats sit on the Committee---and one of them is chair.

The Democrats and Republicans who Rail Against the Deficit Always Seem to Love Corporate Tax Breaks

Today, the House voted to extend a number of expired tax breaks. Republicans and most Democrats love to rail against "The deficit." However, "The Deficit" is only a problem when it comes to social spending. Corporate tax breaks that increase the deficit are just fine.

The Democratic leadership has opposed such piecemeal bills from the House GOP. The GOP basically plans to extend all of the tax breaks it likes and then allow the ones it dislikes, such as those that benefit middle- and low-income people, to expire. Normally, they are all passed together. The White House has also threatened to veto the piecemeal bills.

The House first voted to remove a sunset provision in Section 179 of the tax code in order to allow small businesses to continue to write off up to $500,000 worth of investments a year. It would cost roughly $73 billion over the next decade.

It passed 272 to 144. 219 Republicans and 53 Democrats voted for it. 142 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against it.

The two Republicans were John Campbell (CA-45) and Walter Jones (NC-03).

Here are the 53 Democrats:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Gloria Negrette McLeod (CA-35)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

The House then passed a second bill, a package of tax incentives designed to help S corporations, which do not pay federal income taxes and instead pass income along to their shareholders. The shareholders then report it on their personal tax returns. The package included an incentive related to charitable contributions made by S corporations (which would cost $2 billion over the next decade) and a tax cut for small businesses formerly organized as corporations.

It passed 263 to 155. 221 Republicans and 42 Democrats voted for it. 153 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against it.

The two Republican opponents were the same as before.

14 Democrats who supported the previous bill opposed this one:

Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Dina Titus (NV-01)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

Two Democrats who opposed the previous bill supported this one: Joyce Beatty (OH-03) and Tony Cardenas (CA-29).

New Pew Study: Increasing Partisan Polarization on Immigration, Environmental Protection

Today, Pew came out with a fascinating, in-depth study of political polarization in the US.
The basic ideological ratings in the study come from a set of 10 questions.



I want to highlight a few of the interesting graphs here.

Let’s start by looking at the partisan divides on two statements “Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good” and “Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient.”
In both cases, Democrats have trended downwards (overall) over the past twenty years. However, the Republican response depends entirely on which party is in power. You can see the trough in 2004 when Bush was in office. Government isn’t so “wasteful and inefficient” and government regulation isn’t so “harmful” when a Republican is in office, you see.

The partisan divide on the statement “Immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care” is also illuminating.

From 1994 to 2004, there was no real divide between the parties. However, in the past ten years, a 4 point gap turned into a 19 point one, with most of the change coming from Democrats becoming more favorable to immigrants.

The evolution of the Republican response to the statement “Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy” is striking. The gap between the parties went from 10% in 1994 to 13% in 2004, not a large change. However, in the past decade, Republican opposition to environmental protection rose steeply, with 59% now agreeing with this statement (a 34 point gap with Democrats).

Although Democrats and Republicans increasingly disagree on a  number of issues, they agree that Social Security should not be cut.


Across the ideological divide, people would prefer to protect or expand Social Security, rather than cut or eliminate it.

If you have time, you should pore through the full survey; there are many other interesting tidbits in it.

This Response Tells Me Everything I Need to Know About Andrew Cuomo

As you are probably already aware, New York's Working Families Party decided to endorse "Democratic" governor Andrew Cuomo at their convention after a furious day of whipping from Bill DeBlasio, Eric Schneiderman, the unions in the party, and the party leadership.

Here is the "deal" that the WFP party leadership worked out with Cuomo:

Cuomo called for hiking the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, passing the DREAM Act, enactment of a statewide system to publicly fund campaigns and a Democratic takeover of the state Senate — all key issues in the deal between Cuomo and party leaders.

So, let's look at that deal. 

 

(1) Minimum wage hike only to the level that national Democrats are pushing for----in a blue state with one of the most expensive metro areas in the country. Sorry, but $10.10 still doesn't get you far in New York City.

(2) This bill failed two months ago because Cuomo did noting to push for it
(3) I'll turn you to Alex Pareene for Cuomo's relationship with public financing. You can also look at where his campaign money is coming from to see how likely it is that he'll push this.

(4) A Democratic governor will campaign for Democrats to take the legislature. That's setting the bar below ground level. And he's already backtracking.  By the way, remember when "Democrat" Andrew Cuomo endorsed Republican state senators?

But let's get to the heart of this piece: the answer mentioned in the title. Back in 2011, Cuomo compared his opposition to the millionaire's tax to his father's opposition to the death penalty--as an example of a principled stance against the popular opinion.

Yes, he did that.

Even as Occupy Wall Street stokes debate over income inequality, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo dug in his heels on Monday against extending a so-called millionaires’ tax on high-earning New Yorkers, saying the income tax surcharge would place New York at a competitive disadvantage with neighboring states.

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who campaigned for governor last year on the promise that he would not raise taxes, compared his resistance to renewing the temporary tax surcharge with the stand his father, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, took against the death penalty two decades ago.

The similarity, Mr. Cuomo said, was that both positions were highly unpopular with voters.

“The fact that everybody wants it, that doesn’t mean all that much,” he said in a news conference. “I represent the people. Their opinion matters, but I’m not going to go back and forth with the political winds.”

Mr. Cuomo insisted that under no circumstances would he consider backing the extension of the surcharge, saying it would encourage residents and businesses to move to other states. He said he would support a federal millionaires’ tax, because it would treat residents of all states equally.

Kind of funny (sad) that the Working Families Party is in coalition with Ken Langone, head of Republicans for Cuomo. You know, the guy who thinks that progressives are Nazis for supporting higher taxes on the mega-rich.