Obama Tells House Dems to "Get Informed" on the TPP, But He's the One Restricting Access to the Text

During the House Democrats' retreat in Philadelphia yesterday, Obama berated House Democrats for criticizing him on trade policy:

PHILADELPHIA – President Obama on Thursday asked wary House Democrats to hold their fire while the administration negotiates several trade deals opposed by scores of liberal lawmakers.

“Keep your powder a little dry,” he told the Democrats assembled here for an annual retreat, according to a source in the closed-door session.

"Get informed," Obama also advised, "not by reading The Huffington Post."

First of all, it's rather funny for Huffington Post blogger Barack Obama to criticize people for getting their news from the Huffington Post.

However, more importantly, the Huffington Post has done a far better job of reporting on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), including publishing leaked text, than Obama has of sharing information with Congress.

David Sirota wrote about this secrecy last week in the International Business Times

Yet the actual text of the agreement remains under lock and key. That represents a significant break from the Bush administration, which in 2001 published the text of a proposed multinational trade agreement with Latin American nations.

“It is incomprehensible to me that leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP, while at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge of what’s in it,” wrote U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in a letter to Froman earlier this month.

Sanders’ office confirmed to International Business Times that congressional lawmakers are permitted to view the text of the agreement only in the Trade Representative’s office, without their own staff members or experts present. They are not allowed to take copies of the agreement back to Capitol Hill for deeper, independent evaluation.

Obama's critics did not warm to his message on trade:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said Thursday that the current draft of the Asian pact – known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership – is a non-starter with liberals.

"As it is right now … it would be unacceptable," Schakowsky told reporters a few hours before Obama's arrival.

"None of us … oppose a trade agreement," she added. "What we want is a good and fair trade agreement. And so if the president is willing to share, and come back to the table, and we can make some changes, I think we would support that."

For a good take-down of the faulty arguments for the TPP put forth by both the president and the Chamber of Commerce, check out Campaign for America's Future's Dave Johnson's piece on the Huffington Post yesterday.

The 47-Part Keystone XL Vote-a-thon is Now Done. How Often Did Your Senator Break Party Line?

Over the past two and a half weeks, the Senate cast a total of 47 votes related to the Keystone XL bill. They consisted of 4 cloture motions, 42 amendments (whether voted on or tabled), and 1 vote on final passage.

I've chronicled most of these votes (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). You can read about the final vote on passage in Meteor Blades's diary. It was identical to the cloture vote to end debate.

I would like to highlight the last three amendment votes and then do a review of the 47-part vote-a-thon, looking at how often each Democrat broke party line to take the anti-environment position. If people are interested in the corresponding information for Republicans, let me know. The only Republicans to cross party lines to vote with Democrats ten or more times were Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Mark Kirk (R-IL).
                                                         *
The Final Amendment Votes

Cory Booker (D-NJ) offered an amendment to allow permitting agencies to consider new circumstances and new information.

It failed 41 to 56.

Four Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it:

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Mark Warner (D-VA)

Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to delay the effective date until the President determines whether increased carbon pollution from tar sands oil production associated with the Keystone XL pipeline would contribute to an increase in more extreme weather events.

It failed 36 to 62.

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Warner (D-VA)

Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to close the tax loophole that would allow Canadian companies to transport the tar sands oil through the pipeline without paying into a trust fund used to help pay for oil spill clean-ups.

It failed 44 to 54.

One Democrat—Claire McCaskill (D-MO)—voted against it.
                                                         *
Keystone in Review

Over the course of the two and a half week vote-a-thon, 17 members of the Democratic caucus broke party line to vote with the Republicans at least once.

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND): 22
Joe Manchin (D-WV): 22
Joe Donnelly (D-IN): 17
Claire McCaskill (D-MO): 14
Michael Bennet (D-CO): 11
Mark Warner (D-VA): 10
Jon Tester (D-MT): 8
Tom Carper (D-DE): 7
Bob Casey (D-PA): 5
Tim Kaine (D-VA): 4
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): 4
Bill Nelson (D-FL): 2
Tom Udall (D-NM): 2
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): 1
Martin Heinrich (D-NM): 1
Angus King (I-ME): 1
Ron Wyden (D-WA): 1

28 members of the Democratic caucus stayed true to the party line throughout:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Harry Reid (D-NV) has been out due to an injury.

I have a senator-by-senator breakdown here.

10 Senate Ds Think Drillers Should Be Able to Inject Whatever the Frack They Want into Your Water

Last night, I reported on the 12 amendments that the Senate voted on in its latest Keystone vote-a-thon.  However, I want to focus on one in particular: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)'s amendment to close the Halliburton loophole.

So what is the Halliburton loophole?

First of all, it comes from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was a corporate giveaway to Big Energy:

The bill exempts oil and gas industries from some clean-water laws, streamlines permits for oil wells and power lines on public lands, and helps the hydropower industry appeal environmental restrictions. One obscure provision would repeal a Depression-era law that has prevented consolidation of public utilities, potentially transforming the nation's electricity markets.

It also includes an estimated $85 billion worth of subsidies and tax breaks for most forms of energy -- including oil and gas, "clean coal," ethanol, electricity, and solar and wind power. The nuclear industry got subsidies for research, waste reprocessing, construction, operation and even decommission. The petroleum industry got new incentives to drill in the Gulf of Mexico -- as if $60-a-barrel oil wasn't enough of an incentive. The already-subsidized ethanol industry got a federal mandate that will nearly double its output by 2012 -- as well as new subsidies to develop ethanol from other sources.

The Halliburton Loophole, alluded to in the passage above, is the term for the provision that exempted gas drilling and extraction from requirements in the underground injection control (UIC) program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Injecting carcinogens into the ground during fracking? Don't ask. Don't tell. 

 

It got the name "Halliburton Loophole" because it is widely viewed as the effort of former Halliburton CEO who happened to occupy the vice presidency.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the roll call votes for the Senate and House back then to see how the Senators still with us today voted.

Four Democrats still in the Senate and one who moved up from the House voted for the Energy Policy Act:

Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)

9 Democrats still in the Senate and 5 Democrats (plus 1 Independent) who moved up from the House voted against the Energy Policy Act:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

President Barack Obama voted for it as a senator from Illinois, whereas Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had all voted against it as the senators from Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York, respectively.

Now back to the present.

Here's how Kirsten Gillibrand described her amendment, the one of three she offered to receive a vote:

Amendment 48, to remove the Halliburton loophole from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and finally require gas storage and gas drilling companies to comply with the clean water laws of the United States. Every other energy industry already has to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and this amendment would finally hold the gas industry to the same environmental and public health standards as everyone else.

It finally got a vote last night, and as expected, it failed: 35 to 63. 

 

Ten Democrats joined with Republicans in voting against it:
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Mark Warner (D-VA)

The Senate Voted on 12 More Keystone Amendments. Did Any of Them Pass?

Today, the Senate voted on 12 more amendments to the S. 1, the Keystone XL bill. This vote-a-thon followed their 15 vote marathon from last Thursday. The Senate will vote on 13 more amendments tomorrow.

How many of the 12 passed? One. It was an amendment from Susan Collins (R-ME) and Mark Warner (D-VA) to help school officials learn more easily about federal programs and incentives that are available to improve energy efficiency. It passed by voice vote.

I have chronicled the 11 roll call votes below.

Twelve Democrats broke party line on at least one vote: Manchin (7), Heitkamp (6), Bennet (3), Donnelly (3), McCaskill (3), Tester (3), Warner (3), Carper (2), Henrich (1), Kaine (1), Klobuchar (1), and Udall (1).

Six Republicans broke party line on at least one vote: Collins (4), Ayotte (3), Alexander (2), Gardner (2), Grassley (2), and Kirk (2).

Read the run-down here.

What the Frack? 41 House Dems Join GOP to Vote to Expedite Natural Gas Exports

The House GOP decided to continue to show its love for the fossil fuel industry today by passing legislation to expedite the federal approval process for liquefied natural gas exports.

The bill, named the "LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act," would set an arbitrary 30-day deadline on the Department of Energy for approving LNG export terminals.

Exporting natural gas would increase fracking by opening up new markets. More sensitive lands would be put at risk, more people would see their water sources poisoned, and more communities would experience earthquakes. There is no climate benefit to LNG, and it can, in some cases, be dirtier than coal in terms of lifecycle emissions.

The vote was 277 to 133. One Republican--Chris Gibson (NY-19)--voted no, and 41 Democrats voted yes.

Here are those 41 Democrats:

Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Tony Cardenas (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)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
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)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Ben Lujan (NM-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Norma Torres (CA-35)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
------------------------------------------------
Here they are in organized by state:

Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Norma Torres (CA-35)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Ben Lujan (NM-02)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Al Green (TX-09)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Denny Heck (WA-10)

"New," "Progressive" Obama Opens up Atlantic Coast to Offshore Drilling

Monday, the Obama administration announced its plans to put millions more acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These lands would be designated "Wilderness," the highest level of protection for public lands which includes a ban on mining, drilling, roads, vehicles and permanent structures.

However, no sooner that he curtailed drilling in one place, he threw the doors wide open elsewhere:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Tuesday will announce a proposal to open up coastal waters from Virginia to Georgia for oil and gas drilling, according to a person briefed on the plan. …
Opening the Eastern Seaboard to oil companies is a prize the industry has sought for decades and is a blow to environmental groups. They argue that the move would put the coasts of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia at risk for an environmental disaster like the BP spill that struck the Gulf Coast in 2010, when millions of barrels of oil washed ashore after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.

…

It will not be the first time that the Obama White House has proposed offshore drilling in the Atlantic. In early 2010, before the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, the administration proposed a five-year plan that would have allowed the federal government to sell drilling leases in the federal waters off Virginia. The administration abandoned that idea after the Gulf Coast spill in April.

Environmentalists, needless to say, are not pleased:

“Opening Atlantic waters to offshore drilling would take us in exactly the wrong direction,” said Bob Deans, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It would ignore the lessons of the disastrous BP blowout, the need to protect future generations from the dangers of climate change and the promise of a clean-energy future.”

“The BP blowout oiled a thousand miles of coastline, about the distance from Savannah to Boston,” Mr. Deans said. “Opening up part of the Atlantic to drilling could expose the entire Eastern Seaboard to the risks of a catastrophic blowout.”

Obama's strategy, as Coral Davenport (the NYT environment writer) notes, has always been to give the fossil fuel industry and environmentalists each a "win."  However, when the fossil fuel industry keeps winning, we and the planet lose. 

If Obama is to take the challenge of mitigating climate change seriously at all, he needs to move past a "drill, baby, drill" mindset that locks in fossil fuel extraction for years into the future.

Republicans, Climate Change, and the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Over the past few days, I've seen a number of articles that play up the significance of the fact that 15 GOP Senators voted to acknowledge that "human activity contributes to climate change." They do not deserve a gold star for acknowledging reality, but people like grading Republicans on a (very steep) curve. Some articles have even tried to portray this as a "rift in the party".

Let's instead review what these senators did--and did not--vote for.

The amendment in question, offered by John Hoeven (R-ND), originally had little to do with climate change. In fact, it began as an amendment saying that building the Keystone XL pipeline would have a negligible impact on the environment:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement with the following findings of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of State for the Keystone XL Project (referred to in this section as the ``FSEIS''):

    (1) ``The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that significant impacts to most resources are not expected along the proposed Project route'' (FSEIS page 4.16-1, section 4.16).

    (2) ``The total annual GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed Project'' (FSEIS page ES-34, section ES.5.4.2).

    (3) ``. . . approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios'' (FSEIS page ES-16, section ES.4.1.1).

    SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ENERGY COSTS AND SUPPLIES.
    It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
    (1) reject efforts to impose economy-wide taxes, fees, mandates, or regulations that will--
    (A) increase the cost of energy for families and businesses of the United States; or
    (B) destroy jobs; and
    (2) prioritize policies that encourage and enable innovation in the United States that might lead to energy supplies that are more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure.

However, it was changed just a few hours before receiving a vote. Here's what happened according to POLITICO:

The GOP’s trick play on the climate amendment had the party first propose language that stayed on message, praising “abundant, affordable, clean, diverse and secure” energy, its mantra that includes fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. But an edit that emerged in the hours ahead of the vote that borrowed the Democratic language on human-caused climate change, but omitting the word “significant” to describe the impact.

Hoeven later told reporters that the change to include the climate language was made “because our members felt they needed something they could vote for,” though he was ultimately forced to vote against it to prevent it from reaching the 60-vote threshold.

Basically, some Republicans, knowing that Democrats were going to make them vote on anthropogenic climate change, wanted weaker language that would still give them a way to deflect charges of being "anti-science." 

The Hoeven modified amendment read as follows:

(a) Findings.--The environmental analysis contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referred to in section 2(a) and deemed to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) as described in section 2(a), states that--     (1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';
    (2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.'';
    (3) ``A warmer planet causes large-scale changes that reverberate throughout the climate system of the Earth, including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and altered weather patterns (e.g. an increase in more extreme weather events).
    (4) ``The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that significant impacts to most resources are not expected along the proposed Project route'' (FSEIS page 4.16-1, section 4.16.;
    (5) ``The total annual GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed Project'' (FSEIS page ES-34, section ES.5.4.2).; and
    (6) ``..... approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios'' (FSEIS page ES-16, section ES.4.1.1).''.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--Consistent with the findings under subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
    (1) climate change is real; and
    (2) human activity contributes to climate change.

The vote on the amendment was 59 to 40. It died, being one short of the 60-vote threshold. 

 

39 Republicans and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted against the amendment. Sanders's logic was the complete opposite of that of the Republicans: he opposed it, I would presume, because of the statements in (4) through (6), the only parts with which most of these Republicans would have agreed.

But 15 Republicans voted for it (along with the Democrats and Angus King of Maine):

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Mike Rounds (R-MT)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)

After that vote, the Senate voted on Brian Schatz (D-HI)'s amendment. It described the human contribution to climate change as "significant"."

 SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
    (a) Findings.--The environmental analysis contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referred to in section 2(a) and deemed to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) as described in section 2(a), states that--     (1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';
    (2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.''; and
    (3) ``A warmer planet causes large-scale changes that reverberate throughout the climate system of the Earth, including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and altered weather patterns (e.g. an increase in more extreme weather events).''.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--Consistent with the findings under subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
    (1) climate change is real; and
    (2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change.

By adding the adverb "significantly," the number of Republican supporters dropped from 15 to 5: 

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)

The following day, the amendment offered by Bernie Sanders (I-VT) came up for discussion. His amendment went a step beyond that of Schatz's to talk about solutions and underscore urgency:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement
     with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific
     community that--
       (1) climate change is real;
       (2) climate change is caused by human activities;
       (3) climate change has already caused devastating problems
     in the United States and around the world;
       (4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United
     States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and
       (5) it is imperative that the United States transform its
     energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy
     efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.

The amendment had zero Republican supporters. Every Republican present voted to table the amendment, dispensing with it without any further debate. 

Sanders's amendment was the only one of these three with clear policy implications. And where policy is concerned, the GOP looks pretty united.

The Senate Voted on 15 KXL Amendments Last Night. Here's How the Votes Went.

Last night, the Senate voted on fifteen amendments to the Keystone XL pipeline bill (S.1), bringing the total number of amendments voted on so far to twenty-four.

At around 6 PM last night, when the Senate cast its fifteenth roll call vote on an amendment to the Keystone XL bill, Mitch McConnell highlighted the fact that the Senate had just reached a milestone:

“We’ve actually reached a milestone here that I think is noteworthy for the Senate. We just cast our 15th roll call vote on an amendment on this bill, which is more votes — more roll call votes on amendments than the entire United States Senate [did] in all of 2014,” he said.

Republicans and some Democrats had often criticized Harry Reid for "filling the amendment tree" as Majority Leader. This a tactic that Majority Leaders can do, as they have the ability to submit amendments first, to close off the amendment process.

Despite allowing votes on so many amendments, McConnell did not allow debate on them, angering Democrats. You can watch McConnell rudely turning down Democratic requests to talk about their amendments here. The Democrats ask to talk, McConnell and other Republicans object, and the Republicans then move to table the amendment.

I have included all 15 votes from last night below.

Two reminders:

(1) As you probably already know, amendments need 60 votes to pass, so many amendments will fail with fifty-odd votes.

(2) When the Senate votes to "table" an amendment, they are voting to dismiss it. Only a majority of those present is needed here.

---------------------------------------Go to Daily Kos for the rest----------------------------------------------

Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin Really Want to Pollute Your Air, and So Do Some Other Dems

The Senate is spending today voting on Keystone XL amendments.

Mike Lee (R-UT)'s amendment to weaken the Endangered Species Act was a straight party line vote, but as such, it failed to pass (needing 60, not just the 54 it got, for passage).

But, as always, I find votes more interesting when people cross party lines. So let's look at two of those votes today.

Dick Durbin (D-IL) offered an amendment to ensure that the storage and transportation of petroleum coke is regulated in a manner that ensures the protection of public and ecological health.

Back in 2013, he, along with Senators Levin and Stabenow of Michigan and Senator Brown of Ohio, had introduced a bill that would have required a study of petroleum coke (petcoke), which is a byproduct of petroleum refining used in energy production. The legislation was, in part, a response to the public health and environmental concerns raised about three-story high pile of petcoke on the banks of the Detroit River.

But petcoke is also a problem closer to home for Durbin. Later in 2013, he visited a petcoke storage facility in Southeast Chicago.

Senator Durbin visited a community where residents say something needs to be done to protect them from the dust produced from storing the petroleum by-product.

When weather and wind conditions are right, the storage hills of petcoke below produce dust that visits the neighbors.

''Everytime you wipe your house, you could wipe it. Today, tomorrow, all you have is a bunch of black stuff,'' said resident Melody Castillo.

Durbin led a delegation on a visit along the perimeter of the petcoke yards - talking with a nearby resident whose children have asthma - and saying there needs to be stronger regulation of petcoke storage.

''The companies should be warned right here and now, we're not going to quit. As long as these piles are sitting here - blowing this dust into the community causing health problems, then they're in for a fight," Senator Durbin said.

The Senate voted against the amendment 58 to 41.

One Republican—Mark Kirk (R-IL)—voted for it.

Five Democrats voted against it:

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Jon Tester (D-MT)

Pat Toomey (R-PA) offered an amendment to exempt waste coal power plants from some EPA pollution limits. There are 14 of such plants in Pennsylvania, so Toomey's Democratic colleague Bob Casey was happy to co-sponsor. Waste coal, however, is even dirtier than regular coal.

The amendment failed to achieve the 60 vote threshold for an amendment, dying 54 to 45.

Susan Collins (R-ME) was the only Republican NO vote.

Three Democrats voted for it: Bob Casey (D-PA), Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly (D-IN). 

Senate Kills Two Democratic Amendments to Keystone XL Bill

The Senate moved forward with its consideration of its Keystone XL bill (S.1) today by killing two amendments and passing one of them.

The first amendment that the Senate killed was the amendment offered by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) to prevent the oil transported via the Keystone XL pipeline from being shipped abroad. House Democrats have traditionally introduced a similar amendment during Keystone votes, and it always (unsurprisingly) fails. It was not different today.

The Senate voted to table the amendment 57 to 42.

Three Democrats sided with the Republicans to kill it: Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Mark Warner (D-VA).

The second amendment killed was one by Senator Al Franken (D-MN) to require the use of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United States in the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and facilities.

The Senate voted to table the amendment 53 to 46.

It was a largely party line vote with the exception of Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who voted with the Democrats. Does North Carolina have a particularly notable iron or steel industry?

The Senate did, however, pass one amendment: a watered-down version of the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill from last year.

It passed easily 94 to 5.

The five NO votes were Ted Cruz (R-TX), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Ben Sasse (R-NE).

More amendment votes are likely to occur over this week and possibly next.

Obama Talks about Inequality While Pushing Dems to Back Corporate Wish List TPP

The New York Times reported earlier today that Obama's State of the Union address will highlight proposals to reduce income inequality, such as his tuition-free community college proposal and his redistributive tax proposal. Jared Bernstein, Joe Biden's former economics adviser, said, "At some level, he’s saying, ‘O.K., welcome to the inequality debate...What you got?’"

However, while Obama is proposing initiatives that can help the middle-class but will go nowhere, he's also going to keep pushing a proposal that will hurt the middle-class and will likely pass: fast-track authority for trade deals, specifically the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The TPP and its Atlantic cousin TTIP (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) are certain to appear in tonight's State of the Union address, particularly as trade is one of the areas in which Obama plans to work with Republicans.

Trade deals like the TPP, written by and for large corporations, cost jobs and depress wages. It also threatens climate and environmental protections, labor protections, financial regulations, food safety regulations, among numerous other policies designed in the public interest.

Paul Krugman, who tends to favor big trade deals, has become increasingly skeptical of the TPP. In his blog the other day, he highlighted the unnerving enthusiasm of the Chamber of Commerce for the TPP:

"When the US Chamber of Commerce makes a huge priority out of complicated deals, and offers an obviously false rationale, you should strongly suspect that there’s bad stuff hidden in the fine print."

However, Obama is planning an all-out push to get Democrats to back fast-track authority for the TPP, which would give Obama full negotiating power and prevent Congress from doing anything other than casting a final up-or-down vote.

A frustrated White House is planning to blitz congressional Democrats on trade in the weeks following Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

President Obama is tasking every member of his Cabinet to round up votes from Democrats for fast-track negotiating power, which would give Obama leverage to complete trade negotiations by preventing Congress from amending his agreements.

About 80 House Democrats have been targeted in the effort, and Cabinet members are divvying up those names based on their personal relationships with the members.
The rest of the House Democratic Caucus, which consists of about 100 members, are seen as likely “no” votes.

The Hill notes that 80 YES votes is optimistic. House Democrats opposed the United States Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act 158 to 31, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act 123 to 66, and the United States-Korea Trade Agreement Implementation Act 130 to 59. 

53 sitting House Democrats voted for at least one of these three bills:

Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
John Larson (CT-01)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Gregory Meeks (NY-04)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
David Price (NC-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Adam Schiff (CA-28)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Niki Tsongas (MA-03)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)

Now, these votes were all cast in the 112th Congress. About one-third of the Democratic caucus has been elected since then. Your representatives should hear from you, regardless of whether they are on the list above, but if they are on the list, they should especially hear from you.

What Does the Globe Poll Really Say about Support for Boston 2024?

On Friday, the Boston Globe released the first post-USOC announcement poll about how people in Boston and Massachusetts as a whole feel about the city’s 2024 Olympic bid. This poll has been widely cited as saying that the people in the city and across the state back Boston 2024.

But does the poll really show such support? Not if you dig deeper into the questions.

(1) The first question was “How strongly do you support or oppose the bid?” This is a strange question, given that no one has ever seen the bid and that Boston 2024 has no plans to release it in full.

Nevertheless, this question produced the numbers most often cited: 55.30% support vs. 39.59% oppose.

These numbers were similar whether people lived in Boston or not:

Boston: 53.73% support vs. 40.45% oppose
Rest of State: 55.98% support vs. 39.21% oppose

Statewide, 34.91% were strong supporters and 27.12% were strong opponents. In Boston, those numbers were 34.44% and 29.25%, respectively.

(2) Next, the poll asked, “If Boston were chosen to host the Olympics, would you purchase tickets to attend the games in person?”

45.32% of respondents said that they would definitely or probably attend, whereas 49.07% said that they would definitely or probably not attend.

Boston: 48.54% attend vs. 44.60% not attend
Rest of State: 43.94% attend vs. 50.98% not attend

(3) Next, the poll asked, “In your opinion, how likely is it that the Olympic expenditures, such as infrastructure and site construction, will produce a lasting economic benefit for the City of Boston?”
A plurality of respondents found the Olympics unlikely to produce a lasting economic benefit for Boston: 48.38% somewhat/very unlikely vs. 45.45% somewhat/very likely. “Very unlikely” was the most common answer with 28.37% of respondents, and “very likely” the least common with only 19.76%.

There was a divide between Boston and the rest of the state here, but the public was fairly evenly split in both cases. In both Boston and the rest of the state, “very unlikely” was the most common answer.

Boston: 47.72% likely vs. 44.82% unlikely
Rest of State: 44.48% likely vs. 49.91% unlikely

(4) The next question asked, “How about a lasting economic benefit for Greater Boston?”
Here, again, a plurality found a lasting economic benefit unlikely: 48.25% to 43.77%, with “very unlikely” again the most common answer.

The results here were largely similar to those of the prior question.

Boston: 46.27% likely vs. 43.16% unlikely
Rest of State: 44.69% likely vs. 50.45% unlikely

(5) The next question asked, “How about a lasting economic benefit for the rest of the state?”
Here, a majority found such a benefit to be unlikely: 57.61% vs. 33.10%, with “very unlikely” the most common response at 37.22%.

There was a clear divide between Boston and the rest of the state, but a majority of respondents—whether inside Boston or not—didn’t see a benefit as likely:

Boston: 51.45% vs. 47.55%
Rest of State: 60.25% vs. 32.35%

(6) The next question asked respondents to identify which of two statements was closer to their own view:

(a)   Most costs will be carried by business and there will be long term economic benefits.
(b)   Financial support for the Olympics will come at the expense of other worthwhile causes.

Respondents overwhelmingly said that the latter statement came closer to their view: 54.43% to 23.13%. (22.44% were unsure.)

The results were similar for both Boston and the rest of the state:
Boston: 52.07% to 25.52%
Rest of State: 55.44% to 22.1%

(7) The final question—and the most important one—was “Would you support or oppose Boston’s bid for the Olympics if taxpayer dollars were used to back the 2024 Olympic bid?”

The public was overwhelmingly opposed here: 60.85% opposed vs. 32.92% supportive. “Strongly oppose” was the most common response, with 43.27%. “Strongly support” was now the least common, with only 10.85%.

The whole state agreed on this:

Boston: 61.00% vs. 31.74%
Rest:   60.78% vs. 33.42%

If 61% of people oppose the Olympic bid if taxpayer dollars will be used—and taxpayer dollars will be used, as we already know (See here, here, here)—then 61% oppose the Olympic bid. Focusing only or primarily on the results for the first question is thus disingenuous.

Tony Blair at the GOP Summit: Partying Like It's 2003

Yesterday, former UK Labour Party Prime Minister, George W. Bush's poodle, co-architect of the Iraq War, and friend of repressive dictators everywhere spoke at the GOP retreat in Hershey, PA.

I have often argued that Labour will not truly recover as a party until they have a purge of all Blairites. This further justifies that belief. I would love to hear what Labour Party MPs have to say about Tony Blair's latest speaking engagement. Will he be speaking at the UK Independence Party conference next?

When you bring Blair back together with the Republicans, it's time to party like it's 2003:

Tony Blair has called for a US-led effort to confront the “substantial minority” of Muslims who support terrorism, during a meeting with top Republicans that reunited the former British prime minister with hawks in the party who believe the White House response to recent attacks has been too limited.

According to a source present at a closed-door strategy session attended by nearly 300 Republican senators and congressmen, the former prime minister argued that force would be needed in what he called a “generational” struggle, but more important would be a “global alliance to teach tolerance” as millions of people in the Muslim world are systematically being taught to be intolerant.

Blair, who was introduced by Senator John McCain, also reportedly argued that radical Islam and the terrorism associated with it had not been contained; that countries in the west “didn’t cause it but were caught up in it”; that it was neither isolated nor insignificant and that while the majority of Muslims opposed it, “a substantial and not a fringe minority” supported it.

…

But he concluded that America would have to play a leading role in what he thought would be a “generational” struggle and urged the Republicans present not to disengage and to rise to the task and recognise it was “our problem as well as theirs”.

Tony Blair, the co-architect of an aggressive, groundless war that caused hundreds of thousands of casualties--not to mention a legacy of birth defects and cancer as well as the creation of a failed state that gave rise to ISIS--has a lot of chutzpah to accuse other people of violent tendencies.

No, Valerie Jarrett, Paid Leave *Is* a Partisan Issue

Today, the White House will begin a campaign to push for guaranteed paid sick leave for workers.
Here are the steps that Valerie Jarrett said that the President will be taking in her LinkedIn post from yesterday:

So on Thursday, President Obama will call on Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act, which would allow millions of working Americans to earn up to seven days a year of paid sick time — and call on states and cities to pass similar laws. The President will outline a new plan to help states create paid leave programs, and provide new funding through the Department of Labor for feasibility studies that will help other states and municipalities figure out the best way to implement programs of their own. And the President will sign a Presidential Memorandum that will ensure federal employees have access to at least 6 weeks of paid sick leave when a new child arrives and propose that Congress offer 6 weeks of paid administrative leave as well.

When talking about the initiative to reporters, Jarrett commented, “This is not a partisan issue; this is a family issue, and it’s an economic issue." 

 

Sorry, Valerie Jarrett, but it is a partisan issue.

Now, I would agree that it is not a partisan issue among voters. A poll from 2013 found that majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans are supported guaranteed paid sick leave: 84% of Democrats, 68% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans.

However, it is a partisan issue in Congress--and probably at every political level as well in most parts of the country.

The Healthy Families Act, which was introduced by Tom Harkin last session, had 23 co-sponsors (in addition to Harkin himself): 22 Democrats plus Bernie Sanders. Rosa DeLauro's identical bill in the House had 134 co-sponsors: all Democrats.

Republicans in Congress simply do not support this issue. Democrats should be reminding people that when campaigning: This is not a partisan issue among the American people, but it is in Congress because Republicans care more about the CEO's profits than the health and well-being of workers and their families. If Democrats want to connect more with voters (and turn more non-votes into voters), then they need to be making such contrasts clear. Embrace what makes your party different from the other one.

The Healthy Families Act or any similar legislation is not likely to go anywhere in the next two years. (Frankly, Obama should have pushed for it when Democrats had the ability to pass it or even as part of a comprehensive Democratic plan for America's workers and families before the election, but that's another story.) But what Democrats can do is send a clear message about which party is on the side of the people on this issue, and which party is not. And you don't do that by trying to depoliticize it.

Which Democrats Joined the GOP Today to Deregulate Wall Street and Attack Immigrants?

Last week, the House GOP pulled up the comically misnamed Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act (the bill that would weaken Dodd-Frank financial regulations) as a suspension vote. The vote was 276 to 146 (with one GOP opponent and 35 Democratic supporters).
However, it failed because you need 2/3 to pass something via suspension.

(In case I did not explain this before, a suspension vote is a vote to "suspend the rules" of normal order and pass a bill.)

The GOP brought the bill back up for a vote today, and without the 2/3 requirement, it passed easily, although there wasn't a veto-proof majority. The vote was 271 to 154.

Last week, we looked at the names of the 35 Democrats who went along with the GOP to gut Dodd-Frank. What I want to do now is highlight those who changed their votes.

As was the case last week, Walter Jones (NC-03) was the only Republican opponent. But the 35 Democratic supporters from last week became 29 today. So what changed?

First of all, three Democratic defectors simply weren't in attendance for the vote today:

John Garamendi (CA-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Then, four Democrats who voted for the bill last week flipped their vote today and voted against it:

Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)

They must have heard from their constituents afterwards.

Brian Higgins (NY-26) did the reverse. He went from opposition to support. Shame on him.

The other big vote today was on the GOP's DHS funding bill, which was designed to defund the implementation of Obama's recent executive order on immigration as well as his previously issued executive order on the deferred action ("DREAMers") program.

Robert Aderholt (AL-04) offered the amendment targeting Obama's executive orders:

to prevent any funds from whatever source to be used to carry-out (1) the Executive actions announced on November 20, 2014 to grant deferred action to certain unlawful aliens and for other purposes, and (2) four of the `Morton Memos' on prosecutorial discretion and immigration enforcement priorities issued in 2011 and 2012 that effectively prevent certain classes of unlawful aliens from being removed from the country. 2) Declares that no funds may be used to carry-out any substantially similar policies to those defunded. 3) Declares that the policies defunded and any substantially similar policies have no statutory or constitutional basis and therefore no legal effect. 4) Provides that no funds may be used to grant any Federal benefit to any alien as a result of the policies defunded.

It passed on a largely party line vote of 237 to 190.

Only 7 Republicans opposed it:

Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
Jeff Denham (CA-10)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Bob Dold (IL-10)
Renee Ellmers (NC-02)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
David Valadao (CA-21)

Matt Salmon (AZ-05) introduced an amendment "to express a sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should not pursue policies that disadvantage the hiring of U.S. citizens and those lawfully present in the United States by making it economically advantageous to hire workers who came to the country illegally." This is basically the "They took our jobs!" amendment.

It passed 253 to 171.

14 Democrats supported it:
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Tim Walz (MN-02).

2 Republicans voted no: Dold and Ellmers.

Aaron Schock (IL-18) introduced an amendment "to express a sense of Congress that the Administration should stop putting the interest of immigrants who worked within the legal framework to come to the US behind those who came here illegally."

It passed 260 to 167.

17 Democrats supported it:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Dutch Ruppersberger
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

One Republican voted against it: Justin Amash (MI-03).

The vote on final passage was 236 to 191.

2 Democrats voted yes: Brad Ashford (NE-02) and Collin Peterson (MN-07).

10 Republicans voted no:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
Jeff Denham (CA-10)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Bob Dold (IL-10)
Renee Ellmers (NC-02)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
David Valadao (CA-21)

Obama has already threatened to veto the bill, so it's not going anywhere.

Which 8 House Democrats Just Voted to Undermine Federal Regulators? by Liberty Equality Fraternity and TreesFollow

Today, the House just passed the so-called Regulatory Accountability Act, a bill that would require federal agencies to estimate the cost of any regulation they propose. Such requirements would burden an already slow regulatory process and would often be highly speculative at best.

The bill would also require agencies to hold public hearings for any rule expected to be costly, require them to submit an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 90 days prior to announcing any major rule, and allow regulations to be challenged in court before they are even finalized.

Public interest groups have spoken out strongly against the damage the bill would do to the regulatory process:

“The current rulemaking process is already plagued with lengthy delays, undue influence by regulated industries, and convoluted court challenges,” officials from Public Citizen and the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards said in a joint statement. “This bill would make each of these problems substantially worse.”

In a separate email, Public Citizen said that the legislation would force regulators to formulate “highly speculative estimates of all the indirect costs and benefits of proposed rules and do the same for any potential alternatives.”

“What counts and does not count as an indirect cost or a potential alternative?” the letter asked, saying that the answer depends on “industry’s imagination.”

“Federal agencies usually take years to issue health and safety standards, but this bill would make that process even longer,” it added.

The bill passed 250 to 175. 

8 Democrats joined the GOP to vote for it:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

All 8 have amassed a horrible record this year.

Five of them—Ashford, Cuellar, Graham, Peterson, and Schrader—have voted to weaken Dodd-Frank, weaken the ACA, and approve the Keystone Pipeline.

Bishop voted to weaken Dodd-Frank and approve the Keystone pipeline, but not to weaken the ACA.

Costa voted to weaken the ACA and approve the Keystone pipeline, but not to weaken Dodd-Frank.

Sinema voted to weaken Dodd-Frank and the ACA, but not to approve the Keystone pipeline.
Three Democratic amendments received a vote.

Gerry Connolly (VA-11) offered an amendment to exempt any rule or guidance pertaining to public health or safety. It failed 178 to 248.

One Republican—Chris Gibson (NY-19)—supported it.

Six Democrats voted against it:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

I was surprised to see Lofgren here and wonder if she pressed the wrong button.

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) offered an amendment to exempt all rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. It failed 176 to 249.

Seven Democrats voted against it:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

Hank Johnson (GA-04) offered an amendment to exempt all rules or guidance that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget determines would result in net job creation. It failed 178 to 247.

One Republican—Matt Salmon (AZ-05)—voted for it.

Six Democrats voted against it:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)

Blumenauer's vote sticks out to me here as Lofgren's did earlier.

Regardless, the administration has said that it would veto similar bills in the past and would likely do so here as well.

Senate Votes to Move Forward on Keystone XL Bill 63 to 32, with the Help of Some Oily Democrats

Today, the Senate voted for cloture on the Keystone XL Pipeline Act (S. 1) 63 to 32.

The vote would have been 65 to 35 had all senators been in attendance (Cassidy and Rubio on the Republican side; Brown, Reid, and Wyden on the Democratic side).

10 Democrats and Angus King joined the Republicans to pass it:

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Angus King (I-ME)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Mark Warner (D-VA)

This largely mirrored the vote from last November. The 59 votes then became 65 votes now (the "if all were there" total) because (a) Democratic NO votes were replaced by Republican YES votes in Colorado, Iowa, and South Dakota and (b) Angus King and Tom Udall, who both voted NO before, flipped their votes to a YES here. A YES on cloture is not the same as a YES on passage, but King and Udall (especially the latter) deserve to hear from their constituents about this.

The Senate will continue work on Keystone later this week, possibly (but not certainly) voting on amendments and passage on Friday. Democrats have proposed a number of amendments, some of which are listed below:

The amendments would: — Ban the export of oil transported through the pipeline, language that Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has frequently floated in both chambers of Congress;

— Require U.S.-produced iron, steel and manufactured goods “to be used for the pipeline construction, connection, operation, and maintenance.” It’s another familiar measure that senators like Markey and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have offered.

— Require “that for every job created by the pipeline, an equal or greater amount of jobs is created through clean energy investments.” Schumer and Stabenow highlight legislation from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would cut the price of home solar units through rebates.

— Restore funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to levels authorized in the 2009 economic stimulus bill under the condition that seniors and veterans get first priority.
....

They also include a proposal to “modestly raise royalty rates for Big Oil companies for offshore and onshore drilling and mining (for both coal and other minerals) on federal lands” in order to pay for the home solar rebates and increased LIHEAP funding.

Bernie Sanders is also offering an amendment that would express a "sense of the Senate" that anthropogenic climate change is real and requires significant investment in a clean energy transition. 

Ultimately, however, this bill is going nowhere because the White House has already expressed its intention to veto it, and neither the House nor the Senate has a veto-proof majority on the issue.

No, Marty, You’ve *Already* Rammed the 2024 Olympic Bid Down Our Throats

Yesterday, in his fittingly closed-to-the-public press conference on the city’s Olympic bid, Marty Walsh remarked, “Are we going to ram it down people’s throats? Absolutely not.”

The problem is that he’s already done so. Yes, the bid may change based on input from the community hearings, which will be too few and too late (and, given the description of the first one, too tightly controlled). But no one in the city or the state voted on bidding for the 2024 Olympics in the first place. That decision was made entirely without public input.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t even think the Boston City Council has ever had a hearing on this. A search for “Olympics” in City Council minutes from the past year yielded nothing. (The Cambridge City Council, by contrast, has been far more open and proactive. Last month, they voted to oppose the Boston 2024 bid.)

It is important to remember that hosting the Olympics is only part of the problem. One of the biggest damages that the Boston 2024 bid will do–whether the city wins or not—is divert our attention from many of the pressing challenges that we face as both a city and a state. The planning that goes into the bid will take up time, money, and resources, and that will come at the expense of other issues we need to address: the dearth of affordable housing, the acceleration of climate change, the rise of health care costs, the plague of mass incarceration, insufficient funding and inequitable funding for education and infrastructure, among many others.

The IOC does not make its selection until summer 2017. That means that we have two and a half years of time, money, and resources that, in the best scenario for the people of Boston and the state, will be fully wasted.

At his closed press conference, Marty also remarked, “I’d be willing to bet if you took a poll today, the majority of people would be excited.” A month ago, he acted as though he had actually seen such polling numbers. His language here makes that seem doubtful. However, the only public polling data available do not support such boosterism. A poll by the Globe back in the summer found a majority of Metro Boston opposed to the Boston 2024 bid (51% to 38%), although a slim majority of the state overall supported it (47% to 43%). However–and this is key–when the best arguments from both sides were presented, that slim support became overwhelming opposition, with people saying no to the Olympic bid 2:1. In other words, the more people hear about the bid, the more they realize that they’re getting a raw deal.

Which 28 Oily Democrats Just Joined the GOP to Vote for Keystone XL?

The House Republicans have been having an exciting week.

On Wednesday, they voted to roll back Dod-Frank.

Yesterday, they voted to weaken the Affordable Care Act.

And today, they voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

And, as always, there are a number of Democrats happy to join them.

The Keystone vote today was 266 to 153, with one "PRESENT" vote. Justin Amash (MI-03) always votes present because, although he supports the pipeline, he does not believe that Congress should be passing legislation on behalf of a single company.

28 Democrats joined the Republican caucus in passing the bill:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15) and Bennie Thompson (MS-02) were not in attendance but probably would have also voted YES had they been there.

The 153 NO votes is sufficient to sustain a veto, so this isn't going anywhere.

Which 12 Democrats Just Voted with the GOP to Weaken the ACA?

Yesterday, the House GOP decided to bring up their deceptively titled Save American Workers Act of 2015.

Rather than "saving American workers" (since when did the GOP ever care about that?), it attempts to weaken the Affordable Care Act.

Specifically, it raises the threshold for full-time employment from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week.

This change, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would increase the number of uninsured by up to 500,000 and increase budget deficits by $18.1 billion over the 2015-2020 period and by $53.2 billion over the 2015-2025 period.

It passed 252 to 172.

12 Democrats voted with the GOP:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)

The bill did not receive enough votes to override a veto, so, even though it might pass the Senate, it's not ultimately going anywhere.

Which Senate Dems Helped Senate Rs Block an Amendment from Elizabeth Warren to Protect Dodd-Frank?

Yesterday, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, which serves as a bailout guarantee for big businesses.

Here's David Dayen on this bipartisan-approved corporate welfare program:

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act provides a government backstop to insurance companies in the event of a terrorist attack. Tria arrived in the wake of the September 11 attacks, when it arose as a way for the government to protect the insurance companies from taking huge losses that would put them out of business after a terrorist attack. The rationale behind Tria is simple. Previously, there was no contract by which companies could protect themselves from terrorism costs. That was a disaster when the insured loss for 9-11 approached $40bn, with most of it paid by insurance companies and the firms who insure them, known as reinsurers.

The appeal is clear – to insurers, who have been raking in cash. Over 60% of all businesses have purchased government-subsidized terrorism insurance since 2002. The program has cost the government $1m a year – almost nothing – but has made an estimated $40bn in revenue for insurance companies, who have never paid a claim, or given a dime to the government for their reinsurance protection.

(Read the full article for a more in-depth explanation). 

 

The bill just voted on reauthorizes the program for six more years and raises the threshold for the government to begin paying out terrorism insurance claims from $100 million to $200 million.

Republicans, in TRIA reauthorization negotiations last year, decided that they wanted to sweeten the corporate welfare pot some more by rolling back part of Dodd-Frank, particularly by exempting non-financial companies from having to follow the same derivative regulations as banks. The White House has expressed its disapproval of this addition to the bill but has not issued a veto threat because of it:

Broadening Dodd-Frank’s statutory exemptions is a complicated issue with serious implications for the health and stability of the Nation’s financial markets. The main purpose of S. 2244 is to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program; this bill should not be used as a vehicle to add entirely unrelated financial regulatory provisions.

During the Senate vote on TRIA reauthorization, Elizabeth Warren decided to offer an amendment to strip this unrelated Dodd-Frank rollback provision from the bill. 

 

The Senate proceeded to vote her amendment down 66 to 31.

All of the Republicans in attendance voted against it, and 13 members of the Democratic caucus joined them.

Who were the 13?

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Jon Tester (D-MT)

Keep your eye on them because they will likely be the Democratic turncoats who help the GOP get to 60 on their various deregulatory bills over the next two years.

After killing Warren's amendment, the Senate voted on the full TRIA reauthorization bill. It passed easily 93 to 4.

The four NO votes were Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

On Charlie Hebdo & the Politics of Speech, Satire, and Selectivenes

I wanted to put together some thoughts of mine on the Charlie Hebdo incident today.

(1) I am very happy to be reading Karen Armstrong's "Fields of Blood" right now. She does a wonderful job of deconstructing and historicizing the concept of "religious violence." What we call "religious violence" is rarely so simple as its name implies. Such violence is often connected to statecraft, nationalism, resource conflict, economic exploitation, economic disenfranchisement, or numerous other factors. Religious belief rarely acts as motivator outside of a web of other factors, and it can often be an ex post justification to a previously reached conclusion.

(2) I find it strange that the concept of “freedom of speech” or “freedom of the press” (its cousin) is so often brought up in connection to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. These concepts refer to the fact that the *state* cannot (should not) criminalize acts of speech or prevent things from being published or disseminated. They are constitutional protections of dissent from the coercive power of the state. When governments throw journalists into jail, that is an attack on freedom of the press. When governments force (or attempt to force) newspapers to refrain from publishing information, that is an attack on freedom of the press. Etc. etc. The issue of “artistic freedom” is partially but not fully contained within these concepts. They are related insofar as the issue is the *state* preventing the dissemination of certain forms of art (state censorship). However, “artistic freedom” also concerns issues of corporate censorship or self-censorship (due to fear or other forms of pressure) whereas “freedom of speech/expression/press,” in a constitutional sense, does not. The French government is not considering banning political cartoons, so—despite the heinousness of the crime committed—there is no attack on “freedom of speech/the press/expression” in any legalistic or constitutional sense of the word.

(3) Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are amateurish (at best) in style. They are offensive for the sake of being offensive and, as such, can often be virulently racist and are rarely (if ever) remotely clever. There is an intellectual component to good satire. CH lacks that, instead resorting to intellectual laziness.

(4) For satire to be sharp, funny, or (frankly) effective, its target should be power. It is the use of humor and ridicule to reveal the folly of the powerful, to “bring them down to size” (if you will). The attacks on Islam in CH are reproducing a quite commonly held prejudice in France. Their anti-clericalism is also not particularly funny because the Church is not the powerful institution in France it once was. (Anti-clericalism in France was far wittier and sharper when the Church was a powerful institution in French politics. The anti-clericalism in CH also suffers from intellectual laziness and a lack of creativity.) CH also traffics in racial stereotypes against Africans—another thing that reproduces commonly held prejudices. The intent, in such cases, is not to satirize the holder of such prejudice, but the victim. But good satire does the reverse.

(5) It is stunning to me that US politicians, including the president, have condemned this while at the same time completely ignoring the attack on an NAACP office in Colorado Springs (which, yes, was an act of domestic terrorism). No one died in Colorado (thankfully), but there was a clear malevolent intent by the deranged, racist 40-something-year-old balding white man behind the attack. That he did not succeed in his objective makes it no less heinous. The lack of media coverage has been likewise stunning.

(6) It is also interesting to see how US politicians pick and choose which acts of domestic terrorism abroad to condemn and which to ignore. The recent outbreak of mosque attacks in Sweden has not received the same level of condemnation as the CH shooting. One should condemn all or condemn none (condemn none as in “not speak on the issue because it is not within your power to effect change there as a politician in the US”). Inconsistency is not a virtue.

Which 35 House Democrats Just Joined the GOP to Try to Gut Dodd-Frank?

The House GOP decided to use the second day back in session to do what they love best: give presents to Wall Street.

The bill, comically called Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, combined 11 different bills aimed at weakening Dodd-Frank into one big package.

Keith Ellison (MN-05), in a floor speech opposing the bill, talked about some of its many dangerous provisions:

1.Weakens the Volcker Rule.  This bill undercuts an important part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Volcker Rule was intended to prevent deposit-taking banks from making bets using taxpayer insured funds. Even though the Federal Reserve went out of its way to ease the transition to a safer system, this bill would give mega-banks another two years to sell off certain securities in which they retain ownership rights. And this provision, which almost certainly juices the profits of the mega-banks like Citigroup and JP Morgan, has never been vetted. The public has not even had a day to review this text. How are we supposed to vote on this?  

 It’s wrong that bills that help Wall Street and multi-national corporations get fast-tracked on day 2 while bills that help working families have been slow-walked for years.
Just last month, Republicans successfully handed Citigroup and the other mega-banks a multi-billion dollar gift by repealing another reform measure known as “Swaps Push-Out,” which was intended to prevent another Great Recession. The repeal of that provision allowed the mega banks continue to borrow from the Federal Reserve lending window – currently at about zero percent interest -- to finance their risky derivatives trading.

2. Weakens Derivatives Provisions.
This bill also includes three other provisions that weaken the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by taking away authority from the regulators charged with ensuring that everyone plays by the same rules. So, if at some point in the future we find out that our financial system is threatened, our regulators will be unable to take decisive action to fix the problem as they can do today. After witnessing the effect that one type of derivative, the credit default swap, had in spreading the losses from the subprime mortgage market around the world, I’d like to know why our first order of business this Congress is to roll back financial reforms that this Congress deliberatively passed over an 18-month period following the 2008 Financial Crisis.

3. Undermines investor protections.

The bill includes three provisions that have the potential to leave investors worse off than they are today. In one instance, the bill exempts individuals that would broker a merger of a privately-owned company to be exempt from SEC registration. Since this legislation passed in the previous Congress, the SEC took actions making it unnecessary. However, if we pass the bill today, we will undermine a few basic investor protections the SEC retained. For example, the SEC determined that bad actors, such as convicted securities fraudsters, should not be able to take advantage of the carve-out. However, by voting yes, you are saying that it is ok for people convicted of fraud to sell other things – like franchises or the restaurant down the street.

Another provision would allow 75% of all public companies to no longer report their financial statements in computer-readable formats. When everything is online today, and investors rely on computers to crunch the financials of various companies, this bill comes across as a huge step backwards. Ironically, my colleagues on the other side seem to forget that our capital markets only function as well as they do because investors understand the companies they are investing in. Even Republican Congressman Darrell Issa has pressed the SEC to do more on this issue to make company data more investor-friendly – this bill take the opposite approach, and undoes much of the progress the SEC has made. Why would we risk intentionally harming both small companies and investors this way?

If much of this bill reads as if we never had a financial crisis, Title Eleven reads like we never had an ENRON or Worldcom. I am all for private companies compensating their employees with company securities but not if basic financial disclosure documents are not provided. This provision provides up to $10 million in company securities without having to provide the employees certain basic financial disclosures about the company. That’s right, this bill raises the maximum compensation from $5 million to $10 million – which will increase with inflation -- without requiring basic financial disclosures to the employees.

Those benefits should be tangible and real and not subject to any accounting shenanigans. We all remember ENRON where employees were pressured to buy stock options that were completely worthless. Why can’t we enable employees to receive some equity in the company for which they work AND ensure workers get accurate financial disclosure forms?

Republicans have brought this complex, eleven-bill package to the floor under suspension of the Rules, denying members the opportunity to offer amendments and have a robust fair debate. Just last month, that strategy led to the repeal of the “swaps push-out” rule, a crucial reform in Dodd-Frank. As this bill makes clear, the Republican strategy of jamming complex legislation through Congress will only continue, depriving the minority and the American public of the chance to provide meaningful input during the legislative process and threatening the provisions we put in place to protect our economy from another devastating financial crisis.

The bill, called up in suspension, required 2/3 for passage. It did not achieve that, fortunately. The final vote was 276 to 146. Only 1 Republican voted against it: Walter Jones (NC-03). 35 Democrats voted with Republicans. 

 

Here are the 35 Democrats:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Don Beyer (VA-08)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)

Additional Democrats may have initially voted for the bill, only to change their votes later on to prevent it from reaching the 2/3 threshold. Nancy Pelosi, who released a statement criticizing the bill earlier today, likely pressured them to flip their votes.

There is a deep and despicable cynicism at work in the behavior of many so-called "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats. They will vote with Wall Street every chance they get because they get to accomplish two objectives at the same time: (1) please their donors and (2) lower their "vote with party" score. Such purple district Democrats love being able to talk up a low "vote with party" score and a record of "independence." But that independence normally just means shilling for the rich and the big banks.

Expect them to do this again and again throughout the next two years. Bipartisanship in action.