The Women’s Public Health and Safety Act: Neither About Women's Health Nor Their Safety

Earlier today, the House passed HR 3495, the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act. And, as you can probably guess, it is not about women's health, nor about their safety.

Well, what does it do then?

The bill grants states the flexibility to withhold Medicaid funding from health providers that offer abortions. Just the latest in their war on Planned Parenthood and on women's health, safety, and economic security.

The bill passed 236 to 193.

Two Democrats joined the GOP in voting for it: Dan Lipinski (IL-03) and Collin Peterson (MN-07).
Note that, when the DCCC sends out a fundraising email connected to this vote, some of that money will likely go to Collin Peterson.

9 Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it:

Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Dan Donovan (NY-11)
Bob Dold (IL-10)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
David Jolly (FL-13)
John Katko (NY-24)
Elise Stefanik (NY-21)

Which 7 House Dems Joined the GOP for "Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction”?

On Friday, while many people were distracted by the news of Boehner's resignation, the GOP decided to pass yet another bill aimed at gutting environmental regulations.

This bill was the Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015 (RAPID Act), which Democrats mockingly referred to as “Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction." The bill amends the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to strip out input from federal, state, and local agencies and the public:

The bill sets new tight deadlines for environmental review, permitting, and licensing decisions.  In cases where multiple agencies are affected, a lead agency would be required to set deadlines for other agency reviews, which must be met in 30 days.  The bill also allows private sector sponsors to prepare their own environmental assessments - creating inherent conflicts of interest that jeopardize the integrity of the decision-making process.

The bill would also greatly narrow the scope of judicial review in the NEPA process.  Civil actions would only be available to parties that participated in the environmental review public comment period and any such action would have to be filed within 180 days of the granting of a permit.

Proponents claim this bill will speed up the NEPA review process, allowing more construction projects to start and more jobs to be created. However, in reality, the bill creates a complicated one-size-fits-all stance towards the entire NEPA process, muddling requirements for all projects, not just construction – from grazing permits to the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

It passed 233 to 170. 

7 Democrats joined the GOP:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Roll call votes were taken on 9 amendments.

Climate Change

Alan Lowenthal (CA-47) offered an amendment to prevent further evaluation or adoption of a project alternative that does not adequately address risks associated with flooding, wildfire, and climate change.

It failed 170 to 228.

Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for it:

Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
Bob Dold (IL-11)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)

That means that the majority of the sponsors of the recent GOP climate resolution voted against this amendment. So much for that.....

Three Democrats joined the GOP in voting against it:

Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Scott Peters (CA-52) offered an amendment to strike the section of the bill that prohibits federal agencies from considering the "social cost of carbon" in conducting environmental reviews or in environmental decision making.

It failed 179 to 229.

Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting for it:

Curt Curbelo (FL-26)
Bob Dold (IL-10)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)

Again, the majority of the sponsors of the GOP climate resolution took the anti-climate vote.
3 Democrats joined the Republicans in voting against it:

Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Paul Gosar (AZ-04) offered an amendment to prohibit federal agencies from following draft guidance entitled "the Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate change in NEPA Reviews” issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, 79 Fed. Reg. 77801 (Dec. 24, 2014), or similar guidance.

It passed 223 to 186.

11 Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it:

Diane Black (TN-06)
Tom Cole (OK-04)
Curt Curbelo (FL-26)
Bob Dold (IL-10)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Tom MacArthur (NJ-03)
Pat Meehan (PA-07)
John Mica (FL-07)
Candice Miller (MI-10)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)

Three Democrats joined the GOP in voting for it:

Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Socioeconomic Impact

Raul Grijalva offered an amendment to require an evaluation of each alternative in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment to identify potential effects on low-income communities and communities of color.

It passed 320 to 88. All 178 Democrats present voted for it. The GOP caucus split: 142 in favor and 88 against.

Public Process
Ruben Gallego (AZ-07) offered an amendment to grant deadline extensions if requested by a state, a local elected official, or local tribal official.

It failed 179 to 230.

Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting for it:

Bradley Byrne (AL-01)
David Jolly (FL-13)
Leonard Lance (NJ-07)
Scott Tipton (CO-03)
Ryan Zinke (MT-AL)

Four Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it:

Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) offered an amendment to strike language in the underlying bill that would deem permits and licenses approved if an agency does not act within certain time frames set out in the bill.

It failed 173 to 237.

Five Democrats joined the GOP in voting against it:

Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)

Hank Johnson (GA-04) offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill will change or limit any law or regulation that allows for public comment or participation in an agency decision making process.

It failed 176 to 232.

Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting for it:

Tom Emmer (MN-06)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)

Four Democrats joined the GOP in voting against it:

Karen Bass
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Karen Bass's vote here seems strange to me.

National Security
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) offered a second amendment to clarify that the bill’s provisions do not apply to environmental reviews or permitting or other agency decisions for projects that could be a potential terrorist attack target or that are chemical facilities or other critical infrastructure.

It failed 176 to 232.

One Republican--Jeff Duncan (SC-03)--joined Democrats in voting for it.

Two Democrats--Jim Costa (CA-16) and Collin Peterson (MN-07)--joined Republicans in voting against it.

Wildlife

Debbie Dingell (MI-12) offered an amendment to prevent a project permit from being deemed approved under the timeline set forth in the bill if the project would limit access to or opportunities for hunting or fishing, or impact an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

It failed 187 to 223.

Eight Republicans joined Democrats in voting for it:

Curt Curbelo (FL-26)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Tom MacArthur (NJ-03)
Candice Miller (MI-10)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Don Young (AK-AL)

What Hilary Clinton Gets Wrong about Free College

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton sat down with the Des Moines Register editorial board to answer a few of their questions, and the DMR published a few excerpts from the interview.
One in particular caught my attention:

On rival Bernie Sanders' plan for free college tuition for all: "I am not going to give free college to wealthy kids. I'm not going to give free college to kids who don't work some hours to try to put their own effort into their education."

Let me unpack a few problematic things here. 

 

(1) Universal vs. Means-tested Goods: Bernie Sanders, by making tuition at public colleges/universities free, wants universal provision. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, wants to apply means-testing to it.

One of the main problems with means-testing is inefficiency. When you establish various criteria for eligibility, you create more paper work and more layers of administration. Universal provision simplifies the process.

More importantly, universality creates a broader political constituency and thus better protects a program in the long term. Universality helps get the middle class to fight for the interests of the poor. Social Security is a great example of this. Means-tested programs are deemed as only benefiting the poor and are thus more easily put on the chopping block. You shore up political support by locking in everyone's self-interest, not by depending on their sympathy.

And at a fundamental level, the concept of universal public goods is important for fostering a democratic ethos.

(2) Redistribution: Bernie Sanders's free college plan uses a financial transaction tax as its source of funding:

This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives.

You are changing the payment from a "fee" to a "tax," but the very rich will effectively still be paying for their own children. You could view this as taxing the rich to pay for their own children....as well as everyone else. 

And their children may still go to private colleges and universities, as many currently do. And those won't be free. Bill and Hillary would still have had to pay for Chelsea's education at Stanford under this plan.

(Bernie Sanders's plan, NB, would offer help for students from working- and middle-class families at private colleges by way of lower student loan rates, expanded work study, and a simplified aid application process.)

(3) Defining Work: Hillary says that she doesn't want to give free tuition to students who "don't work some hours to try to put their own effort into their education." This, to me, implies that studying does not count as work. That research does not count as work. The intellectual work of being a student is a form of work, and students certainly have to put in more than just "some hours" for it. And this work should be the focus.

Expanding work opportunities for students is a good idea because there are many non-tuition costs to college (books, lodging, food, recreational expenses); however, they should be opportunities, not requirements. The insistence on a "work requirement" also evokes the welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton passed in the 1990s.

The Elephant in the Room at the Convention

“As Democrats Target GOP, Baker Escapes Criticism” — Boston Globe

“At State Convention: Mass. Dems Focus National, Tread Lightly on Baker’s Beacon Hill” — WGBH

**********************************

During most of the speeches at the convention yesterday, I was tabling in the hall for Raise Up, rather than sitting and watching the speakers. Following the speeches on Twitter, however, I began to notice a striking absence: direct criticism of Charlie Baker, our Republican governor.

When I decided to take a break from tabling for the day and head into the auditorium, I listened to party chair Tom McGee criticize anti-union Republican governors in other states (like Wisconsin), without so much as mentioning the anti-union governor in our own state. To my memory, McGee did not even mention Charlie Baker once in his speech.

I turned to a friend of mine and asked, “Have any of the speakers criticized Charlie Baker by name?” She paused for a moment to think: “Nope.”

Steve Tolman, the president of Mass AFL-CIO, was a pleasant change. He called out Baker’s Executive Order No. 562, one of the most dangerous things put forth by Baker so far, designed to roll back our state’s public interest regulations to placate Charlie’s Big Business buddies. His attack on the privatization agenda — of schools, of transportation, of services — had clear targets in both the State House and the governor’s mansion, even if names might not have been directly stated.

But this, as both the Globe and WGBH picked up as well, was a rarity at the convention. Democrats felt much more comfortable attacking national Republican boogeymen like Donald Trump rather than the Republican who has the most influence in shaping the future of our state: the governor.

When Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats say, “Come to Massachusetts to see the future” without acknowledging the governor who is pushing us back into the past, they are engaging in political malpractice.

Jeffrey Berry, a political scientist at Tufts, said it well in the aforementioned Globe article:

“If the Democrats are to run a credible race [for governor] in 2018, they really need to start developing a counter narrative to the success of the Baker administration,” he said. “It’s never too soon to start it.”
And given the partisan nature of the audience, he said, “if you are talking about what the shortcomings of the Baker administration [are], [the convention has the] safest audience to do it in front of.”

Charlie Baker has sky-high poll numbers because Democrats are faint in their criticism in the rare times they even criticize him at all. And that refusal to forcefully articulate a contrasting vision for governance (not a “Promises Watch” that implies all of the promises are good) spells electoral doom.

One is left wondering if the reason why our elected Democrats do so little to push back is that they largely agree with

DCCC denounces the GOP for voting to defund Planned Parenthood. What about the Dems who did, too?

Just over an hour after the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood 241 to 187, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a "KEY VOTE ALERT" (Yes, the email subject line had this unnecessary capitalization):

KEY VOTE ALERT: H.R. 3134 – Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015

VOTE RESULTS: Bill passes in House, 241 – 187.

DENOUNCE REPUBLICANS FOR VOTING YES >>

IMPACT: If enacted, would prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. Sets up potential government shutdown.

ACTION NEEDED: Denounce Congressional Republicans for voting yes. Show that grassroots Democrats do NOT support this bill.

Republicans will be held accountable for voting yes.

Thanks,
DCCC Key Vote Alert

It included an online petition to denounce the GOP.

When reading this, I thought, "Well, but what about the Democrats who did, too?"

Among the 241 votes to defund Planned Parenthood were two Democrats: Dan Lipinski (IL-03) and Collin Peterson (MN-07).

Will the DCCC ask us to denounce them as well? They deserve to be denounced just as much as their Republican colleagues do.

Dan Lipinski, who is far too conservative for his seat and deserves a primary, does not rely much on DCCC money. His seat is safe--the lowest share of the vote he has ever gotten was 64.6%.

However, Peterson is different. According to FEC filings, in the 2014 election cycle, the DCCC gave $9,998 to Collin Peterson (not to mention the money that came in through the at-least-3 fundraisers they hosted for him).

The DCCC also claims that Republicans will be held accountable for their votes. But will they really be?

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen voted for it. She represents the Miami-area swing district of FL-27. She ran unopposed last year.

Charlie Dent voted for it. He represents the Lehigh Valley area swing district of PA-15. He ran unopposed last year.

Those districts come to mind immediately, but there are certainly others, and there are districts where challengers ran but were left floundering by the party.

With a Shutdown Looming, the GOP Wastes Time Trying to Mess with the Courts. Which Dems Joined?

A government shutdown seems very likely to occur, but that doesn't stop the House GOP from wasting time on bills that will not go anywhere.

Thursday, the House voted to pass the so-called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.
The bill would require courts to impose sanctions on parties that violate the prohibition on the filing of frivolous lawsuits, taking away the discretionary power that judges currently have.

It would overburden the court system by causing a proliferation of new cases (contrary to the stated intent) and could have a detrimental impact on civil rights litigation:

This bill represents a reinstatement of discredited rules that were previously in effect, from 1983 – 1993, and triggered almost 7,000 Rule 11 filings, compared with just 19 such filings from 1938 to 1983, when sanctions were not required. Reenactment of these rules would do the exact opposite of their claimed intent, leading to further litigation that is spurred by the prospect of mandatory sanctions and monetary compensation for attorneys’ fees.

The bill specifies that sanctions against parties that file frivolous lawsuits must include monetary payments to the other party for that party's expenses, including attorneys' fees and other costs, discrediting the judicial system by assuming judges are incapable of appropriately punishing abusive lawsuits. The bill would also eliminate the “safe harbor” provisions of Rule 11, under which a motion for sanctions will not be pursued if the challenged filing is withdrawn or corrected within 21 days of service of the motion for sanctions.

This bill would have a wide-ranging impact on civil rights cases, which often involve an "argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of a new law," and often have relied upon novel legal theories that are particularly susceptible to abusive claims of frivolity by defendants.  Had the provisions in H.R. 758 been in place at the time, they could have discouraged a number of landmark civil rights cases, including Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and they could prevent new cases from ever being considered.

It passed 241 to 185. 

Three Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it:
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it:

Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Steve Russell (OK-05)

No, the 11 Republicans who Put Forth a Handwaving Resolution on Climate Do Not Deserve a Gold Star

Yesterday, Chris Gibson (NY-19) led a group of 10 other House Republicans in putting forth a resolution on "conservative environmental stewardship" that vaguely calls for climate action.

Here is the core part of the resolution:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives commits to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact.

We don't need resolutions; we need legislation. As such, this resolution doesn't rise beyond handwaving. It also even seems to imply that we still need more research to determine what is causing climate change, which--in context--just seems like a typical deflection. 

It is important to note that Chris Gibson is retiring at the end of his term. He does represent a light blue (D+2) district, though, that Democrats have proven incompetent at winning back.

The 10 colleagues that joined him all represent swingy districts or districts that Democrats should have won and will likely win back. (Partisan voting indexes are included after each name.)

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (FL-26) R+4
Rep. David Reichert (WA-8) R+2
Rep. Robert Dold (IL-10) D+8
Rep. Richard Hanna (NY-22) R+3
Rep. Patrick Meehan (PA-7) EVEN
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-8) R+1
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) R+2
Rep. Ryan Costello (PA-6) R+1
Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21) EVEN
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2) D+1

Mike Fitzpatrick, like Chris Gibson, will be retiring. David Reichert might be running for governor in Washington.

All of the GOPers in that list, with the exception of Gibson, voted for their party's anti-environment budget back in March. They all voted to increase industry power over federal regulations via the REINS Act in July. All but Gibson voted for fast-track, and all have voted repeatedly for the Keystone XL pipeline. And most of them joined their Republican colleagues in voting against the climate-friendly amendments to the Interior/EPA appropriations bill.

This was timed to coincide with Pope Francis's visit to DC, as the pope is expected to include a call for climate action in his address. Gibson, Curbelo, Meehan, Fitzpatrick, Stefanik, and LoBiondo are all Roman Catholic.

72 House Dems: US Should Take in At Least 100,000 Syrian Refugees

Today, a group of 72 House Democrats, led by Rep. David Cicilline (RI-01), wrote to President Obama urging him to increase State Department quotas so that the US can admit at least 100,000 refugees from Syria.

Here are the 71 additional signers:

Karen Bass (CA-37)
Don Beyer (VA-08)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Madeleine Bordallo (Guam)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Debbie Dingell (MI-12)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Ruben Gallego (AZ-07)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
Ted Lieu (CA-33)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Anne McLane Kuster (NH-02)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Juan Vargas (CA_51)
Marc Veasey (TX-35)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-07)
Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
And here is the text of the letter:

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing because we are concerned about the dire circumstances of the increasing number of refugees fleeing the chaos in the Middle East. This month the image of 3-year old Aylan Kurdi’s body shocked the conscience of people around the world. Aylan, his 5-year-old brother Galip, and their mother Rehan all perished during an attempted crossing to Europe. The image of Aylan’s body washed up on shore has made its way across the internet and throughout the media, calling attention to the increasingly dire situation for refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and throughout the region. Journeys like this are not new. Refugees have historically endured countless hurdles to reach places of safety, but what has changed is the sheer magnitude of the crisis.

There are currently more refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced persons—nearly 60 million—than at any time since World War II. Indeed, the plight of refugees around the globe is garnering significant media attention with stories and poignant images of dangerous journeys, tragic deaths, unwelcoming refugee policies, and the particular challenges faced by women and children fleeing violence.

The number of Syrian refugees that the United States has resettled since the start of the conflict—approximately 1,500—is insufficient in light of the current crisis. We appreciate the recent announcement that your Administration plans to increase quota for 2016 and we strongly feel that such an increase must be bold, and take into account the enormity of the current crisis.

More than four million Syrian refugees have been forced to flee the country, and the conflict shows no sign of abating. Of these refugees, 76%—over 3 million—are women and children. Lebanon has absorbed more than a million refugees, increasing their population by a quarter Turkey has taken in more than 2 million; Jordan half a million. The neighbors of Syria are maxed out, and thousands of refugees risking death by taking treacherous journeys by land or water have demonstrated the desperation felt by the people who have left with virtually nothing and see no lifelines.

We agree with Refugee Council USA’s recent recommendation that the United States resettle a minimum of 200,000 refugees by the end of 2016, including 100,000 Syrian refugees. RCUSA is a coalition of 20 of the country’s premiere refugee protection organizations. Due to the expanding scope of the crisis, this recommendation is an increase over the community’s previous recommendation that the U.S. take 65,000 additional refugees from Syria.

The U.S. has historically taken the largest number of refugees in the world; last year we took almost 70% of all refugees globally. Other countries look to the United States to lead when it comes to refugee resettlement, and so it is absolutely critical that the U.S. lead by example. The U.S. should use its considerable global influence to encourage other nations, including within the European Union, to accept additional refugees and increase the resources available to support them.

There are those who will oppose taking additional refugees. They will say it is a security risk, or will hurt the economy. This criticism ignores the fact that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program subjects applicants to more thorough security vetting than any other traveler or immigrant to the United States. We recognize the importance of security checks and will continue to support your Administration’s strong background checks for all refugees. This criticism also ignores the reality that refugee populations, such as the Vietnamese and those from the former Soviet Union, have prospered and brought economic growth and innovation to our country.

We pledge that we will do everything we can to ensure that, if steps are taken to accommodate additional refugees, there will be adequate additional resources for U.S. resettlement agencies, and for security checks, in order to meet increased demand. The United States is home to 320 million people. Allowing an additional 130,000 refugees into our country would make up less than a quarter of one percent of our population. Lebanon’s population by contrast has grown 25% with the influx of refugees in its borders. How can we tell little Aylan’s family that we simply can’t manage to welcome them, and that it would be too dangerous, or take away jobs? Surely we can do better.

The United States has a long history of helping the world’s most vulnerable people, but we have also faltered when faced with difficult decisions to allow refugees into the country. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is our moral duty, as nation founded on the principles of equality and freedom, to do what we can to assist our brethren who are in desperate turmoil, and are searching for the slightest gesture of goodwill. As Americans and Members of Congress, we believe it is our duty to do the right thing and offer protection to those fleeing violence and turmoil in the Middle East.

Thank you for your consideration.

Which 25 War-Mongering House Democrats Just Voted against the Iran Deal?

Yesterday, the House took a party line vote accusing Obama of withholding documents related to the deal with Iran, and 42 Senate Democrats succeeded at blocking a disapproval resolution. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted with the GOP, and should be shamed accordingly.

Today, the House rejected a resolution approving the deal with Iran 269 to 162, with one abstention. The abstention was from Republican Tom Massie (KY-04).

All other Republicans voted against the approval resolution. They were joined by the following war-mongering Democrats:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Brendan Boyle (PA-13)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Ted Lieu (CA-33)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)  
David Scott (GA-13)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

After that, the House cast a vote to prevent Obama from suspending sanctions on Iran. It passed on a mostly party line vote of 247 to 186.

Two Democrats joined the GOP here: Gwen Graham (FL-02) and Juan Vargas (CA-51). Graham will likely be redistricted out of her seat, and, frankly, I'd say, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

If you are represented by any of the 4 Democratic senators or 25 Democratic representatives who voted against the deal, they deserve to hear from you, and they should face consequences for their vote.

But regardless of the efforts of this group war-mongering Democrats and their Republican allies, the deal survives, a win for diplomacy.

Mary Landrieu Open to Donating Leftover Campaign Funds to Republicans

Former senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was one of the worst members of the Democratic caucus, as many of us remember. I wrote about that here, here, and here.

And she's been just as bad in her post-Senate career.

Back in April, she took a job as a "strategic advisor" to the Walton Family Foundation to help them lobby for charter schools and other ways of privatizing our public education system.

Then in May, she (surprise!) began working for a lobbying firm that serves clients in the Oil & Gas industry.

In July, she joined the advisory board of the AIPAC-created "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran," a group designed to lobby against the Iran deal. She joined other horrible former colleagues like Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Mark Begich.

But, remember, Mary Landrieu still raised a lot of money for her race last year, and some of that money (roughly $150,000) is still with her.

What does she plan to do with that money? She is hosting some fundraisers for former Democratic colleagues like Ron Wyden and Amy Klobuchar. (Wyden doesn't face that competitive of a race this cycle, and Klobuchar isn't up until 2018 and won with 65% of the vote in 2012).

But that, of course, is not all:

Landrieu said she also will contribute some leftover campaign money to Republicans. “I’m not opposed to helping one or two of my Republican friends that have helped Louisiana — if they ask,’’ Landrieu said. “They haven’t asked yet.’’

She specifically named Rob Portman of Ohio, who is up for re-election next year, and Susan Collins of Maine, who is up in 2020.

Other recipients may include lawmakers who have pushed issues Landrieu has championed, including legislation to lift the cap on shared revenue under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA). Under the 2006 act, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and certain counties in those states receive 37.5 percent of revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling.

So, yes, my friends, if you donated to Mary Landrieu's campaign last year, your money may end up going toward helping Republicans keep the Senate.