Which 37 Democrats Voted to Further Bloat Military Spending? by Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees

Yesterday, the House voted on the conference report for the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.

The US has the largest military budget in the world. It is larger than those of the next nine countries combined.

The Pentagon is also notoriously wasteful and has consistently avoided a federal audit.

There are roughly 800 US military bases in foreign countries despite the fact that the US faces no existential threats.

But, to Congress, the military always needs more money.

Congressional Republicans, who have no problem with sequestration cuts on social programs, hate sequestration cuts on the Pentagon. So, as a trick to get around them, they put $89.2 billion in the unaccountable slush fund called Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). This is on top of the already bloated base budget of $515 billion.

The FY16 NDAA, of course, also imposes more unnecessary restrictions on releasing/transferring prisoners out of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, further entrenching a moral and constitutional abomination that undermines US security abroad.

The House Democratic leadership urged members to vote no, mainly out of opposition to the OCO gimmick. The president has issued a veto threat although, as always, he has absolutely no intention of carrying through with it.

The final vote was 270 to 156.

233 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted for it. 146 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted against it.

Here are the 37 Democrats:

Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Tulis Gabbard (HI-02)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Mark Takai (HI-01)
Tim Walz (MN-01)

This number is slightly down from the NDAA vote taken in May, when 41 Democrats joined the GOP.

6 Democrats who voted for the NDAA in May voted against it today:

Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Joe Larson (CT-01)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)

Two Democrats--Sanford Bishop (GA-02) and John Garamendi (CA-03)--flipped their votes in favor.

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted against the NDAA today:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Jimmy Duncan (TN-02)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Tim Huelskamp
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Raul Labrador (ID-01)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Mark Sanford (SC-01)

This is a slight increase from the 8 who voted against it in May. Huelskamp and Rohrabacher flipped their votes in favor, Curt Clawson (FL-19) flipped his votes against, and Mick Mulvaney--who was not in attendance for the May vote--joined the NO camp.

Which 10 War-Mongering Dems Joined the GOP for a Show Vote against the Iran Deal?

Not happy with their previous inability to defeat the Iran Deal, Congressional Republicans tried again today with the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act.

This bill would prevent President Obama from lifting any sanctions on Iran until it pays court-ordered damages to American terror victims. In other words, Congressional Republicans are trying to impose new terms on the deal with the obvious goal of killing it.

The White House has already expressed its intent to veto the bill:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3457, which would prevent the United States from implementing its sanctions relief commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany), the European Union (EU), and Iran by tying the Administration’s ability to fulfill U.S. commitments to non-nuclear issues that are outside the scope of the JCPOA. Obstructing implementation of the JCPOA would greatly undermine our national security interests. It would result in the collapse of a comprehensive diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and in turn would allow for the resumption of a significantly less constrained Iranian nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to America’s credibility as a leader of international diplomacy. This would have ripple effects, jeopardizing both the hard work of sustaining a unified coalition to combat Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region and America’s ability to lead the world on nuclear non-proliferation.

By prohibiting actions to provide relief from nuclear-related sanctions on Iran even if Iran meets all of its JCPOA commitments – significantly rolling back and constraining its nuclear program under an unprecedented verification and monitoring regime – H.R. 3457 effectively seeks to renegotiate the commitments reached by all of the P5+1, the EU, and Iran, and endorsed by the UN Security Council. The Administration has consistently made clear that the purpose of the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the JCPOA, was to address one issue only – the international community’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program and the need to verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This is the approach with which the United States was able to garner international support for our sanctions and achieve a diplomatic resolution.

The Administration supports efforts by U.S. terrorism victims to pursue compensation, consistent with our national security, and the JCPOA does nothing to impede those efforts. The Administration continues to work to explore all possible avenues for compensation, but will not do so in a manner that would connect this issue to the JCPOA, thereby jeopardizing its implementation and Iran’s fulfillment of the critical nuclear steps required under the JCPOA.

The bill passed 251 to 173. 

10 Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Brendan Boyle (PA-13)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Sean Maloney (PA-18)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

As you can see, not all of the Democrats who voted against the Iran Deal itself joined their Republican colleagues today. That is because some of them knew it was a meaningless show vote:

But Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Iran doesn’t have access to enough funds to pay the damages because of U.S. sanctions currently in place.

“So where would Iran get the money to pay the American claims? The bill says, Iran pay the claims, but you can’t have any of the funds to pay them. So it’s a Catch-22,” Engel said.

Engel, who was among the Democrats that opposed the Iran deal, dismissed the measure as a show vote.

“Let’s be honest. This bill is not really about helping these victims. It’s about exploiting their plight and their tragedy to make a political splash,” Engel said.

55 House Dems Call for Peace Talks to Resolve Syrian Conflict

On Tuesday, Rep. Jim Himes (CT-04) led 54 of his colleagues in sending a letter to the president calling for international negotiations to bring an end to the conflict in Syria. The letter also underscores the connection between resolving the conflict in Syria and addressing the growing refugee crisis.
Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Mr. President:

We write with urgency to request that you use the full authority of your office to convene international negotiations designed to stop the civil war in Syria, stabilize the country, effect the return to Syria of all refugees, provide for political change towards a popularly supported, accountable Syrian leadership, and develop a cohesive, international strategy for the defeat of ISIL.

The Syrian civil war has now dragged on for four long and bloody years, resulting in the deaths of more than 300,000 people, creating more than 4 million refugees, and displacing more than 6.5 million people within the country. The refugee crisis has been an immense and potentially destabilizing challenge to fragile regimes in the Middle East and is now affecting Europe and the United States.

Sadly, it appears that none of the efforts the U.S. and Europe have made so far in Syria have produced the desired results: a transition away from the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, and the return of peace and stability. In fact, with the introduction of Russian military equipment and personnel, and with increasing Western military efforts directed at both ISIL and Assad-regime forces, there is every possibility that violence will escalate. This would continue the devastation of the Syrian populace, worsen the refugee crisis, and risk an increasing probability of expanded military conflict in the region. For these reasons, it is time to devote ourselves to a negotiated peace, and work with allies, including surrounding Arab states that have a vested interest in the security and stability of the region, moving forward with both a peace plan and a coordinated assault against ISIL.

There is no guarantee that such negotiations would succeed; Russia and Iran, necessary parties to the process, are devoting substantial resources to preserving the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad. Furthermore, at any given time there will be lengthy debate regarding the state of the dynamic situation on the ground among the many factions operating in Syria and their various international supporters. But, all parties to our proposed negotiations have certain long-term, common interests in the neutralization of ISIL and other violent extremists in the region, and in stopping the carnage and increasingly unmanageable refugee crisis.

We urge you to take quick action on this matter. The situation worsens day to day and shows no sign of improving. Convening international negotiations to end the Syria conflict would be in the best interests of US and global security, and is also, more importantly, a moral imperative.

Here are the 54 other signers:

Don Beyer (VA-08)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
Katherine Clark (MA-05)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11)
Debbie Dingell (MI-12)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Al Green (TX-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
John Larson (CT-01)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Seth Moulton (MA-06)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)

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