Will The House Dems Let Us Down... On Climate Change?

On Friday at dawn, Politico published an interview with Kathy Castor chair of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis behind a paywall. Is she going to be a force for good or another foot-dragging corporatist who inadvertently helps destroy humanity? I know what she thinks (and what Pelosi thinks and what the corpus of the establishment Democratic Party thinks, but... are they doing enough... will they? Or is the Select Committee a sop to all those noisy, idealistic freshmen whose energy needs to be channeled away from congressional power centers? We don't know yet... but I'm very pessimistic. Will Castor and the party leaders try luring Climate Change activists among the freshmen onto this debating society to drain their energy?

Pelosi's first bill, HR 1, is an ethics bill, but not one strong enough to offend the corrupt slimebags-- think Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, one of Congress' most corrupt members-- in her caucus. And she's promised Pramila Jayapal for hearings on Medicare for All. That's good... a start. Will the Democrats be able to deliver? No.

With Democrats ascendant in the House, they’re poised to make climate change a front-burner issue-- and Castor in many ways will help shape the party’s agenda. While the panel she’s leading doesn’t have the ability to pass legislation, she views its role as holding other committees accountable and pressing them to go further and faster.

Castor said she wants to ensure the amped up freshman class is represented on the committee, has already spoken with Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) about ways to work together and plans to hold field hearings to highlight localized impacts from climate change.

There's obviously been a lot said about what others would like the committee to be. What is your vision for what the select committee will accomplish?

I would like to have a blend of experience and new freshman members. Their transformative energy [that] they’re bringing to the Congress, it must be reflected on the climate crisis select committee.

How quickly are you looking to fill those lawmaker slots and where will you be drawing your staff from?

We're accepting some resumes, but I'm looking for scientists. I’m looking for folks who understand public policy. Maybe some people who have experience with the precursor to the New Green Deal, back when we did the Recovery Act and we did [the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009], because within those there are kind of the fundamental building blocks for what we have to do for drastic reductions in carbon pollution.

What do you make of the basic outlines of the Green New Deal and what do you say to progressives disappointed with how the committee is structured in the end?

They shouldn't be. This is a select committee on the climate crisis that is the spirit of the New Green Deal. When you look at the New Green Deal, they’re terrific general proposals and language. Our job now is to take that and put it into action: through law, through appropriations. The mechanics of that will be very labor intensive.

You said who should come onto this committee? It will be people who are ready to work very diligently. We simply don’t have time to delay.

What's the select committee's role in policy formation?

We're going to be a focal point for pressing for action. I know it’s been criticized we don't have legislative authority. I would have liked to have had legislative authority-- I asked the leadership for subpoena power and legislative authority. But in our discussions now, we will be the focal point for pressing all the committees to act.

For example, the Energy and Commerce Committee: They have such a huge portfolio-- I know, I’m on there. We’re going to be a group of members who are pressing them to have hearings and markups that need to put the carbon reduction policies into action, into law.

And what might that dynamic look like?

Particularly on the subpoena power part. [Now-Sen] Ed Markey, the previous select committee chair, they only used the subpoena power once. We’re going to work very closely with the standing committees if we ever need to subpoena anything. I’m not sure yet [if we will].

It's very apparent the damage that the Trump administration is doing. There’s no secret to that. But this committee is going to be one that is going to press right away for [strengthened] fuel economy standards to challenge the Trump administration. I would foresee us passing a bill on that fairly early on in the Congress, so you have to work with E&C on that. Appropriations will be very important. Back to the Recovery Act-- remember the investments we put in for ARPA-E and for energy efficiency grants back to local communities.

I also want to committee to highlight the good work that’s being done in ... cities and towns all around the country. Since we know the Trump administration and the GOP Senate are going [to be] kind of a roadblock to very dramatic action, we want to highlight what’s being done in Republican communities and Democratic communities across the country where they are reducing carbon dramatically.

Obviously the Democratic caucus is pretty diverse. There are some members who come from more fossil fuel producing states. How do you make sure you don’t leave anybody behind in the conversation?

You know, that's one thing I appreciate about the general framework of the Green New Deal is the emphasis on making sure vulnerable communities are not saddled with the cost of the changing climate and the cost of action. We’re going to probably go to some communities that are not traditional-- they’re not going to be Democratic bastions. There’s a huge impact in agricultural communities around the country. We’ve got to tell that story.

What are you hoping from your Republican colleagues, or the type of Republican that gets added to the committee?

Folks who are ready to work, who are ready to roll up their sleeves. I’m very hopeful that-- that’s one of the reasons we will go to those districts and those communities because nothing moves a member of Congress more than their local community pressing them for action. And I hope that we can build some bridges with our Republican colleagues in the Senate and maybe even in the White House. But that’s no easy task. That’s why we gave the American people-- we need folks who understand we have a moral obligation to our kids and future generations to press them as well.

What is your stance on climate and what makes you passionate about this issue? What made you step up and take this committee on?

Coming from the Tampa Bay area in Florida, I feel like my state has been in the bull's-eye of extreme weather events, of massive cost increases because the climate is changing, of higher air conditioning bills, higher property insurance bills, more of our property taxes are being diverted to infrastructure investments in adaptation, flood insurance. Think about the massive, multi-billion dollar bills we have passed here in the Congress after a hurricane, wildfire or flood. I have young daughters-- it’s one of the reasons I came to Congress, to fight for a clean and healthy environment. And now what we have on our doorstep is so much more significant than when I started in public service as an environmental attorney for the state of Florida right out of law school. It is defense of our country, the way of life as we know it.

How much do you envision the committee will take on the companies behind fossil fuel production and greenhouse gas emissions?

Head on. Head on. And you know, we want to highlight the businesses that are eliminating carbon, the businesses that understand that maybe a little energy efficiency here is good. But we’ve got to press them to do so much more. We’re going to highlight the good actors and we are going to shine a very bright light on the polluters, the ones that are emitting the largest amount of greenhouse gases and press for a clean energy economy. And it’s a tall order but I think the American people are behind it and we simply don’t have time to wait.

How do you do that in a way that sounds positive, that can maintain a big tent Democratic Party?

Sitting on the floor during the swearing-in was pretty remarkable-- looking at all the kids from the most diverse racially and gender, religious Congress here. And there’s kind of an unspoken understanding among all of the members in the Democratic caucus especially and some of the Republicans that we simply cannot wait any longer.

The Congress has been so out of touch with the type of action that we need. And now we have this transformative freshman class that’s going to push us to take action and we simply have got to defend our way of life and not go backwards. It’s so frustrating. And I think that’s the message the American people sent. They watched the Trump administration go backwards, they watched a president who says, “Oh, I don’t know about climate, it may change back.” I mean, the people know that’s just ignorance.

Bribe? Campaign Contribution? What's The Difference? And Who Defines The Difference?

Pelosi is going to establish another select Committee on Climate Change and appoint Tampa Democrat Kathy Castor as chair instead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As I've mentioned, Castor is relatively (even very) scrupulous about not taking money from industries she takes part in writing legislation for unlike most of her colleagues. Virtually all Republicans, New Dems and Blue Dogs seek out assignments on the "honey pot committees" (Financial Services, Way and Means, Energy and Commerce, Agriculture... specifically so that they can use the position to sell their votes to the industries they impact. Castor has avoided that. A senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on Health, she has avoided the big bribes her colleagues have gobbled up. Subcommittee on Health members who have taken massive bribes from, for example, PhRMA:

• (Former Energy and Commerce Committee Chair) Fred Upton (R-MI)- $930,040
• Subcommittee Chair Greg Walden (R-OR)- $883,542
• Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $840,700
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $826,700
• Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $686,100
• Michael Burgess (R-TX)- $683,392
• Leonard Lance (R-NJ)- $574,000
• Subcommittee Vice Chair Brett Guthrie (R-NJ)- $480,550
• Diana DeGette (D-CO)- $455,659
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)- $440,917
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $431,000
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- $432,678
• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $408,500
• GK Butterfield (D-NC)- $346,985
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- $311,500
• Subcommittee Ranking Member Gene Green (D-TX)- $293,565
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- $271,250
• Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)- $269,178

Compare that to subcommittee member Kathy Castor- $15,000, which is not from corporate PACs or anything but, in all likelihood, from individuals she happens to know, say a couple of doctors or nurses or a pharmacist, who are "in the healthcare industry."

The Energy and Commerce is such a lucrative place for the criminally-minded congress members because of the scope of industries it oversees. Imagine the portfolio of regular bribes you can get from:

• health care, including mental health and substance abuse
• health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid
• biomedical research and development
• food, drug, device and cosmetic safety
• environmental protection
• clean air and climate change
• safe drinking water
• toxic chemicals and hazardous waste
• national energy policy
• renewable energy and conservation
• nuclear facilities
• electronic communications and the internet
• broadcast and cable television
• privacy, cybersecurity and data security
• consumer protection and product safety
• motor vehicle safety
• travel, tourism and sports
• interstate and foreign commerce

And Committee Chair, Frank Pallone, the person who is screwing up the chances for America getting a Green New Deal, makes the most of it and has no intention of giving up an inch of that turf. This crook has taken more bribes from the healthcare industry-- and remember he's only the ranking member, not even chair yet-- than any other member of Congress ion history-- $6,067,900. He should be in prison. These are the other sectors he deals with that he's taken beaucoup d'argent from: Labor- $2,891,845; Finance- $2,179,885; Communications/Electronics- $1,536,862; Energy and Natural Resources- $862,516. And Castor-- who's about be chair of the Climate Change Committee? Just $2,951 (from Oil and Gas). That's not from "The Industry."

Anyway, my point is that she hasn't been a typical bribe-taking monster like almost everyone on the Energy and Commerce Committee. On Christmas Eve, Alex Kotch, writing for Sludge, reported that Castor told him she will reject campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry to “build confidence in her leadership", which sounds like more than what any of the other non-freshman contenders would have done.

Many members of Congress have built up defenses about the obvious bribery they take and one thing they virtually all say is that it would be unconstitutional to force committee members to not accept "campaign donations" (which is how members of Congress refresh's to bribes) from the industries they are regulating (or, more likely in recent years, freeing from regulation). Kotch reported that Castor "will not require committee members to reject donations from fossil fuel interests" but that she won't accept any herself. Kotch wrote that her "spokesperson Steven Angotti told Sludge on Friday that the representative 'will not accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry, to help build confidence in her leadership of the Select Committee.' It’s unclear whether she’ll reject contributions from executives or employees in the industry; Angotti did not immediately reply to Sludge’s follow-up about this question."

Over her six terms in the House, Castor has received a relatively small number of donations from energy industry PACs and individuals who work in the industry, totaling $34,750, according to a MapLight analysis. Most of these donations are $1,000 and over, and many came from Pacific Gas and Electric, Progress Energy, and Florida-based Teco Energy. The Center for Responsive Politics has Castor’s total donations from energy and natural resources interests at roughly $73,000, with $60,000 coming from PACs and the rest from individuals.

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who leads the Green New Deal initiative, tweeted that “loading a climate committee w/ fossil fuel [money] is akin to letting foxes in the henhouse.”

Despite planning not to restrict committee members’ campaign finance, Castor told Sludge that members “should be ready to stand up to corporate special interests and fight to reduce carbon pollution.”

“[Rep. Castor] strongly supports transparency and accountability for members of Congress,” wrote Castor spokesperson Angotti. She “will not accept contributions from the fossil fuel industry, to help build confidence in her leadership of the Select Committee. Members who serve on the committee should be ready to stand up to corporate special interests and fight to reduce carbon pollution. She cannot speak for Republicans who may serve on the committee…Also, the first bill Democrats intend to bring to the floor in the new Congress is legislation that will address corporate money and dark money.” [Note: the bill very conspicuously does not address members of committees taking bribes from the industries they work with. That would never pass the House or even just Democrats in the House.]

Forty-three House members have signed on to the Green New Deal plan, which would establish a new select committee that would be tasked with writing a Green New Deal proposal by 2020 that would make the United States greenhouse gas emissions-neutral by 2030.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who backs the Green New Deal and does not accept campaign donations from fossil fuel PACs or lobbyists, told Sludge:

“It’s in the interest of Ranking Member Pallone and Energy and Commerce Democrats to support a strong select committee. Climate change is the issue of our generation, and we need a solution on the scale of the new deal. House Democrats should demonstrate to the American people that we have the courage to take on the whole problem with a bold committee.”

Khanna claimed on Twitter that Pallone, who opposes a Green New Deal committee and has accepted big sums from the oil and gas industry, is holding up an unrelated, Khanna-sponsored rural broadband bill because Khanna is “supporting a Green New Deal and encroaching on his turf.”

...While dozens of House members were willing to commit to reject fossil fuel PAC money, some own stock in oil, gas, or coal companies. Few of these members have acknowledged that such investments may pose a conflict of interest for those who sit on energy and climate committees, which review and write legislation that directly impacts the fossil fuel industry.

For example, as Sludge recently reported, Rep. Joe Kennedy, who backs the Green New Deal, owns between $963,000 and $2,195,000 worth of stock in companies in the oil and gas industry such as Chevron, Exxon, and NextEra Energy, mostly through inherited family trusts. Kennedy’s press secretary told Sludge that “Kennedy’s family investments play no role in his decision-making in Congress.”

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and his wife own as much as $415,000 in stocks and bonds from oil and gas companies.

Khanna’s spouse is also heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, as well as many other industries. Khanna told E&E News in September that he didn’t believe members of Congress need to divest from fossil fuels. “I think divestment is going perhaps much further than just not taking PAC money or corporate money,” he said.

Khanna’s spokesperson told Sludge that the California representative “believes that [members of committees that oversee a particular industry] should not accept any contributions from that industry, and should disclose any personal investments or family investments.”

Members of Congress are required to disclose the investments that they and their spouses own once per year and periodically after stock trades.

Castor stopped short of criticizing these kinds of investments. Angotti said, “Rep. Castor believes we need greater oversight and transparency in this area and is hopeful Democratic ethics reforms can tighten the rules on this.”

Earlier Kotch had reported that Beto "has been removed from a pledge he signed to reject large donations from fossil fuel PACs and executives, following a recent Sludge investigation of federal campaign finance records. Sludge reported on Dec. 10 that the congressman had accepted dozens of contributions of over $200 from oil and gas executives and had not reported refunding them. Oil Change USA, which led a coalition of environmental and democracy organizations to create the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, attempted to reach O’Rourke’s campaign and congressional office but did not hear back. Nor did Sludge. David Turnbull, strategic communications director at Oil Change USA, told Sludge on Tuesday that the group had just removed O’Rourke’s name from the list of signers."