Congress' Worst Climate Change Denier (R-TX) Is Riding Off Into The Sunset

A couple days ago, we noted that one of Ryan's top lieutenants in Texas, House Financial Services Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling is abandoning the sinking ship. Hensarling announced he's had enough. Unfortunately, Hensarling is in a pretty bullet-proof, gerrymandered district stretching from increasingly blue Dallas County into half a dozen blood-red exurban and rural districts to the east (PVI is R+16). Yesterday, however, Ryan lost another of his Texas committee chairs, crackpot Lamar Smith, who would have probably lost reelection in a district zigging and zagging from Austin to San Antonio and west into the Texas Hill Country. In 2015 TX-21 had a PVI of R+12. This year it's gone down to R+10, a reasonable target in a tsunami election like the one Trump is bringing on.

Many in Congress were overjoyed to find out that the nation's most harmful climate change denier is getting out of politics. According to Abby Livingston at the Texas Tribune "The news is sure to please environmentalists who have bemoaned Smith's long record of climate skepticism. As chairman of the Committee on Science, Space & Technology, Smith repeatedly cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change."

In a 2015 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he described global temperature increases over the past 15 years as “negligible” and said links between climate change and worsening weather events had been debunked. During the latter half of that year, he sparred with the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over the methodology of a study that agency scientists published in the journal Science. (The study found that a widely publicized “lull” in the rate of global warming, a cornerstone of conservative arguments against climate change-related policies, resulted from faulty statistical methods.)

And the congressman also actively intervened on behalf of ExxonMobil amid high-profile investigations by Democratic state attorneys general into what the oil giant knew about climate change and when. He convened a congressional hearing on the matter and demanded documents from the attorneys general that would reveal the inner workings of their investigations.

...Speculation immediately began among Texas GOP insiders about who could succeed Smith in his seat. Names included state Reps. Jason Isaac and Lyle Larson, and Austin City Councilwoman Ellen Troxclair.

State Sen. Donna Campbell's name was also put in play. A spokesman for Campbell said she "will carefully and prayerfully consider what is best for her and the district."

Austin-based communications consultant Jenifer Sarver, a Republican, confirmed that she's "taking a serious look" at running for the seat.

You can probably guess what Science Magazine had to say about Smith's decision. Spoiler: they were not in mourning. "The controversial chairperson of the science committee in the U.S. House of Representatives announced today that he will not seek re-election to Congress next fall. The pending departure of Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX) could give the U.S. scientific community a chance to recalibrate a rocky 5-year relationship with a key congressional committee... [H]is departure could be more than simply a changing of the Republican guard. Smith, trained as a lawyer, has fought acrimonious battles with scientists over peer review, climate change, and the role of the federal government in supporting basic research since becoming chairperson in January 2013. He has clashed repeatedly with senior officials at the National Science Foundation, which he has accused of wasting tax dollars on frivolous research, and at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which he believes has hampered economic development through overregulation... The Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been one of Smith’s leading critics over the years, says his departure 'offers Congress and the science community a chance for a fresh start.' The science committee “became a venue for partisan conflict and political interference in science” during his tenure, says Andrew Rosenberg, who heads the union’s center for science and democracy in Cambridge, Massachusetts."

This sets up the race exactly how the progressive in the primary, Derrick Crowe, would want for the rest of the election. It creates one long general election where TX-21 Democrats get to pick the kind of candidate they want to send to Washington instead of having people in pundit mode. Crowe can talk about getting Democratic and independent voters excited about true progressive values and not have them handicapping a horse race the whole time. He has to see this as a really thrilling development. On his website yesterday, he wrote that "This is how wave elections happen. Lamar Smith’s retirement is incredible news for everyone fighting for real action on climate change. It’s also a strong sign we are on our way to retaking Congress. Smith's retirement is a sign we’re winning the fight retake our government from the alt-right. He obviously saw the power of the grassroots uprising against him and opted to leave before suffering a loss in the general election. Today's news solidifies the dynamics already at play in the midterms, which are about motivating your base. We are proud to be the progressive torchbearer in this race and look forward to retaking this seat from special interests."

It Could Change With Time, But Trump's Worst Appointment So Far Is Scott Pruitt

A lot of Republicans, when they work up the nerve to criticize Señor Trumpanzee, try to couch the criticism in a paean to the greatness of his judiciary and cabinet picks. First of all, he doesn't care how criticism is couched; he'll be looking for an opportunity at revenge sooner or later-- and it won't be pretty-- and, second, his personnel selections are among his worst and most existentially risky decisions, not his saving grace. Remember this? It's clear to anyone who isn't a deranged Republican that Trump can always be counted on to hire the worst people, as we saw last week when we looked at his horrendous appellate court selections. But, as horrible as Betsy DeVos has been and as putrid as John Kelly has turned out to be, I'm still convinced that Trump's very worst appointment was Scott Pruitt, the EPA Administrator. In fact, Pruitt-- who just hired more bodyguards so that his goon squad is now 30-- may well be the worst presidential appointment in contemporary history... but just for the country.

Yesterday, the NY Times editors, who have bashed Pruitt mercilessly, ran a column of letters by readers under the title The E.P.A. vs the Environment... just to allow some other voices on the matter. Leila Hadj-Chikh of Baltimore wrote that "History may be written by the victors, but thankfully science is not so subjective. However hard Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, tries to censor his own scientists, he cannot alter the laws of physics. Nor can he magic away climate change by removing it from his agency’s website. Nevertheless, it’s clear we can no longer expect the E.P.A. to provide rational answers to our climate problem. The task now falls to Congress, and the logical solution is to ensure that fossil fuel prices accurately reflect their cost to society. By placing a fee on carbon pollution and returning the revenue to households, we can recoup the economic damages of climate change while weaning ourselves off the fossil fuels that drive it. In passing such legislation, Congress would be on the right side of history, as well as science." Barry Lurie from Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, is no fan of Pruitt either. "With all of the turmoil in the Trump administration," he wrote, "it is easy to overlook how efficient and effective Scott Pruitt has been at dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency. Industry insiders are shaping policy. Coal is back as a primary energy source. The proposed budget for the E.P.A. would mark a 40-year low, adjusted for inflation. The objective seems to be returning to the environment of my youth. Polluted streams and rivers where nothing could live, lakes so polluted that they caught fire, air thick with smog, acid rain, toxic waste dumps and carcinogenic building materials. If you think Mr. Pruitt is on the right track, please write and tell him so. However, if you have a different vision of the world for your children and grandchildren, please at least tell your members of Congress. And don’t wait too long."

Back in April, Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin, writing for the Washington Post, reported that Trump's EPA was moving to dismantle programs that protect kids from lead paint. Pruitt-- and Trump and the GOP-- immediately looked to roll back 2 programs aimed at reducing lead risks by cutting $16.61 million and more than 70 employees. "Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and particularly harmful to children and the elderly. Its dangers in gasoline, paint and drinking water have been scientifically documented over many decades, which has led to stronger regulatory protections. In a 2014 report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 243,000 children had blood lead levels above the danger threshold-- and that permanent neurological damage and behavior disorders had been associated at even lower levels of lead exposure."

And a few months later it was Lisa Friedman and Brad Plummer at the Times writing about Pruitt's-- and presumably Trump's-- decision to repeal Obama’s signature policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Describing the Obama-era regulation as the “so-called Clean Power Plan,” the E.P.A. statement said that repealing the measure “will also facilitate the development of U.S. energy resources and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with the development of those resources.”

The repeal proposal, which will be filed in the Federal Register on Tuesday, fulfills a promise President Trump made to eradicate his predecessor’s environmental legacy. Eliminating the Clean Power Plan makes it less likely that the United States can fulfill its promise as part of the Paris climate agreement to ratchet down emissions that are warming the planet and contributing to heat waves and sea-level rise. Mr. Trump has vowed to abandon that international accord.

It also is a personal triumph for Mr. Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general helped lead more than two dozen states in challenging the rule in the courts. In announcing the repeal, Mr. Pruitt made many of the same arguments that he had made for years to Congress and in lawsuits: that the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. (Last year, the Supreme Court blocked the rule from taking effect while courts assessed those lawsuits.) A leaked draft of the repeal proposal asserts that the country would save $33 billion by not complying with the regulation and rejects the health benefits the Obama administration had calculated from the original rule.

Coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants are responsible for about one-third of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. When the Clean Power Plan was unveiled in 2015, it was expected to cut power sector emissions 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005. While many states are already shifting away from coal power for economic reasons, experts say scrapping the rule could slow that transition.

Environmental groups and several states plan to challenge the repeal proposal in federal courts, arguing against Mr. Pruitt’s move on both scientific and economic grounds.

Yesterday, Newsweek's Joseph Frankel reported on why Pruitt and the EPA have been accused of scientific censorship. He wrote that "the LinkedIn profile of Scott Pruitt, the current director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), continues to describe him as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda." Pruitt's latest shenanigan was to bare 3 EPA scientists from speaking at a conference on climate change at the Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island.

The Narragansett Bay is the biggest estuary in New England. It is also the site of a three-year environmental research program, the results of which are being presented at this conference.

...The program has received grant funding from the EPA, and EPA scientists-- including ecologist Autumn Oczkowski, the originally intended keynote speaker-- participated in that program’s research.

“Narragansett Bay is one of Rhode Island’s most important economic assets, and the EPA won’t let its scientists talk with local leaders to plan for its future. Whatever you think about climate change, this kind of collaboration should be a no-brainer,” the Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told the Washington Post.

“It’s definitely a blatant example of the scientific censorship we all suspected was going to start being enforced at EPA,” John King, an oceanographer who works on the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, told New York Magazine. “They don’t believe in climate change, so I think what they’re trying to do is stifle discussions of the impacts of climate change.”

Derrick Crowe is running for the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat occupied with the Climate Change denying chair of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith. Earlier this morning, Derrick told us that "Smith's total silence over Scott Pruitt's appointment and behavior shows his blatant hypocrisy. Smith has harangued the EPA under Obama for supposed secrecy when crafting regulations and undertaking science, but has said not a thing as Pruitt wastes taxpayer dollars literally installing soundproof rooms to work in as he dismantles environmental protections. Pruitt is a dangerous authoritarian crank propped up by other dangerous authoritarian cranks."

Paul Clements is running for Congress in southwest Michigan, in a district where Fred Upton,widely considered the more dangerous enemy of the planet earth, has his lair. Paul told us that "Pruitt is Trump’s worst appointment because he is doing the most harm. It challenges the imagination-- as we move from 1 degree of warming today to 2 degrees around mid-century, and the devastation of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and forest fires in northern California becomes routine-- as we move from 60 million refugees and internally displaced people to maybe 200 million-- as fish stocks plummet coral reefs die from ocean acidification-- the human consequences are hard to fathom. But Pruitt blocking EPA leadership in the fight against climate change, weakening the institution, supporting and encouraging carbon polluters: the effect is more carbon in the atmosphere probably for a thousand years. Well, before there was Pruitt (in the federal government) there was Upton. In 2010 when Upton became chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee he morphed into a climate science denier and became the most powerful opponent to President Obama’s climate action programs in the House. The LA Times called Upton Congress’ #1 enemy of planet earth, and indeed, if he had used his authority to work with the President and combat global warming, today America could have much more sustainable energy and the world could be way ahead of the Paris agreement. I have been a climate change activist and scholar for decades, and it was Upton’s climate science denial that sparked my interest in running against him in 2012. Clean energy and climate leadership were important planks for my campaigns in 2014 and 2016, as they are in my current race, and I have remained a leader in local climate activism. One of my classes wrote the Kalamazoo Climate Action Plan with our Kalamazoo city planner. Since Pruitt, Trump and Upton have set us back so far, Congress more than ever needs the kind of leadership I can bring."

You Don't Still Have Kaspersky Software On Your Computer, Do You?

I'm an Apple guy. But, I swear, every time I get an automatic update notice I think about 1984 and Ed Snowden and wonder how easy it is for Big Brother to read everything on my computers. That said, you'd have to be out of your mind to have any Kaspersky software on your computer. Right? Staples seems to think so. This week they decided to pull Kaspersky software off their shelves. You can still buy their stuff on Amazon but Best Buy, Office Max and Office Depot also stopped selling it. The U.S. government has instructed all government agencies to find alternatives to Kaspersky software, something they probably should have done many years ago.

Israeli intelligence caught Moscow using Kaspersky software to spy worldwide. Whowould have imagined anything else from them? (And yes, I assume the U.S. does the same thing with American software companies.)

The Israeli officials who had hacked into Kaspersky’s own network alerted the United States to the broad Russian intrusion, which has not been previously reported, leading to a decision just last month to order Kaspersky software removed from government computers.

The Russian operation, described by multiple people who have been briefed on the matter, is known to have stolen classified documents from a National Security Agency employee who had improperly stored them on his home computer, on which Kaspersky’s antivirus software was installed. What additional American secrets the Russian hackers may have gleaned from multiple agencies, by turning the Kaspersky software into a sort of Google search for sensitive information, is not yet publicly known.

...The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Russian hackers had stolen classified N.S.A. materials from a contractor using the Kaspersky software on his home computer. But the role of Israeli intelligence in uncovering that breach and the Russian hackers’ use of Kaspersky software in the broader search for American secrets have not previously been disclosed.

Consumer Reports decided to look at what all this means to consumers. "Kaspersky security software affects millions of computer users around the world," they reported, "according to the company’s marketing materials. Even though consumers apparently weren’t the main targets, it seems that many home computers may have been searched for information of potential interest to Russian spy agencies."

It’s not clear whether Kaspersky software poses a threat to consumers’ computers, but security experts, including those who used to work for the U.S. government, say there is reason for concern.

“It’s a big deal,” says Blake Darché, a former NSA cybersecurity analyst and the founder of the cybersecurity firm Area 1. “For any consumers or small businesses that are concerned about privacy or have sensitive information, I wouldn’t recommend running Kaspersky.”

By its very nature antivirus software is an appealing tool for hackers who want to access remote computers, security experts say. Such software is designed to scan a computer comprehensively as it searches for malware, then send regular reports back to a company server.

“One of the things people don’t realize, by installing that tool you give [the software manufacturer] the right to pull any information that might be interesting,” says Chris O’Rourke, another former NSA cybersecurity expert who is the CEO of cybersecurity firm Soteria. “As a consumer you have to think ‘What am I giving away when I sign up and use this software?’”

Consumer Reports included Kaspersky Internet Security 2017 in its testing of antimalware packages, and the product did well in such tasks as blocking access to phishing sites and protecting PCs from malware loaded on devices plugged into USB ports. We have not independently tested the software for its vulnerability to this kind of attack. Consequently, we have not changed its recommended status in our ratings. However, we will continue to monitor this developing story.

Consumer Reports is currently devoting more resources to security testing and is working with outside partners to develop better standards for digital products.

Consumers who use Kaspersky products now but would like to make a change have a number of options. Consumer Reports recommends security packages from several companies, including AVG, Avira, G Data, and Symantec.

In the past, it could be difficult to uninstall antimalware software, but that’s no longer true, according to Consumer Reports tester Rich Fisco. “You run the uninstaller, wait for it to say that it’s done, and then reboot your computer.” Fisco notes that Windows Defender Antivirus, which is built into Windows 10, is a different story: “You can disable it, but you can’t uninstall it.”

Some laptops come preloaded with Kaspersky antivirus software. With these machines you uninstall the software the same way. However, O'Rourke says, if you ever reinstall the operating system from a disk or USB recovery drive, it’s likely that the Kaspersky software would be reinstalled along with the rest of the operating system.

...Office Max and Office Depot... offered to uninstall Kaspersky software free of charge, regardless of where it was purchased, run a virus scan on the computer, and replace the software with McAfee LiveSafe antivirus software with a year’s license free.

Congress wants answers. Unfortunately, the committee with jurisdiction is the House Science and Technology Committee, headed by anti-science, pro-Putin crackpot Lamar Smith (R-TX) and he will hold Kaspersky hearings starting October 25. He's already blaming Obama. Smith: "The Committee’s future hearings will determine what led the previous administration to include Kaspersky products on the government-approved purchasing schedule, how much risk Kaspersky’s compromised products exposed the federal government to, and how the cybersecurity framework should be adjusted to prevent future intrusions."

Texas Republicans In A Bind Of Their Own Making Over DACA

2 Texans

CBS couldn't contain its excitement about snairing American neo-Nazi plotter Stephen Bannon for 60 Minutes. Reports by people who have watched the show, which airs Sunday, say Bannon explains that Trump's neo-Nazi base-- including himself-- are pissed off about Trump's somewhat confused stand on DACA. (The latest iteration is that Trump will "force" Ryan and McConnell to work with Nancy and Chuck to codify the program within 6 months and that no DREAMers will be deported in the interim. Thursday morning Trump tweeted his guarantee to DREAMers after Pelosi asked him to.)

"Trust me," said Bannon, "the guys on the far right, the guys on the conservative side, are not happy with this." Sad for the Nazi snowflakes! And now Ryan has to solve this mess. Pelosi seemed to be rubbing them snouts in it Thursday morning when she announced that "We made it very clear in the course of the conversation that the priority was to pass the DREAM Act, that we wanted to do it in-- obviously it has to be bipartisan. The president said he would-- he supports that. He would sign it."

70% of Americans do not want to see DREAMers deported. But a significant part of the Trump base wants it and believes they are entitled to it. Late in the week, the Texas Tribune asked-- or attempted to ask-- every member of the Texas congressional delegation what they think about how this is all playing out. There are 120,000 DREAMers in Texas, the seconded biggest number after California. Abby Livingston reported that "Texas Democrats, unsurprisingly, uniformly backed the DACA program, and called for further immigration reform. Some of them also called the DACA announcement an unwelcome distraction from the Hurricane Harvey clean up effort." The GOP reaction was more difficult to explain in any kind of coherent way. All the Republicans start with their party's top-line talking point, namely that Obama's use of an executive order is unconstitutional (which it isn't). Texas 2 conservative senators, Cornyn and Cruz, both say they're happy that Trump has moved the decision-making for DACA back to Congress, although neither bothered to mention that they oppose the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Several House members refused to respond to the question, including endangered Republican in districts that have been trending away from the GOP-- like John Culberson, Pete Olson, Joe Barton and Blake Farenthold. Far right extremist Brian Babin thought he could sleep-walk into reelection in his R+26 East Texas district. But the district was devastated by Hurricane Harvey and former KLOL radio host Dayna Steele is devastating Babin's reputation. She's putting TX-36 on the map and today she said that his refusal to comment just showed once again that Babin is "a spineless Trump boot licker... This is one of the main reasons I decided to run-- he pretty much has no comment on anything. He's like having a VOID for a representative. And he always waits to see what Trump says first and then mimics it."

The likely next congressman for TX-07, Jason Weston, told us that Culberson, or as we call him 'No Comment Culberson,' continues his long standing pattern of avoiding taking a public position on polarizing issues. Earlier this year, he refused to take a position on TrumpCare, even though he later stated he was 'absolutely for it.' Now he is silent on DACA and what he would do with the 800,000 DREAMers, but he voted against the DREAM act in 2010. 'No Comment Culberson,' we see you, and the voters will see you to the door in 2018."

Trump's biggest and most knee-jerk booster among Texas congressmembers is Lamar Smith, who is fighting for his political life in an Austin-San Antonio corridor district that is headed blue. Smith told the Texas Tribune that "Trump delivered on his promise to the American people. He said he would discontinue DACA, which allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to stay in the country and gives them work permits... By ending the unconstitutional DACA program he has overturned the last of the Obama administration’s amnesty agenda and returned to the rule of law... Congress and the administration should strengthen our laws against illegal immigration and ensure that our immigration policies put unemployed Americans first." Yesterday, Smith unveiled legislation that would cut legal immigration levels in half, claiming is prototypical Know Nothing legislation puts American workers first. If it were true-- it isn't-- it would be a first that Lamar Smith has ever given a hoot about any American workers.

His likely 2018 opponent, progressive Democrat, Derrick Crowe, doesn't see it the same way as Smith does, of course. "Lamar Smith apparently revels in being the local face of the politics of racial resentment," he told us this afternoon. "He and Sessions portray their attack on DACA recipients as 'the rule of law,' as if they weren't actively fighting to change the law to enshrine xenophobia and racial division. Smith himself wants to end birthright citizenship so he can deport more people of color. This isn't some sterile, genteel, law-abiding agenda. This is about smashing communities of color and fighting to keep White supremacy supreme in Texas and elsewhere. DACA recipients and DREAMers are where they belong: here, in the United States. I reject the racism and cynicism underlying this attack, and I know Central Texas stand with me on this."

Even some of the most xenophobic Texas congressmembers acknowledged that the DREAMers should not be deported. Ted Poe: "Through no fault of their own, these individuals were brought to the United States where they made their home and contributed to our community. They should be able to earn the right to remain, but only through a legal process that Congress sets forth. Congress must act immediately to resolve this issue." Wall Street whore Jeb Hensarling: "Like the president, I am sympathetic to young children who were relocated to our country through no fault of their own. For some, this is the only home they have ever known. It is imperative to find a proper resolution of their status, maintain the rule of law, and take necessary steps to end rampant illegal immigration." Mac Thornberry: "Congress must step up and pass legislation that will treat these young people fairly and will provide a long-term solution. At the same time, we should act to improve enforcement of our laws so that this situation is not repeated in the future." Bill Flores: "When it comes to the DREAMers, those children and young adults who are here through no fault of their own, I believe Congress should quickly find a solution to ensure they can stay in the United States, which for many is the only home they know."

A couple sounded like they'll oppose any kind of reasonable approach. Far right lunatic and crackpot ideologue Kenny Marchant, for example: "For the last eight years we saw unprecedented overreach by the executive branch. The Obama administration undermined the democratic process by unilaterally creating immigration policy through executive order. Today, President Trump kept his promise to end the DACA program before the courts found it illegal and invalid. I’ll continue working with my colleagues in Congress to secure our borders, enforce and uphold the rule of law, reform our legal immigration system and put American workers first." Even more extreme is sociopath Jodey Arrington: "President Obama took unconstitutional action by unilaterally bypassing existing federal immigration laws with the creation of DACA. My constituents sent me to Washington to stop illegal immigration, secure the border and find lawful solutions to our broken immigration system. I look forward to working with President Trump and my colleagues in Congress to fix the problem created by President Obama.

Another extremist and xenophobe is Michael Burgess: "The Trump administration’s decision to end DACA is a positive step in reforming our immigration system. From the start, DACA was irresponsible policy that incentivized illegal border crossings. It is the role of the Congress, not the executive branch, to consider and pass legislation. President Obama clearly overstepped his role when he enacted DACA as an executive order. There are legal pathways to immigration that create positive results for immigrants, the American people and the economy. DACA was never an appropriate or legal answer for thousands of illegal immigrants. By rescinding DACA, President Trump has acknowledged Congress’ constitutional authority to consider lasting solutions to secure our borders."

No One Has Told The DCCC Yet, But Derrick Crowe Is Ready To Oust Lamar Smith In TX-21

On Monday, Evan Lund penned a post, Climate Denier Congressman Lamar Smith Contends With New Foe: Declining Voter Support, for an environmental website, Earth Island Journal, that should strike a note of fear in the Lamar Smith campaign... if they read environmental websites. They don't. From 1988 to 2002, Smith had never won reelection with less than 72% of the vote. "The secret to his winning ways?" asked Lund.

After receiving the Award for Conservative Excellence, Smith stated, “My votes represent my constituents. I continue to stand for liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and a strong national defense.” Simple as that-- keep your constituents happy, keep your job. Yet, as important as ideology is to attracting voters, campaign contributions are what keep the lights on, and in Texas, donors in the energy business hold sway over anyone seeking public office. True to its big motto, Texas is the nation’s leading energy producer and consumer, responsible for more than one-third of total US oil production and home to one-quarter of proven natural gas reserves. With more operable oil refineries than any other state, the industry generates enormous levels of revenue-- last year, it pumped $9.4 billion into state and local government budgets. For politicians, these industrial goliaths present a choice: either advocate for their interests or scrutinize their means of production. Not that it’s that cut and dry, but what is clear is that Rep. Smith forged his alliance long ago, having received over the course of his career more than $700,000 from the oil and gas industry.

As such, Smith’s enduring interest in dismantling regulations geared toward combating climate change can be interpreted as “bought.” There’s nothing conservative about his skepticism of climate science-- he is an outspoken denier of the causes and dire expected outcomes of anthropogenic climate change, and since being appointed the HCSST chairman, he has made it his mission to investigate federal agencies for what he believes to be rampant environmentalism and unnecessary, harmful regulation. His dismissive attitude doesn’t stop at manmade global warming-- he has openly doubted an EPA review documenting the dangers of glyphosphate, the peer review process itself at the National Science Foundation (NSF), and air pollution regulations informed by public health studies, to name just a few.

With an anti-regulation administration as his tailwind, Chairman Smith and Vice Chairman Frank Lucas recently recycled two pieces of legislation, wrapped them in shiny packaging, and reintroduced both to the House of Representatives as bills advocating for transparency and accountability in science-based policy, while guarding against the scrum of compromised bureaucracy. Both were passed by the House in late March, and await Senate consideration.

The first bill, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act, is part of Smith’s continuing strategy to make the EPA, and science itself, great again. To purportedly promote governmental transparency and maintain the integrity of the scientific review process, the HONEST Act’s payload is prohibiting the agency from “writing any regulation that uses science that is not publicly available.” As the HCSST chairman, Smith already has the outright power to demand supporting documentation of published studies from federal agencies within his purview, a rule amended and expanded this past January. If an agency doesn’t comply, he can issue a subpoena. Since its inception more than 60 years ago, the subcommittee has invoked that power in total fewer times than Smith has in his first three years leading the committee.

Moreover, it’s not as if the EPA, or any federal agency, has closed its door to the public. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) already provides any person the right to access federal agency records, including, for example, the data cited in a study used by the EPA for the purposes of advocating specific policy. However, there are nine exemptions to the FOIA, and this is where the HONEST Act can harm the EPA. For example, the EPA can currently use and cite studies involving personal medical records to develop public health advisories. If signed into law, the HONEST Act wouldn’t necessarily inhibit the EPA from sourcing confidential information-- as long as everything confidential is redacted prior to public availability. Insurmountable? No, but considering the estimated cost of enforcing its stipulations and factoring in President Trump’s proposed budget cuts, the HONEST Act would almost guarantee less regulation and evidence-based policy from the EPA, irrespective of the public need for it.

Note: Only 7 Republicans had the guts to vote against Smith's crazy, dishonest and environmentally devastating bill. It passed 228-194, 3 corrupt Blue Dogs crossing the aisle and voting for planetary destruction: Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX) and Collin Peterson (MN). The second bill, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act, "seeks to upend the types of professionals that comprise the 48-person panel of experts in place to provide independent scientific counsel to the agency." It passed 229-193, with 5 Republicans voting NO but 2 scummy Blue Dogs voting with the GOP, Peterson again, plus Oregon right-wing lunatic Kurt Schrader.

Currently, the majority of the board is academic scientists; if passed, the act will cater to industry representatives from private companies who “may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities.” In brief, the SAB Reform Act would bar any scientist holding an EPA grant from serving due to the potential conflict of interest, as well as prohibit a board member from being awarded one for three years following their service, yet it would allow a scientist from say, Exxon, because that affiliation shouldn’t exclude their membership provided they disclose any conflicts.

Keep in mind that the SAB doesn’t award grants or establish budgets, and if a situation arose, for example, where a chemical studied by an SAB scientist was being investigated by the SAB, that member would already have to recuse themself. Smith maintains that there’s nothing to see here, claiming that reform is necessary to strengthen the public’s trust in the EPA through increased transparency, opportunity for public participation in the review process, and accountability of a well-balanced SAB.

...Meanwhile, the 2018 midterm elections are quickly approaching, and there are signs that Smith’s seat may be in jeopardy. Last year, for the first time in his career, Smith received less than 60 percent of the general vote, and many voters in his district are growing tired of his inaccessibility. And in a break from previous election cycles, in 2016 the editorial board at the San Antonio Express News refused to support Smith’s reelection bid. The board’s public announcement ended with a statement to their readers that they “have no doubt that Smith will be reelected, but in good conscience... cannot make a recommendation in this race.”

Although the DCCC has recruited and is secretly backing another one of their shitty "ex"-Republican multimillionaires pretending to be a Democrat, Joseph Kopser, there is real hope in a real Democrat, Derrick Crowe, who has been endorsed by Blue America. As Lund noted, Crowe is "prioritizing climate change policy as a key pillar of his platform. Albeit politically perilous for some candidates, choosing a side is a smart move because this debate is only getting louder. Public advocacy organizations like TX21 Indivisible and 314 Action represent a grassroots movement opposing Smith and his brand of ideological fervor that flies in the face of scientific evidence their members support... [Smith, an] emboldened politician, who has built his brand on publicly mocking and harassing climate scientists, finds himself in perhaps the most precarious position of his career. Almost a decade after Republican presidential candidate John McCain ran on a platform aligned with the consensus of climate scientists regarding emissions-reductions action, the evidence linking human activity to a warming planet has only grown stronger. A study investigating the economic impact of climate change in America recently published in Science Magazine revealed some disturbing potential outcomes for large swaths of Texas, including a 20 percent increase in energy costs by 2080. For politicians, climate change is becoming less a peripheral topic that can be casually dismissed and more like a voter issue with real-world, near-term implications. In terms of catastrophic outcomes, climate scientists keep telling us that the real question is not if they will occur, but when. For Lamar Smith, it might finally be time to consider the same."

Earlier today, we asked Derrick Crowe about the hypocrisy inherent in Smith's refusal to vote for aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey, but his apparent approval of spending potentially much more money closer to home for the victims of Hurricane Harvey. He pointed out that "Natural disasters and the growing climate emergency require us to pull together as a nation to deal with challenges that one region could never shoulder on their own. That's what we mean by 'one nation, indivisible.' Lamar Smith's grandstanding on his extreme version of conservatism endangers his constituents and Texans generally by undermining people's willingness to support our area when it's our turn to need help. In fact, this whole attitude extends to his larger stance on issues like health care.

"When you add the fact that Smith has consistently opposed real action on climate change, it's clear that Smith's reactionary politics are a liability to the people of this district. Consider that just a few weeks ago, Smith wrote an op-ed where he said global warming and 'carbon enrichment' have great upsides for which we should be thankful. Tell that to the victims of Hurricane Harvey, who had to suffer unprecedented rainfall, of which up to 30 percent could be attributed to human-caused global warming."

It's time-- truthfully, very much past time-- for every American to take a stand on this. We're either going to lead the world out of this severe existential climate mess or we're going to flush all of mankind's future down the toilet by going along with the corrupt, bought-off political hacks like Lamar Smith. Smith already has $814,898 in his war-chest for 2018 and, although Derrick won't have to match that, he will need help to get his message (and his name) known to TX-21 voters. Please re-read what he said above and, if it appeals to your way of thinking on this, consider helping fund his grassroots campaign to flip a red seat blue-- and, in the process, emancipate our brothers and sisters in downtown Austin! Just click on the 2018 Blue America ActBlue thermometer on the right and cruise down to Derrick Crowe's name and give what you can.

Blue America's Newest Endorsed Candidate-- Derrick Crowe (TX-21)

Blue America has been busily vetting new congressional candidates since spring. Sometimes it takes a while since we don't base our endorsements on questionnaires but, rather, on "getting to know" the candidates and what they stand for and what their capabilities are. We've certainly gotten to know Derrick Crowe, our newest endorsee-- a progressive Texas Democrat who is running a campaign based on what he wants to do to represent the interests of TX-21 working families in Congress. The district stretches from Fort Sam Houston, Alamo Heights, Oleos Park, Castle Hills and the South Texas Medical Center north of San Antonio up through a corridor past New Braunfels, San Marcos and Buda into Clarksville and Downtown Austin almost to UT and then west into the Hill Country past Fredericksburg, Bandera and Kerrville. It was drawn to minimize the solidly blue Travis County vote but last year Trump underperformed past GOP nominees and barely won a majority (52.5%).

And Derrick is up against one of Congress' worst-- Lamar Smith, a decrepit Science denier who Paul Ryan put in charge of the House Science Committee where he has labored to undermine every effort to combat Climate Change. Derrick reminded us that he was also "Trump’s first donor in Congress, and thanks to him and his fossil fuel backers, every year my son has been alive has been the hottest year on Earth. I will not stand by while he ruins my son’s future. Mr. Smith has contributed to and lived off of this ugly, rigged system for three decades while the rest of us paid the price. Well, I’ve got news for him: we’re done paying."

Derrick has a very different vision of Climate Change than Smith, Trump and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt do. "A free, prosperous, just future depends on a stable environment. Climate change is already triggering severe impacts, as the recent draft climate report put it, 'from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the sea.' Folks in my district have already suffered through one of the clearest examples of a climate-change-driven disaster in the floods of 2015. More is on the way. We must act now to get carbon emissions down by electrifying our energy use, switching to renewables, and ratcheting up efficiency standards. If we do that rapidly, we have a chance to save the future."

My first experience with Derrick goes back to when George W. Bush was still president and he was the organizing force behind Brave New Film's "Rethink Afghanistan" project. He has a visceral understanding of progressive issues and appears to be someone who will be more than just a "good vote" in Congress, but someone-- like Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu and Ro Khanna can come forward as a natural thought leader. He's certainly running his campaign that way. "We are organizing around the solid, time-tested values of 'Liberty and Justice. For All.' Those principles are the heart of our democracy, and I’m tired of watching corporate-backed career politicians like Smith drag them through the mud," he explained to me yesterday. "Liberty means that your choices matter. It means that monopolies and corporate bosses can’t kill your small business dreams and pick your politicians for you. Justice means that trillions in financial fraud will send you to jail, a gram of marijuana doesn’t ruin your life, and that when you put in a full day’s work, you get paid a living wage. Liberty and justice for all means we respect every person and relationship, and we don’t target people for deportation or incarceration or harassment based on the color of their skin, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation."

His perspective on the battle over healthcare is just what we're looking for at Blue America as well: "Health care," he told us, "should be a right in this country, not a privilege. Unfortunately, the bills the GOP has put on the table over the past several months would let us get sick, go bankrupt, and die early just so they and their rich friends can have tax cuts. That’s a stark vision. We have to answer that with an equally powerful vision: an America where everyone gets the care they need, achieved through Medicare For All." Please help us welcome Derrick to the Blue America ActBlue page by clicking on the thermometer on the right and contributing what you can to his campaign. Taking back Congress means making inroads in districts like Texas' 21st, despite the gerrymandering. With an extraordinary candidate like Derrick it's a winnable seat, especially as more and more independent voters and even mainstream Republicans continue to sour on Trump and his enablers, like Lamar Smith, in Congress.

Lamar Smith (R-TX) Uses His Perch In Congress To Wreck The Planet-- And He's Paul Ryan's Creature

Last night we talked a little about the Trumpanzee Regime's role in exacerbating the planet's Climate problems. Ultimately Trump will probably turn on his odious EPA head, Scott Pruitt and blame the whole thing on him. In reality, every single person who works for the Regime is responsible for something likely to be far more catastrophic for the planet than a "mere" nuclear conflagration in North Korea. And, not just the Trump Regime-- every congressional Republican who does't speak out forcefully-- basically, every congressional Republican. As we've been saying for several years, no one is more to blame than Austin/San Antonio Congressman Lamar Smith, the oily ($727,647 in bribes from the Oil and Gas industry) head of the House Science Committee. He repays the financing of his sleazy political career by claiming Global Warming might be a good thing. And this week he went publicly crazy again. Trump's favorite Texan after the NY Times leaked the federal scientific report about the dangers of Global Warming:

"The alarmist climate media is at it again. In its latest reporting of a so-called leaked climate assessment the New York Times relies on exaggerated statements and false allegations of cover-ups in order to push an agenda. To treat a climate report that has been public for months and is currently undergoing official comment by numerous federal agencies as a final document does a disservice to the American people. In numerous instances, the report fails to examine some of the most current data. For example, the impact of El Nino on the climate is completely downplayed and misconstrued to conflict with historical reports. Moreover, this alarmist reporting attempts to falsely link extreme weather events to climate change, when the data has never suggested this. Making temperature predictions far into the future has proven to be nothing more than speculation, and goes against the principles of scientific integrity. We should treat this document for what it is, an unfinished draft that requires serious revision. To report it in any other way is just fake news."

Writing for Gizmodo.com, Tom McKay pointed out that "Seriously, Smith is done with the whole Republican 'I’m not a scientist' line. In his telling, Smith has practically done the research himself, with his mighty brain striking like thunder at dubious scientific methodology."

The report published by the Times requires final sign-off by 13 federal agencies and the White House, so Smith might not have much say in its final conclusions. But he did seem to confirm a general Republican objective of cooking the books, writing, “We should treat this document for what it is, an unfinished draft that requires serious revision. To report it in any other way is just fake news.”

Several real climate scientists contacted by Gizmodo felt Smith was not as up to snuff on his research as he claimed to be, however.

“These comments reflect the utterances of someone who either doesn’t have the faintest understanding of the science, or has total contempt for scientific truth,” Michael Mann, climatologist, geophysicist and director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, told Gizmodo.

“To conflate El Nino (which is a climate fluctuation that occurs on timescales of a few years) with climate change (which describes trends over decades) is the last refuge of the climate change confusionist,” he added. “And given that model forecasts made decades ago successfully predicted the human-caused warming that has occurred since, the only thing that is ‘nothing more than speculation’ and in defiance of ‘the principles of scientific integrity’ is Lamar Smith’s fossil-fueled attack on the scientific discipline.”

Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University geosciences professor and regular Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contributor, told Gizmodo that Smith “seems to be reading from the contrarian script rather than listening to climate scientists.”

“For example: Increases in the intensity and frequency of extreme heat including deadly heat waves such as the ones that killed about 40,000 Europeans in 2003 and devastated parts of Russia in 2010 have been convincingly linked to climate change,” Oppenheimer added. “Our ability to attribute the characteristics of some types of extreme events to climate change has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences. Does Smith know better than the best US scientists?”

Richard Alley, another Penn State geosciences professor and expert on the Earth’s cryosphere, noted Smith was correct the report was a draft finished some time ago, so it could not include “the absolutely most recent data.”

But Alley suggested reading a 2016 National Academy of Sciences report that he wrote showed “some extreme weather events can be attributed to climate change, in the sense that we have made them more likely, and more of them or more extreme ones are occurring.”

“This does not say that every extreme can or should be blamed on climate change, but some events are linked, with high confidence,” Alley added.

Kevin Trenberth, a senior climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and lead author of three IPCC scientific assessments, called Smith’s remarks “woeful ignorance, openly advertised!” and “certainly fake, or should I say, completely wrong.”

“The impact of El Nino is well known and is indeed taken into account,” Trenberth wrote. “It does not undermine the fact that 2016 is the warmest year on record, and 2015 second. Yes, both were influenced by the big El Nino, but 2014 is the next warmest and it wasn’t.”

He added there is “abundant evidence” the recent increase in extreme weather, like Hurricane Sandy and widespread flooding in the southern US, was the result of human-inducted climate change.

“The statistics for heavy rains increasing are very robust, although the effect has been greatest in the Northeast,” Trenberth added. “Meanwhile stronger droughts (think California), and now year-round wild fire seasons, cause tremendous hardship and disruption and monetary losses. The huge flood along the Front Range in the Denver-Boulder area in 2013 has now been confirmed to have the rainfall increased by 30 percent due to human-induced climate change.”

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming, and scientific integrity has everything to do with scientists crying out a warning,” Trenberth concluded.

The four scientists who spoke with Gizmodo are just a tiny fragment of the greater climate science community, which nearly universally agrees humans are responsible for climate change, which virtually all of them also agree could have disastrous impacts on the human species. Smith is just one dude who won a few elections in Texas and has no formal scientific qualifications whatsoever, but who does take an awful lot of money from the oil and gas industry.

It doesn’t really take a scientist to figure this one out, but you should probably listen to what they have to say anyway.

We spoke with Derrick Crowe this morning. Yesterday he spoke to the Austin City Council about Climate Change. You can watch his testimony on the video below. This morning he told us that "Lamar Smith can't make up his mind. Last week, he was a climate change advocate, trying to convince people that melting the ice caps was a great idea. This week, he's pretending he has the qualifications to pick apart the work of the top scientists in their field, asserting that warnings of imminent climate impacts are alarmist. Here's a tip for Mr. Smith: it's much simpler to keep your story straight if you just tell the truth, and the truth is, his work to block climate action in Congress has brought us to the brink of climate disaster. Winning gerrymandered elections with corporate PAC money doesn't make Smith an expert on anything other than working the rigged system."



The idea of Ryan keeping a neanderthal freak as chairman of the House Science Committee is a joke (ha, ha) in GOP circle, but not funny for Americans who take the crisis seriously. And it isn't Trumpanzee, who calls climate change "a hoax" or the egregiously corrupted Scott Pruitt who have Lamar Smith in that position; it's Paul Ryan. Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report confirming that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded on the planet-- the third in a row to break global temperature records. (ha, ha, Speaker Ryan?) Among the other findings:

• Greenhouse gas concentrations are higher than ever recorded. Between 2015 and 2016, carbon dioxide concentrations saw their biggest annual increase in the 58 years on record, reaching peaks not seen in the last 800,000 years of ice core measurements.
• Global surface temperatures are the highest on record.
• Sea levels are the highest they’ve ever been since recordkeeping began. Global seas are about 3.25 inches higher than the 1993 average when satellite recording began. 2016 marks the sixth year that sea levels have risen.
• Precipitation cycles are becoming more extreme.
• The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world.
• Antarctic sea ice levels are lower than ever recorded.
• Alpine glaciers have declined for 37 consecutive years. Glaciers shrunk an average of 2.8 feet.
• There were more tropical cyclones, with 93 storms in 2016, compared to an average of 82 between 1981 and 2010.

Ryan's opponent, Randy Bryce, has been hammering him on Climate Change on the stump in southeast Wisconsin. And this meme his campaign has produced went viral:

Do You Hate The Republicans Who Voted To Allow More Air Pollution? How About The Blue Dogs Who Voted With Them?

Lately, I've been writing a lot about how the DCCC is trying to bring on the dancing Blue Dogs again-- so, like clockwork, I'm hearing from a packing of simpering whiners about what an awful purist I am and how only Blue Dogs can win on this district or that district, ideas born out of nothing at all except the purest and most overwhelming ignorance (with some shear stupidity tossed in for good measure generally speaking).

So today Ryan and McCarthy were bragging how they passed corrupt Big Oil-and-pollution-owned Republican Pete Olson's H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act. Ryan said it was a bipartisan effort and, technically-speaking, it was. 11 Republicans refused to vote for the horrific bill-- primarily Republicans in swing districts like Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Dave Reichert (WA), Bruce Poliquin (ME), Carlos Curbelo (FL), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Elise Stefanik (NY)... you know, districts where people care something about... well, clean air. And then there were 4 Blue Dogs who crossed the aisle in the other direction and joined the GOP-- as they do on a regular basis-- to pay back the immense bribes they take from pollution industries who wrote Olson's bill. Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA) and Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) all voted for the bill.

Naughty, naughty Blue Dogs-- but vote for them anyway? This is what the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Medical Association. the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American Public Health Association and 10 other non-partisan public health groups told every member of Congress in a letter.

Clean air is fundamental for good health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that is safe to breathe. The undersigned public health and medical organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 806, the so-called “Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.” A more fitting name for this legislation would be the “Smoggy Skies Act,” as it delays lifesaving standards to reduce ozone pollution, or smog, and permanently weakens the Clean Air Act.

Clear, up-to-date, scientific evidence documented the need for greater protection from ozone pollution, and drove the stronger limit on ozone that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized in 2015. To meet the updated standard, the states have clear authority and plenty of time to plan and then work to reduce pollution under the Clean Air Act’s long-established, balanced implementation timeline. Despite those facts, the Smoggy Skies Act imposes additional delays and sweeping changes that will threaten health, particularly the health of children, seniors and people with chronic disease.

The Smoggy Skies Act also reaches far beyond implementation of the current ozone standards. It permanently weakens the Clean Air Act and future air pollution health standards for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, the Smoggy Skies Act weakens implementation and enforcement of all lifesaving air pollution health standards, including those for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It would also permanently undermine the Clean Air Act as a public health law.

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science on the health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide air pollutants every five years and update these national ambient air quality standards according to the current science. The Smoggy Skies Act would lengthen the review period of the air pollution health standards from once every five years to once every ten years for all criteria pollutants. As the science continues to evolve, the public deserves that their protections be based on the most up-to-date science, certainly not a schedule that is twice as long as they currently have under the law. The work that EPA and states do to clean up air pollution should be based on the best and most current science.

Emerging research adds crucial information to our understanding of the impacts that air pollution has on human health, and EPA should not have to wait a decade to incorporate it. For example, on March 29, 2016, a newly published study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic Costs, showed new information linking particulate air pollution to nearly 16,000 preterm births per year. Under the Smoggy Skies Act, EPA would have to wait as much as a decade to consider such new evidence when setting standards. Ten years is far too long to wait to protect public health from levels of pollution that the science shows are dangerous or for EPA to consider new information.

In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks and resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. A growing body of research indicates that ozone may also lead to central nervous system harm and may harm developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA updated the ozone standards. While many of our organizations called for a more protective level, there is no doubt that the updated, 70 parts per billion standard provides greater health protections compared to the previous standard.

The Smoggy Skies Act would delay implementation of these more protective air pollution standards for at least eight years. This means eight years of illnesses and premature deaths that could have been avoided. Parents will not be told the truth about pollution in their community and states and EPA will not work to curb pollution to meet the new standards. The public has a fundamental right to know when pollution in the air they breathe or the water they drink threatens health, and Congress must not add eight years of delay to health protections and cleanup.

Furthermore, the American public overwhelmingly supports upholding these more protective limits on ozone. A 2017 poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe Congress should leave EPA’s updated standards in place, showing clear public opposition to the Smoggy Skies Act.

The Smoggy Skies Act would also permanently weaken implementation of the 2015 and future ozone standards. The Act would delay implementation to a date when the evidence shows that most states would meet the standard with cleanup measures already in place. It would also reduce requirements for areas with the most dangerous levels of ozone. Areas classified as being in “extreme nonattainment” of the standard would no longer need to write plans that include additional contingency measures if their initial plans fail to provide the expected pollution reductions. The Clean Air Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect the public’s health, but the Smoggy Skies Act opens a new opportunity for communities to avoid cleaning up, irrespective of the health impacts.

Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, communities can demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event, such as a wildfire, should not “count” in determining whether their air quality meets the national standards. This bill would recklessly expand the definition of exceptional events to include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant-- the precise air pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was designed to combat-- and declare those bad air days as “exceptional.” Changing the accounting rules will undermine health protection and avoid pollution cleanup.

Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation’s premier public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has a two-step process: first, EPA considers scientific evidence to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets the standard that is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to develop a plan to clean up air pollution to meet the standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the second phase during implementation of the standard.

This bill states that if EPA finds that “a range of levels” of an air pollutant protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, then EPA may consider technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that range. Further, the bill would interject implementation considerations, including projections of adverse economic and energy effects, into the standard setting process. These changes will permanently weaken the core health-based premise of the Clean Air Act-- protecting the public from known health effects of air pollution with a margin of safety.

These changes would reverse the intention of the Clean Air Act explicitly included by its bipartisan authors in Congress: that basing the standard on the protection of public health would push technology to develop new tools and techniques to reduce emissions. They understood that pushing the cleanup technology to meet the urgent need to protect health would help to expand job development and growth. They were correct, as the emission control industry today has helped the nation meet stronger standards in creative, cost-effective ways.

The text also explicitly states that the Smoggy Skies Act does not authorize any additional funds to be appropriated to EPA for its work carrying out the bill’s provisions. Forcing EPA to perform the additional work of implementing this bill with no additional resources could put the agency’s current, lifesaving work at further risk.

Finally, an amendment adopted in committee would eliminate key enforcement provisions under the Clean Air Act. As amended, the bill could perpetuate poor air quality in communities with the highest pollution levels indefinitely. The provision waives the obligation for states with areas heavily polluted by ozone or particulate matter to write effective plans to attain the health standards. Currently, if an area with unhealthy air fails to write an adequate plan to meet air pollution standards, EPA can impose sanctions. Because that enforcement provision exists, EPA has almost never needed to use it-- states wrote effective plans. As amended, the Smoggy Skies Act would bar EPA from using this key enforcement tool for especially polluted areas, essentially eliminating the obligation for states to write a meaningful pollution cleanup plan that can demonstrate meeting the health standards.

The Smoggy Skies Act is a sweeping attack on lifesaving standards that protect public health from air pollution. This bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation’s proven clean air health protections. Not only does it delay the long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their implementation and enforcement, it also permanently weakens the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants and the scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards. Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote NO on the Smoggy Skies Act.

This isn't a fucking game about purity tests. This is about life and death, health or sickness. And what--if anything-- the Democratic Party stands for. 188 Democrats voted NO, but Ryan is saying the bill passed 229-199 in a bipartisan effort. Three of those scumbag, bribe-taking Blue Dogs were also co-sponsors of the bill, presumably to get a few extra bucks in their Xmas stockings this year. You might expect this kind of behavior from Republicans; that's who they are as a party. But from Democrats too? That's supposed to be OK? Back them anyway because the GOP is so bad. Tell them to emphysema patients.

Carol Shea-Porter is a normal Democrat, not a Blue Dog, not a New Dem, not from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. She's the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Asthma and Allergies Caucus. She told her constituents in New Hampshire that she's "working to raise awareness of the connection between air pollution and breathing problems. That’s why I’m so disappointed that my Republican colleagues in the House just voted for the 'Smoggy Skies Act,' which will delay badly needed restrictions that would have tamped down how much smog polluters can release into the air we all breathe. Our job is to protect children’s lungs and to stop diseases like asthma and COPD-- not to make people sick, not to make it easier for polluters."

Sam Jammal is the newest Blue America endorsee. He's running for the Orange County seat occupied by right-wing Ryan rubber stamp Ed Royce. This morning he told us that "When Donald Trump withdrew our country from the Paris Agreement, Ed Royce touted his support for clean air and clean water. It looks like once again, Ed Royce says reasonable things in public, but he votes extreme and hopes no one pays attention. Considering Ed represents the birthplace of Richard Nixon-- who created the EPA, it's ironic that Ed can't even support something as bipartisan as clean air. But this is typical Ed Royce.

"I worked in clean energy and saw first hand that we have the technology to create jobs, save consumers money and help us have cleaner air. There is no technological barrier any more. It's just politics and whether or not someone like Ed Royce can say no to big oil money and yes to innovation. What's worse is that the EPA rules are ultimately about public health. Families are paying higher out of pocket expenses to deal with respiratory illnesses thanks to air pollution. These same families are watching as the Republicans attempt to dismantle their health care. The last thing we need are further attempts to erode clean air-- it affects jobs, health care and our environment."

Derrick is the progressive candidate vying to take on anti-science nut Lamar Smith in TX-21 (an Austin-San Antonio corridor district). Smith didn't just vote for the bill, he was a key co-sponsor or it! Crowe told us that "This isn't hypothetical for me. My wife suffers from asthma. When people try to weaken air standards, it directly affects my wife's health. Everyone who thinks that this is some technical adjustment should have to sit and watch Laurie during an asthma attack.Watching someone you love struggle to breathe is terrifying. Now couple this with Smith's vote on repealing 23 million people's health insurance, which would make it harder for families to afford asthma medications and maintenance treatments. I'd like to know how many people Smith would let choke to death to make his donors happy."