I have a particular position on a particular policy. Everyone who disagrees with my position is too stupid to understand my position, so ignore them. This especially applies to people who actually made the laws and/or policies pertaining to that policy area.

You all saw this coming from Sanders regarding Trump’s taxes. She made the claim that members of Congress are too stupid to understand Trump’s tax forms, she says. So, her position is that people who make deploy and enforce these laws and regulations, or enforce them, the very laws and regulations that cause those very tax forms to exist to begin with, don’t know what they are or how to read them!

The thing is, I’m hearing the same thing from other Republicans at other levels of government. If the citizens want something to happen, the Republican answer is, “this is something that can’t be understood except by a few, including myself and maybe one other guy.”

My advice: Go to your representatives (you probably have five elected legislative reps in total) and ask them to explain some policy issues, especially focusing on those for which that elected person sits on a relevant committee. If you get a good, understandable, answer, consider voting to re-elect. If you get gobbledygook, you are either being sold a bill of goods from someone who does not want you to understand, or you are taking to an idiot. Either way, consider not voting for that person.

If you are told “nobody can understand this policy” then ask for the names of the other electeds who don’t understand the policy, and compose a joint memo asking for clarification, and fashion that into a Letter to the Editor. There are stupid people in congress and state legislatures. But it is incumbent on those who claim most of them, or all of them in a given party, are as such. Because, frankly, most of them aren’ that stupid.

With this sort of activism we may be able to stop this madness!

There is a direct relationship between the president’s approval rating, which is normally low in the midterm year, and how badly the president’s party is shellacked at the voting booth.

There is a direct relationship between how enthusiastic voters are by party and how well a party does in the congressional races.

Right now, President Trump’s approval rating is rising. Going up. Improving. That means that his party’s candidates will not do too badly.

More importantly, though, is the enthusiasm numbers for voters. In a year in which there is a “wave” of one party’s or the others, that party’s voters have a relatively higher enthusiasm measure in polling. The absolute amount of enthusiasm is not the problem. The problem is the relative enthusiasm rate.

Right now, both parties have a high enthusiasm rate, and more importantly, they are the same. There is not statistical difference between how enthusiastic Republicans are vs. Democrats. They are both a) very enthusiastic and b) the same.

This pretty much cancels out any hope of an actual “blue wave.”

Consider earlier years. According to NBC/Wall Street Journal polling, voter enthusiasm for earlier years, and the outcome in congressional house races, break down as follows.

The larger difference in enthusiasm levels seem to have had an effect, and the absolute amount of enthusiasm of the winning party seems to have had an effect. Larger turnovers happened when both effects were strong.

This year, both parties have high enthusiasm, but the level of enthusiasm in both parties is high.

The only way that there could possibly be a blue wave this year, the only way for Democrats to take control of either house in Congress, or to produce any sort of anti-Trump mandate, is to have a large number of people who normally don’t vote show up and vote, or for a large percentage of people who normally vote for Republicans somehow change their minds. Young voters, suburban white women, somebody. Martians. Anybody.

And since those things never actually happen, people who normally don’t vote never actually vote, and people who normally vote one way only vote the other way in support of conservatives or Republicans and never progressives or Democrats, this election will be a disappointment.

We will have a midterm election during the first term of the demonstrably worse president in the 20th or 21st century in which Republicans gain seats in the Senate and Democrats pick up a few seats in the house, but not enough to matter.

Unless Democratic turnout rises to levels that have not been seen since the mid to late 19th century, when turnout was generally high in this country, this is what will happen: The Republicans will add between 1 and 3 seats to their majority in the Senate, and the Democrats will close the gap with the republicans by up to but not more than 20 seats, with the Republicans retaining the majority. And Trump and McConnell will be handed a mandate.

Then we are going to have to start asking ourselves what we are doing wrong.

There are three house races in New Jersey that are said to be on the line for Republicans.

In New Jersey’s 7th District, Democrat Tom Malinowski is slightly ahead of Leonard Lance, the incumbent Republican, according to 538 and various polls. But not impressively so. The mid September Siena/NYT poll, the most recent, puts Republican Lance ahead by one point. A mid September poll by Monmouth puts Malinowski ahead by 4.5 points. That’s about it. We are not impressed. It is not possible to put this race in the turnover category.

In New Jersey’s 3rd District, Republican Incumbent Tom MacArthur is slightly behind Democratic challenger Andy Kim. MacArthur was well head of Kim in mid summer, slowly lost ground, and then the Kavanaugh Moment came and their positions reversed suddenly. That reversal is signaled in a Siena/NYT poll that put Kim ahead by an astonishing 10 points. Otherwise, however, the argument looks weak. Democratic leaning or controlled polling agencies had the Republican leading or even tghrough the summer. Stockton University issued a non partisan poll just a few days ago tghat puts MacArthur on top by 1.4 points. Overall, this looks like a totally fake Blue Wave. If you stand back a way and squint, it looks like the Democrat is going to win. If you look at the actual data, it looks like the Republican is going to win. This is not a turnover.

New Jersey’s 2nd district has Frank LoBiondo, Republican representing it. He is not running for re-election. Fivethirthyeight puts Democratic candidate Jeff Van Drew well ahead of the Republican candidate Seth Grossman. There is only one poll, from Stockton, putting the Democrat at 55, and the Republican at 32.

Even though there is only one poll, it is strong, and other indicators suggest the Democrat will win. I am not overwhelmed with the evidence, but I’m OK with putting New Jersey’s 2nd district down as a Republican to Democratic turnover this year.

A really big and powerful blue wave could blue up New Mexico’s 2nd district, but probably not.

You will see the claim being made that Chris Collins, New York’s 27th district Republican, will certainly not lose, being an indicted conspirator in stock market insider trading, using his personal position as a Congressperson and all. But all the indicators are that Collins, the first member of the House to endorse Donald Trump, is secure. He will be re-elected, and this will not be a turnover. No turnovers in New York.

Pennsylvania 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, have all been cited as possible turnover districts.

Pennsylvania’s 1st district Republican incumbent, Brian Fitzpatrick, is neck and neck with Democratic clanneger Scott Wallace. A very recent Siena/NYT poll places Wallace over 7 points ahead. This is regarded by 538 as a tossup. During the primaries, the Democrats cast 49,000 votes while the Republicans cast 47,000 votes. The Republcians are campaigning dirty, and there is the idea that this is backfiring on them. Even though I avoid labeling true tossups (as this looks) as turnovers, I actually like Wallace in this race enough to suggest that this is very likely a Turnover.

The 5th is currently represented by Glenn Thomson, Republican. Democratic challenger Mary Gay Scanlon is thought to be doing very well there, but with no polling data at all. But the experts are so sure, and fivethirtyeight has the race so clearly a Democratic win, I’ll take Pennsylvania 5th as a turnover.

Pennsylvania’s 6th congressional district is currently held by Republican Ryan Costello, and he is not running for re-election. There is no polling data here, but experts widely agree that Democrat Chrissy Houlahan is whipping the butt of Republican Greg McCauley. Again, I defer to the local experts on the ground and I’ll consider this race to be a turnover.

Pennsylvania’s 7th district is a new district with no incumbent. The Democrat is likely to win, according to experts. This district is mostly made up of an older district that was represented by a Republican, so this will count as a turnover.

So, when all is said and done, Pennsylvania will either give us 4 R to D turnovers, or alternatively, disappoint as it did in 2016. I’m hoping that Pennsylvania feels bad about 2016 and does the right thing this time around.

Polls and experts all agree. Virginia 10th’s incumbantg republican Barbara Comstock will lose to Democratic challenger Jennifer Wexton. This will be a turnover.

Since early days in the process leading up to the 2016 election, it was apparent that our process suffered by the simple fact that a lot of people who were engaged – in on line conversations, volunteering for candidates, etc. — were poorly informed about the process itself. An example of that, which took many specific forms, was the conflation between an election to constitutional office and a primary (or caucus) in a given state pursuant to nominating a candidate for constitutional office. A lot of people thought that the primary and caucus process was legally the same thing as a general election. This is an easy mistake to make. In a certain version of this universe, not very different from the one we actually have, political parties could cough up the name of their preferred candidate using pretty much any process. The governed and closely regulated election is the one that happens on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The primary and caucus process is not that. It is a state level process, but even there, there is no necessary connection to the state government. But the conflation and confusion is understandable. Elected officials are generally politicians and members of a particular party, and over time, in each state, they saw fit to pass various laws and create various governmental (state level) functions to mange and even fund various aspects of the primary and caucus process. So, there is a lot of government doings and don’tings along the way. But those acts, while creating laws, are emergent and not required. A state could decide to drop the whole thing tomorrow, throw out all its primary and caucus support and laws governing the process, and simply ask each political party to handle all this on their own, with their own resources, their own time, and their own procedure, as long as it is not otherwise illegal. More or less. The point here is, when we speak of democracy and how it works, and focus on the election, we have to remember that the process that a party uses to put a candidate forward is that party’s process. If you want to change election law, go see a your two US Senators and your one US Representative. If you want to change how the party does it, become an active member of a party and fuss around with that for a few years.

So let’s talk about State legislative bodies for a moment. As you know, the US government has a Congress. The Congress has two houses, an upper house called the United States Senate, and a lower house called the United States House of Representatives. We shorten this to say Senate and House. A member of the House is often referred to as a “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” to the exclusion of Senators, but really, they are all members of Congress. We use the term “Congressperson” to refer to just members of the House sometimes, and to refer to any member of Congress other times. Both are probably correct. However, to call the House “Congress” (to the exclusion of the Senate) is totally wrong, don’t do that. Even though people do sometimes. Simple, right?

But what about the states? I now live in a state that has a “House” and a “Senate” and that actually causes some degree of confusion. A lot of people get this confused and are often unsure of who someone or some thing is. I grew up, however, in a state that did not have a House. Rather, it had an Assembly, or more accurately, a “State Assembly.” (And a Senate.) I attribute my early understanding of the difference, even as a child, to this terminology. Otherwise I’d probably still be confused.

The very name of the state legislative body varies across state, and not one of them is called The Congress. Nineteen states call their state legislature a “General Assembly.” Two use the term “General Court.” Two have a “Legislative Assembly.” Twenty have a “Legislature,” and seven have a “State Legislature.”

Nebraska does not have a lower and upper chamber, just one house, which they call the “Legislature.” Three have a lower house called a “State Assembly,” one has an “Assembly” and one has a “General Assembly.” There are three that have a “House of Delegates”. All the rest use the term “House of Representatives” to name the lower house.

The upper chamber, outside of Nebraska, is called either the “Senate” or the “State Senate” in all states, though even in states where “Senate” is the technical term, it is wise to refer to that as the “state Senate” just to avoid confusion with the United States Senate.

Those were the states. The other US territories and districts vary. DC has a council (and a mayor), because it is, essentially, a city (though it wasn’t always). Guam and the Virgin Islands have a unicameral “Legislature” while American Samoa, Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico have a House of Representatives and a Senate.

I’m not sure if you regard these distinctions as important, but I think they are. This is basic vocabulary, part of the vocabulary of civics. And civics is life or death, for civilization. So at the very least, knowing what to call the nuts and bolts of government is as important as knowing what to call the nuts and bolts of a car, if you are an auto mechanic.

So, which member of your state’s legislature, or the US legislature, did you call or email to day to tell them to do the right thing, or avoid doing the wrong thing? To support the transition to clean energy, or to turn down NRA money?

There are a lot of things right and wrong with our election system, but I’m going to propose that a particular problem, if solved, would make many of the other problems go away.

People are not in the habit of voting, and therefore, don’t get into the habit of voting. Many think (correctly, actually) that some elections matter more than others, and they use that as a handy excuse to not bother to vote. We see this clearly in the off and on pattern of voting during presidential vs. “off” years. See? We even call them “off years.” Take a year off! Don’t bother to vote!

If there was more equivalence between election years — if most of them were considered important for some reason — then more of the years would be higher turnout years, and those years would be feeders, potentially, for later years, so over time the overall turnout would go up and up, rather than up-down-up-down. In other words, our current system involves alternating between taking steps forward and taking steps backwards, rather than forward progression.

But this was not always true. This is a bit complex, but I’ll give you a provisional explanation. In the old days, such as the 19th century, state elections were much more important than they are today, to national politics. If you were running for President, it mattered a lot which party was in control in each state, and the composition of the senate was controlled by state politics, not voting (legislatures sent US Senators to Washington, not voters). That meant that state elections were very much part of the national election process. This was even more important, and complex, when two other thing were true. First, there were more than two parties, even if most states really had only two going at once. Second, the parties were not perfectly aligned with platform. So, for instance, prior to the Civil War, southern Democrats were mainly pro-slavery, while northern Democrats were split on slavery and their main interest was something else. For several decades a century, also, we tend to have a party turnover, where one party eats itself (and is ultimately finished off by other forces) while a different party takes over. (This may be happening now.) During those periods, the two party system is obviously a three party system for a while.

Between the greater heterogeneity in political orientation of parties, with that variance structured by state and region, and the importance of state elections to the presidential election process and the Senate, people watched the state elections outside of their own states, and within the states, much more closely.

This all probably made each election year more interesting to everybody than it is now, but a second factor, much more important but potentiated by the aforementioned factors, also pertained. Today, most Governor’s races are done in a four year cycle, with over half (36) being during the so-called “midterm” year (two years offset from the POTUS election) and most (but not all) of the rest being during the POTUS cycle.

This guarantees that almost all governor-level election activity is done on a two year cycle nationally. The POTUS election and the governor’s elections are therefore in sync with each other, as well as with Congress. This is because the US Senate elections are, effectively, every two years as they are never held on “off years” and the US House is voted on every two years, again, in sync with POTUS.

For this reason, every two years there is something to do, every two years there is almost nothing to do. And, those two year periods, synced as they are with POTUS, are divided into two parts, POTUS years and midterm years.

For this reason, a double-digit percentage of the voters get three years off and a similar number get two years off, by their own way of thinking about what is important. So hardly anybody goes and votes one, two, or three out of four years.

This pattern of being almost perfectly in sync with POTUS and Congress is new. Many states, in the 19th century, had three year governor terms, or two. There have been states with four year terms but on odd years (at present I think there is only one of these).

Given a) the greater importance, as a national story, of state elections, and b) the nearly chaotic pattern of elections, where there was alway something going on, meant that the difference between one year and another was not so great and this, because of the effect I propose above, meant an overall higher turnout.

Starting some time after 1900, state by state (and probably in cities as well, for mayor, etc.) elections lined up in the two year pattern, and terms for governor changed to four years across the board. As this happened, US citizen participation in elections fell.

Consider this graph, from PEW:

The overall pattern shows a huge increase in voter turnout from the early days to the Federal era. That is not the subject of discussion here. Subsequently we experience a high rate during presidential election and a lower but still high rate during midterm years. The midterm years during this period are higher than some presidential years now, and represent an 85% or so fraction of the presidential years. Then we see a drop, from around 1890 to the 1930s, followed by a new pattern with two features. First, the overall participation is way down, with midterm elections being well below 50%, and second, the drop during midterms is greater, with midterms being about 66% of presidential years.

I think both of these patterns can be explained, at least in part, by the normalization of elections to be on a 4-year/2-year cycle synced nationally.

There, I connect details of timing of election with a major overarching pattern, using a beautiful hypothesis. What remains is testing the hypothesis in several cases where we can see the details, to see if it works out as expected. I have one case for you. The following graph shows Minnesota primary turnout over time for presidential and midterm years.

This is the observation I stumbled on last night that prompted me to write this post. Here we see the large binary oscillation between POTUS and midterm years, as expected, from the early 1960s to the present. We aslso see that over this time there is a steady decrease in participation. The break point, 1960, when the pattern changes, is the year Minnesota went form a two year to a four year governor term. Boom.

We also see a diminishing in the up and down cycle since 1994, and some interesting anomalies. That is for discussion another time. At this point, we can say that with respect to this hypothesis — syncing elections ruined turnout — that the center holds.

One solution to this problem would be to unsync the elections. I can think of several ways to do this.

1) Keep the two year term for the US House, but give half of them one three year term once, so about half the house races are happening every year.

2) Move around the Senators so there are senatorial races every year.

3) Move all gubernatorial races to one of the other odd year that is not a POTUS or Midterm year.

I predict that if we did all of that, participation in our elections would spring to 80%. Well, not spring. Move. It would take a decade, but it would get there.

The hearings were called “Full Committee Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method.”

Several others, including specialized climate science writers as well as mainstream media, have written about the hearings:

<li><strong>Dana Nuccitelli at the Guardian:</strong> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/apr/04/inconceivable-the-latest-theatrical-house-science-committee-hearing">Inconceivable! The latest theatrical House 'Science' committee hearing</a></li>

… as is usually the case in these hearings, despite being presented with the opportunity to learn from climate experts, most of the committee members seemed more interested in expressing their beliefs, however uninformed they might be.

At the 2:04:05 mark in the hearing video, Rep. Dan Webster (R-FL) provided a perfect example … asking witness Judith Curry what causes ice ages (Milankovich cycles, which we’ve known for nearly 100 years), so that he could make the point that natural factors caused past climate changes – a point that usually leads to a common logical fallacy (presented here in cartoon form).

Webster proceeded to claim it was “the standard belief of most scientists” in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an ice age.

This has been discussed at length on this blog, see especially this guest post. It is indeed true that back in the 1960s (and a little ways into the 70s) climate scientists considered cooling as well as warming for future scenarios. As Dana points out in his post, this was partly due to the consideration of aerosols (dust) that might cause a cooling effect sufficient to push us into an ice age. But it has been understood for much longer that the most likely scenario was not cooling, but warming, if we keep putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

<li><strong>Ben Jervey</strong> at Desmog: <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/29/house-science-committee-hearing-lamar-smith-michael-mann-climate-consensus-deniers">House Science Committee Hearing Pits Three Fringe Climate Deniers Against Mainstream Climate Scientist Michael Mann</a></li>

Ben nots that the intent of these hearings, despite the alt-reasons given by the chair, was to provide a platform for the tiny number of scientists (plus Roger) with positions that must be regarded as firmly in the science denial camp.

Besides Dr. Mann (author of The Madhouse Effect) the other three experts will all be familiar to DeSmog readers:

Dr. Judith Curry, a former professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has since resigned to focus on her private business, Climate Forecast Applications Network. Curry has admitted to receiving funding from fossil fuel companies while at Georgia Tech, and she is frequently cited and quoted by climate skeptic blogs and fossil fuel-funded politicians for her stance that the climate is “always changing.”

Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and Director of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the official Alabama State Climatologist since November 2000, who routinely critiques climate modeling and has sung the praises of carbon dioxide.

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., who is not a climate scientist, but a climate science policy writer working at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and who Joe Romm at Climate Progress once called “probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.”

“The witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat. “Visualize 96 more climate scientists that agree with the mainstream consensus … 96 more Dr. Manns.”

<li>Dan Vergano at BuzzFeed: <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/mann-inquisition?utm_term=.vwArzR8GR#.kaXl5RdKR">This Famous Climate Scientist Just Endured A Washington Inquisition</a></li>

Climate science went on trial on Wednesday at a hearing held by Congress’s notoriously grouchy science committee.//

The witness list pitted Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann — a lightning rod for energy industry-funded attacks on scientists for two decades — against two scientists critical of their own field, former Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry and University of Alabama satellite scientist John Christy, as well as a political scientist, Roger Pielke Jr. of the University Colorado, who has argued against links between climate change and extreme weather. These three climate skeptics had collectively testified 20 times previously at similar Congressional hearings.

As Dan implies, the gang of three deniers, and a few others, have been before this and other panels in the US Congress again and again. Interestingly, the short list of deniers available has grown shorter over the years. There are no new ones — that 97% consensus figure works only if you include everyone. If you look only at younger scientists, it is very hard to find any deniers — so there is some attrition for the usual demographic reasons. But also, at least one denier, Heartland funded alt-Harvard scientist Willie Soon, has been taken off the list because his reputation died an ugly death from self inflicted wounds.

<li>Devin Henry at <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326336-members-researchers-spar-over-climate-science-at-hearing">The Hill: House Panel Hearing Becomes Climate Change Sparring Session</a></li>

“The current scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is based on thousands of studies conducted by thousands of scientists all around the globe,” committee ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) said.

… Michael Mann criticized committee Republicans for their NOAA probe, saying it “is meant to send a chilling signal to the entire research community, that if you, too, publish and speak out about the threat of human-caused climate change, we’re going to come after you.”

Mann sparred directly with Smith, highlighting a Friday article in Science magazine that criticized Smith for speaking at a conference for climate change skeptics. Science magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

“That is not known as an objective writer or magazine,” Smith said.

Mann replied, “Well, it is ‘Science’ magazine.”

This part, which is also discussed in the above referenced piece at the Guardian, was amazing. When Smith called the United State’s primary science journal a biased source, I could hear the sound of jaws dropping in unison across the world.

<li>Rebecca Leber at Mother Jones: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/03/michael-mann-lamar-smith-house-science-committee">A Scientist Just Spent 2 Hours Debating the Biggest Global Warming Deniers in Congress</a></li>

Michael Mann lamented that he was the only witness representing the overwhelming scientific consensus that manmade global warming poses a major threat.

“We find ourselves at this hearing today, with three individuals who represent that tiny minority that reject this consensus or downplay its significance, and only one—myself—who is in the mainstream,” he said in his opening testimony.

Mann blasted Republicans for “going after scientists simply because you don’t like their publications of their research—not because the science is bad, but because you find the research inconvenient to the special interests who fund your campaigns.” He added, “I would hope we could all agree that is completely inappropriate.”

<li>Emily Atkin: <a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141716/house-republicans-held-insane-hearing-just-attack-climate-science">House Republicans held an insane hearing just to attack climate science</a></li>

The Trump administration has been nothing if not a master class in gaslighting—the art of manipulating people, often through lies, into questioning their own sanity—and its pupils on Capitol Hill have clearly been taking notes. On Wednesday, the Republicans on the House Science Committee held a three-hour hearing on the merits of climate change science, a cavalcade of falsehoods so relentless and seemingly rational that one might well need psychiatric counseling after having watched it.

I’m going to disagree with Emily on the ordering of things. The Republicans were already very good at doing this. It may be that Trump learned from them, or it might just be that governing from the conservative agenda and real estate both involve a lot of gaslighting.

But, she is right; this is gaslighting. EG:

At one point, a Republican on the committee even tried to pin the label of “climate denier” on Michael Mann, a world-renowned climate scientist the Democrats had called to defend mainstream science. Georgia Congressman Barry Loudermilk asked Mann if he though it was possible, even in the slightest, that humans are not the main driver of climate change. Mann said that based on the current data, it’s not possible. Loudermilk concluded: “We could say you’re a denier of natural change.”

Dave Levitan at Gizmodo: Today’s Congressional Hearing on Climate Change Was a Colossal Train Wreck

It was, overall, a horrendously depressing display of scientific illiteracy, but there were some odd bits of optimism to be found. The witnesses all agreed at various points that yes, the climate is changing and that humans play a role (though they disagreed, contrary to overwhelming evidence, on the magnitude of that role), and they also agreed that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to Earth-observing systems at NASA, NOAA, and elsewhere are a monumentally dumb idea.

What’s more, perhaps the best point was made by one of the GOP witnesses, Roger Pielke, Jr.: “Scientific uncertainty is not going to be eliminated on this topic before we have to act.”

In other words, not knowing everything is not a justification for doing nothing.

One of the more disturbing moments during the hearing was when Republican representative Clay Higgins asked Mike Mann if he was a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. At first, I was surprised to hear the answer: “No.” Then, I realized, that if you are a smart witness, often called as a witness, then other than the major professional societies, it is probably better to not be a member of anything.

It was even more shocking when Higgins, who is clearly not the sharpest bullet in the chamber, demanded that Mann provide proof that he is not a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mann indicated that he had already provided his resume, which does not say that he is a UCS member, but would be happy to send a second copy.

Sorry, Mike, that is not proof that you are not a card carrying member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. You will need something better than that. Here, for example, is a valid Not a Member card:

You’re welcome.

I have placed the YouTube video of the entire hearing at the bottom of the post.

Starts at about 15 minutes:

The House has already voted as of this writing, the Senate will be voting shortly, so there is still time to call your Senators

The Sierra Club has set up that will patch you through to your Senators: 888-454-0483.

This is from Feb 1 press release from the Center for Biological Diversity:

House of Representatives Votes to Block Rules Protecting Rivers From Coal Waste

Also Votes to End Requirement That Oil Companies Report Payments to Foreign Governments

WASHINGTON— In a party line vote, the U.S. House of Representatives today voted to rescind Obama administration rules to protect streams from coal waste and requiring mining and oil companies to report payments made to foreign governments. The vote was done through the Congressional Review Act, a rarely used statute allowing Congress to overturn federal rules enacted with the past 60 legislative days. It has not been successfully used since 2001.

“House Republicans just sold out America’s clean drinking water and efforts to combat international fraud in order appease Exxon and coal companies,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Polluting streams with coal waste is disgusting, dangerous and life-threatening to rural people. There will be hell to pay if Senate Republicans go along with repealing these common-sense rules that save lives and prevent corruption.”

The Stream Protection Rule was instituted by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to provide greater protections to streams from toxic coal mining waste. It would reduce pollution in 6,100 miles of streams while reducing coal mining output by less than 1 percent.

The requirement that U.S. mining, oil and natural gas companies report payments made to foreign nations was established by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the authority of the Dodd-Frank Act in order to reduce international fraud. Set to go into effect in 2018, the rule was aggressively, but until now, unsuccessfully attacked by Exxon under the leadership of Rex Tillerson.

And here is another press release from a coalition of organizations who have been fighting over this issue for some time:

CONGRESS IS ATTACKING CLEAN WATER SAFEGUARDS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE COAL INDUSTRY
Wednesday, February 1, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House of Representatives will use an obscure tool, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to dismantle the Stream Protection Rule (SPR), which protects clean water for communities living near mining sites. The Senate is expected to vote on the House bill tomorrow.

SPR gives communities in coal country much needed information about toxic water pollution caused by nearby mining operations. It was finalized by the Obama administration in late 2016. The modest and long overdue rule also provides these communities basic protections from the devastating impacts of mountaintop-removal coal mining on water and public health.

This safeguard helps to ensure that coal companies don’t profit off of the destruction of drinking water supplies. Unfortunately, leaders in Congress have targeted the SPR in a blatant attempt to put industry profits before public health. Repealing this commonsense protection through the CRA is a heavy handed tactic that will put many communities at risk now — and could constrain future administrations from acting to protect public health and drinking water in these communities.

A broad coalition of public health, environmental, and conservation groups opposing the CRA, released the following statements:

“Nobody voted against clean air and water in the last election. Regulatory safeguards that keep our air and water safe from toxic pollution are crafted using a democratic process and based on the best available science”, said Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice. “Any attempts to dismantle them using the Congressional Review Act should be opposed. These attacks have the power to fundamentally undermine the very goals of our environmental laws by trying to cripple future attempts to enforce protections for our air, water, and lands.”??

“This is an unconscionable attack on basic clean water safeguards for communities already devastated by toxic pollution from coal mining,” said Bob Wendelgass, President and CEO of Clean Water Action. “Everyone has the right to know what is in their water and every community deserves access to clean water. Congress should reject any action that puts industry profits before protections for drinking water and public health.”

“This attempt to scrap the Stream Protection Rule is a clear case of putting polluters’ profits ahead of the basic well-being of vulnerable communities, and we must do everything we can to stop it,” said Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. “No matter who you are or where you live, you have a right to clean water — but this shameless attack puts families and communities at risk.”

“The Stream Protection Rule protects both clean drinking water for people and habitat for endangered species and other wildlife,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife. “We can’t have a bountiful natural heritage without securing clean water. Legislators who attack this rule through the Congressional Review Act are voting in the interest of big polluters, not local communities or future generations.”

“The potential devastation if the Stream Protection Rule is struck down is unimaginable,” said Aimee Erickson, Executive Director of Citizens Coal Council. “In the 25 states with active coal mining, nearly 100% of the drinking water comes from surface and groundwater that feeds into both public and private water supplies. These water supplies serve 11.4 million people in some of the poorest areas of the nation, where poverty levels in some areas reach nearly 43 percent.”

“Republican leadership has wasted no time in rewarding Big Polluters by attempting to roll back the historic environmental progress made under President Obama. Undoing this critical Stream Protection Rule that helps prevent coal mining companies from dumping toxic waste into drinking water would be outrageous on its own, but this extreme attack goes even further by blocking the Department of Interior from ever issuing rules that allow communities living near mining operations to know what’s being put in their water or to hold these polluters accountable for the increased rates of cancer, birth defects, and other health problems that have been linked to their waste”, said Gene Karpinski,

President of the League of Conservation Voters. “With communities across the country increasingly alarmed by contaminants like lead, flame-retardant chemicals, and many other pollutants showing up in their drinking water, shredding safeguards for clean water is the exact opposite of what Congress should do. We call on Congress to do what’s right by standing up to Big Polluters and rejecting this radical attack on clean water.”

“The politicians in Washington, D.C. are out of touch with Alaskans. Across our great state, Alaskans want healthy wild salmon streams,” said Bob Shavelson, Advocacy Director of Cook Inletkeeper. “But the political elites don’t get it—they take money from the coal corporations and ignore the will of the people.”

“Think about it: spiking a rule that tells coal companies they can’t poison our water sources, harm our landscapes or kill fish and wildlife with their waste,” said Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is a polluter-motivated attack on the American people.”

“Appalachia has already lost 2,000 miles of streams to mountaintop removal mining. It’s crucial we protect what is left”, said John Suttles, Director of Litigation and Regional Programs for SELC. “Congress is placing coal-mining profits above the health of the people in Appalachia and the basic right to clean water.”

“National parks and people stand to lose if Congress succeeds in dismantling the Stream Protection Rule,” said Theresa Pierno, President and CEO of National Parks Conservation Association. “The rule safeguards waterways from toxic pollution produced by mining operations. Millions of Americans visit national parks in the Southeast each year, for activities such as bass fishing at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area or white water rafting at New River Gorge National River each year. Will they continue to visit and spend millions of dollars in surrounding communities, if polluted waterways greet them upon arrival?”

“Mountaintop removal has devastated Appalachia’s land and water, and it continues to threaten the health and wellbeing of residents throughout the region,” said Tom Cormons, Executive Director of Appalachian Voices. “Appalachian communities are actively working toward a stronger economic future, not dominated by a failing coal industry. We are counting on Congress to do what is right for the people of Central Appalachia by preserving the Stream Protection Rule.”

Dear Sharon,
 
Three years ago I decided to get involved in the Minnesota Third Congressional District election. I had been involved in previous races, supporting various DFL candidates through the caucus, primary, and election process. But this time I decided to explicitly seek out a candidate who was science oriented, who would make issues like climate change a campaign priority and not just an add-on, and volunteer my time. I was pleasantly shocked and amazed to quickly discover that you were seeking the DFL nomination and that you were explicitly pro science, and that you had a degree in an area of science and had worked as a scientist yourself.
 
You may remember that I contacted you to find out more, to verify what it said on your web site, and that we chatted. Not only did it become clear that you really were a science oriented candidate, but that you were also a progressive with experience organizing progressive campaigns (such as support of the Affordable Care Act) and an experienced fund raiser. In short order I volunteered for your campaign, and eventually became staff on that campaign, and at the same time, we became friends.
 
Working on that campaign was a great pleasure for me. One of the things I remember most is the internal policy of that campaign to always be honest, always play fair, always respect other members of the DFL. The idea was to win the nomination, but if not, to remember — and these words were often said by staffers, volunteers, and by you — that we are all Democrats. We did not gain the nomination at the convention, but the very first thing (after a bit of crying and hugging and such) after that was to concede gracefully, to shake the hands of the winner and his team, and to wish them well.
 
Now it is time to consider the next Congressional election. I am asking you to run again, to declare candidacy for Congress of the United States for Minnesota’s Third District. Here are some of the reasons I think you should do this.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST AND COMMENT!

The chair and ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, Raul Grijavla, has initiated an investigation of Indur Goklany, an administrator at the Science and Technology Policy of the US Department of the Interior. It appears that Goklany was being paid by Heartland which raises a significant potential for conflict of interest.

The story broke at Think Progress.