This afternoon, as the House began preparations for a vote on the job-killing CLEAR Act, which the Congressional Budget Office incidentally estimates will bring about some $14 billion in litigation costs, dramatics ensued when Louisiana’s lone House Democrat put forth an amendment purporting to lift the deepwater moratorium that the rest of the delegation strenuously rejected as far too weak.

The CLEAR Act passed the House by a 209-193 vote this afternoon.

Rep. Charlie Melancon’s amendment  is described as imposing ”certain limits on the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling.  The moratorium would not apply to applications for permits to drill if the applicant has met safety requirements set forth in the National Notice to Leases dated June 8, 2010, and June 18, 2010.   The Secretary of Interior would have to make a decision on whether an applicant has complied within 30 days.”

Melancon’s amendment was panned by the state’s House Republicans. Rep. Bill Cassidy said he’ll vote against the amendment, while Reps. Steve Scalise and Charles Boustany spoke on the floor against it. That led Louisiana Democrat Party spokesman Kevin Franck to put forth the following release:

BREAKING: Louisiana Republican’s Set to Vote AGAINST Melancon Amendment to Lift Moratorium
On the House floor a few minutes ago Reps. Scalise and Boustany spoke in OPPOSITION to Charlie Melancon’s amendment to lift to moratorium on off-shore drilling. Melancon’s amendment is nearly identical to an amendment (S. 3588) introduced in the Senate by David Vitter. Developing…

What Franck didn’t mention is that Melancon’s amendment wasn’t so identical to legislation offered by his opponent in this fall’s Senate race. Vitter’s Senate amendment is S. 3588, which reads:

A BILL

To limit the moratorium on certain permitting and drilling activities issued by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PERMITTING AND DRILLING ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General- The moratorium set forth in the decision memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior entitled ‘Decision memorandum regarding the suspension of certain offshore permitting and drilling activities on the Outer Continental Shelf’ and dated July 12, 2010, and any suspension of operations issued in connection with the moratorium, shall not apply to an applicant for a permit to drill if the Secretary determines that the applicant–

(1) has complied with the notice entitled ‘National Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)’ dated June 8, 2010 (NTL No. 2010-N05) and the notice entitled ‘National Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)’ dated June 18, 2010 (NTL No. 2010-N06); and

(2) has completed all required safety inspections.

(b) Determination on Permit- Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary makes a determination that an applicant has complied with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a determination on whether to issue the permit.

Franck is correct as to the fact that Vitter’s section A and B are identical. But Melancon’s amendment has a good bit more to it. The amendment doesn’t just have an A and B. It has more sections, including a Section F, which reads:

“Nothing herein affects the Secretary’s authority to suspend offshore drilling permitting and drilling operations based on the threat of signficant, irreparable or immediate harm or damage to life, property, or to the marine, coastal or human environment pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.”  

Melancon’s release upon his amendment’s passage this afternoon (he declared it a “bi-partisan” vote, but only three Republicans voted for it on a 216-195 tally) said this:

The Melancon amendment would lift the deepwater moratorium on offshore drilling for companies that meet the new safety requirements issued by the Department of the Interior in the wake of the explosion. Specifically, if an application for a permit to drill complies with the “Notice to Lessees” 5 and 6, complies with any further safety measures recommended by the Secretary, and has completed all required safety inspections, the moratorium will not apply to the drilling application.

The Melancon amendment will also work to prevent another disaster from occurring and ensure companies are better able to respond to oil spills. The Secretary of the Interior will be required to report by October 31st to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on the status of:

(1) the collection and analysis of evidence regarding the potential causes of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig, including information collected by the Presidential Commission and other investigations,

(2) implementation of safety reforms announced by the Department of the Interior on May 27th,

(3) the ability of operators in the Gulf of Mexico to respond effectively to an oil spill in light of the Deepwater Horizon incident; and

(4) industry and government efforts to engineer, design, construct and assemble wild well intervention and blowout containment resources necessary to contain an uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons in deep water, should another blowout occur.

Melancon also gave a floor speech in support of his amendment, which in part read as follows:

The tragedy on Deepwater opened our eyes to the need for tougher safety standards for offshore drilling. For the need to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing laws. And, for the need to protect workers who report their companies’ dangerous, and even illegal practices, to regulators, so that we can stop another accident before it happens.

But, an indiscriminate, blanket moratorium punishes the innocent along with the guilty for the actions and the poor judgment of one reckless company. If a rig meets all of the tough new safety requirements issued by the Department of the Interior, if it has been fully inspected and deemed safe, why should it sit idle – and the workers of that rig go jobless – until the arbitrary six month period is over?

People in Louisiana understand that this doesn’t make sense. Louisianians want more than anyone to prevent another disaster from happening in our waters. But, the irresponsible decisions and dangerous actions of one company shouldn’t shut down an entire sector of our economy, sending thousands of workers to the unemployment line. We need to fix the problems that led to this disaster in the Gulf, without paralyzing America’s domestic energy industry in the process.

That’s what my amendment does. Instead of a blanket moratorium, my amendment would allow drilling permits to be approved for those rigs that meet the new, tougher safety requirements issued by the Department of the Interior in the wake of the explosion.

Those 31 stalled drilling rigs directly employ some 1,400 workers. Hundreds of small businesses in Louisiana service those rigs, or, are in some way supported by the offshore oil and gas industry. According to research by Dr. Joseph Mason of Louisiana State University, under the current six-month moratorium, the Gulf Coast region will lose more than 8,000 jobs, nearly $500 million in wages, and over $2.1 billion in economic activity, as well as nearly $100 million it state and local tax revenue. And, that’s only if the drilling will start back immediately in 6 months.

But, you don’t need to be an economist to see the impact of the moratorium on south Louisiana. You just need to drive through coastal parishes like Lafourche and Terrebonne or to Grand Isle. Talk to people like Shelly Landry, who owns and operates her family’s grocery store on Grand Isle, who told me with tears in her eyes that the moratorium was shutting down the coast, hurting her business more than the actual oil spill. People like Ms. Landry are still learning to cope with the impact of the oil disaster, and now they feel they are being dealt a second blow – this time by their government.

Louisiana has a working coast, where people make good paychecks producing the domestic energy that drives our nation. They want to get back to work, doing jobs they love, jobs that provide a good life for their families.

But after that speech, Scalise and Boustany both slammed the amendment as insufficient to end the moratorium. Scalise took special exception to Section F, as did Boustany. In fact, after the two Louisiana Republicans expressed objection, Melancon retook the floor and asked for unanimous consent to revise his amendment to satisfy their concerns. Republican Doc Hastings objected, and the amendment was voted on. Melancon appeared visibly shaken while making the request; C-SPAN video of the exchange shows a staffer putting something in front of him. It almost appeared as though he wasn’t aware of what was in his own amendment.

And the amendment’s protections against arbitrary and dishonest action from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar are meager – as we saw above with Section F, they’re nonexistent - which is why the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association isn’t crazy about Melancon’s amendment at all. In fact, LOGA had this to say about it:

The Louisiana Oil & Gas Association strongly opposes this amendment to the CLEAR Act, which is soon to be up for debate. While the title of this amendment perceives to lift the ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, it in fact will grant overarching authority to the Secretary of the Interior.

Concerns center around “Clause B – Determination of Permit” located on page 2 of the amendment. As it is written, this language would grant the Secretary the authority to “make a determination on whether to issue” a permit. We believe a better structuring of this section should read that if an applicant complies with paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of subsection (a) the Secretary shall issue the permit.

In addition, we remain concerned regarding “Clause F” within the amendment, the “Savings Clause” located on page 3, lines 12-18 – We have concerns that this may codify the Secretary’s authority to suspend offshore drilling permitting and drilling operations. It is our position that the Secretary does not have the right to do so.

The Administration is taking the position that the moratorium is simply based on safety concerns. It is our position that applicants who apply for a permit and meet the proper safety requirement should be issued a permit. Although this language cannot be changed at this time, it is LOGA’s position that this legislation not pass as an amendment to the CLEAR Act.

The long and short of the passage of both Melancon’s amendment and the CLEAR Act as a whole is that a terrible bill has passed and thanks to Melancon’s amendment, which also passed, the law would now codify Ken Salazar’s ability to turn drilling on and off at will. If nothing else, this is an open invitation to corruption, as companies like BP who have already shown their willingness to buy politicians will be incentivized to bribe their way into the Gulf.

Cassidy wasn’t done making moves in his own right. In fact, the House GOP leadership has put his amendment to unconditionally lift the moratorium – which was beaten in a 26-22 committee vote two weeks ago thanks to the “no” votes of five “non-voting” delegates from Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands – forth once again as a Motion To Recommit.

Cassidy’s speech in favor of the motion to recommit was a spirited one…

In the aftermath of today’s debacle, Vitter put out a release trashing Melancon’s amendment:

“This amendment is nothing more than sleight of hand, otherwise it would have never gotten the vote of staunch drilling opponent Nancy Pelosi.  The meat and potatoes of the Melancon amendment keeps all the authority for drilling permits in the hands of the Obama administration who have made clear that they are putting politics ahead of sound policy,” said Vitter.  “I supported the rest of the delegation’s effort to defeat this amendment and wholeheartedly supported the alternative proposal by Rep. Scalise that would have immediately lifted this moratorium that is crushing Louisiana’s economy.”

Vitter’s release brought out more vitriol from Franck, who e-mailed this to Chad Rogers of The Dead Pelican…

Haha. Joke’s on you. The LA Oil and Gas Association’s main objection is to language that is identical to Vitter’s moratorium amendment. What’s next? Is Vitter going to run radio ads attacking himself?

As said above, to an extent Franck has a point – LOGA wasn’t crazy about Vitter’s amendment. But Scalise and Boustany both expressed objections to Section F, not Section B, and any reading of the amendment would reveal that the statutory power given Salazar makes everything else in the amendment purporting to end the moratorium meaningless. And that would call into severe question Franck’s credibility.

Meanwhile, another amendment to the CLEAR Act actually did succeed. Rep. John Fleming (R-Shreveport) managed to get some protections against the EPA taking over regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the natural gas industry.
 
“In Committee, the CLEAR Act was decorated like a Christmas tree with various items unrelated to the oil spill, one of which was the effort to require a leaseholder to disclose on a public website, proprietary information about hydraulic fracturing,” said Fleming.  “There is no doubt that this language was the first step in the liberals’ effort to have the natural gas industry fully regulated by the EPA – something that natural gas producing states, such as Louisiana, see as an intrusion into their authority and regulation.”
 
“An EPA takeover of the natural gas industry would stifle development, destroy jobs and reduce our supply of clean, natural gas, all at a time when our country needs more energy and more jobs,” continued Fleming. “I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who supported this important effort.”

This piece originally ran at TheHill.com…

Two man-made disasters have hit the Gulf Coast: the BP oil spill and the President’s moratorium on energy production.  A third disaster is scheduled for a vote in the House today.

Two hundred twenty-six days before the Deepwater Horizon rig collapsed, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act was introduced in the House.  A repackaged version is now being sold as a response to the BP oil spill.

This bill has much less to do with preventing another spill than it does preventing domestic energy production and destroying jobs.

It is legislate first, ask questions later.  For example, the CLEAR Act gives the Presidential oil spill commission subpoena power to investigate the Deepwater Horizon spill, while simultaneously issuing new regulations in response to the event the commission is to investigate.  In order to prevent another spill, we first need to know what went wrong.  Doing otherwise is a recipe for arbitrary and ineffective regulations.

While the Deepwater Horizon rig’s blowout preventer lies on the ocean floor, the CLEAR Act prescribes new rules governing blowout preventers.  Of course we need to improve oversight of critical safety equipment, but shouldn’t we first look at the one that broke?

One of the CLEAR Act’s most dangerous provisions sounds the most innocuous: Buy American.  It represents the cynical abuse of patriotism in order to kill an entire industry.  Under current rules, rigs in American waters are built to U.S. standards, staffed by American crews, and inspected by U.S. agencies.  The CLEAR Act will require them to be constructed in America as well.  This new requirement is nearly impossible to meet.  Mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) are extremely sophisticated devices.  A MODU hasn’t been built in the United States in over a decade.  The United States currently lacks the capacity to construct them.  This provision will only serve to send American jobs overseas and decimate domestic energy production.

Assuming any producers can survive the Buy American provision, perhaps as few as four major multinationals would be able to bid for offshore leases.  By increasing the oil spill liability cap from $75 million to “unlimited,” the CLEAR Act will make it impossible for independent producers to operate in the Gulf.  Independent producers employ over half of offshore energy workers, hold roughly 90 percent of offshore leases, produce nearly one-third of the oil and two-thirds of the natural gas coming from the Gulf, and have a sterling safety record.  Eliminating independent producers’ ability to operate in the Gulf is expected to eliminate over 300,000 well-paying jobs.

Existing law states that if a company causes an oil spill and is found to be grossly negligent or in violation of federal regulations, the $75 million cap does not apply and the company is liable for ALL damages.  For example, BP has spent nearly $4 billion on response efforts and allocated $20 billion to compensate spill victims.  If a company goes bankrupt, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is funded by oil companies, not taxpayers, compensates spill victims.  In light of the Deepwater Horizon accident, it would be appropriate to strengthen the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.  But it is irresponsible to impose punitive liability requirements on small businesses that have not demonstrated a safety risk.

The CLEAR Act also contains several harmful provisions completely unrelated to the BP oil spill.  It imposes $22 billion in higher taxes on American energy, which will reduce energy sector employment, increase energy prices, and give foreign companies a competitive advantage over domestic producers.  Revenue from this tax increase is not dedicated to anything related to cleaning or restoring the Gulf or protecting against another spill.

It usurps states’ rights by imposing federal regulation of oil and gas on state waters.  States have a history of effectively balancing safety, environmental, and economic concerns, while poor federal oversight contributed to the BP oil spill.  This federal power grab is equivalent to replacing what works with what’s broken.

The CLEAR Act cynically exploits those most affected by the BP oil spill to further an agenda that is hostile to American workers and energy security.  The people of the Gulf deserve better.

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Baton Rouge) took to the airwaves this morning, appearing with Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) on CNBC to talk about the CLEAR Act, which goes to a House vote today.

Cassidy’s got a lot of facts. Pallone? Watch it and decide if this guy knows anything other than how to pile up that Tony Manero do of his without a single strand out of place…

(Hat Tip – Cong. Bill Cassidy via Twitter)

A summary of the Senate Energy Bill, which will likely be debated on the Senate Floor tomorrow, is summarized and analyzed here.  It is essentially another federal bureaucracy that generates a CBO estimated $22.2billion in gross revenue offset by $20.5billion in costs, of which $14billion will be litigation costs to defend lawsuits resulting from the taxes it contains.

But it does not contain carbon cap language, and it does not impose mandatory levels of electric generation from “green” fuels.  We won’t be surprised to see those resurrected during a lame duck session in November and December.

The bill contains a great deal of language addressing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, perhaps an attempt to suggest such drilling will be allowed, though the permitting procedures, inspection requirements, and safety impositions will certainly diminish, if not completely block, such activities.  Safety impositions include a requirement that the Chief Executive Officer of rig operating companies certify compliance with all safety regulations.

It also removes any limit of liability in the event of an incident, thus making it virtually impossible for smaller exploration companies to obtain insurance.

It also includes requirements that all drilling rigs to be built, owned and operated in the United States, which offers protectionism for union labor and will effectively drive away much drilling activity.

Of the $22.2billion in gross, $1.7billion net, revenue, $900million is allocated annually to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and $150million each year to the Historic Preservation Fund.  Neither of these allocations would require further appropriation, both would be subject to the authority of Congress to determine eligibility of the activities on which the funds are spent, and neither provides any protection from their becoming Congressional earmarks.

The bill also makes provisions for environmental restoration of the Gulf Coast, but offers no allocation of funds for those activities.

Where do the revenues come from?  In addition to royalties from the leasing of federal land, the bill creates a new tax of $2 per barrel of oil and $0.20 per million BTU of natural gas produced, taxes which will inevitably be borne by the consumer.

This legislation will also effectively extend the Obamoratium indefinitely, as it increases taxes and regulation, allows the approval process for new exploration plans to be extended indefinitely, and imposes the aforementioned unlimited liability.

Lastly, though this is by no means a complete assessment of the legislation, the bill imposes its regulations on leases on state land, thus encroaching on the rights of the states to regulate drilling activity on their lands.

The bill does not include an amendment offered by Cong. Cassidy that would have created an independent body of technical experts from the engineering and science community to investigate the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.  Democrats ripped that amendment out, because Captain Kickass has his own investigatory body of expert left-wing environmentalists (with no technical knowledge and a predisposition to oppose offshore drilling.  As Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings (R-WA) said after that committee unanimously passed Cassidy’s amendment,

There is widespread agreement that no member of the President’s Commission possesses technical expertise in oil drilling, and several are on the record in opposition to offshore drilling and support a moratorium that will cost thousands of jobs.

This is not good legislation.  The Deepwater Horizon failures certainly need to be investigated and learned from so technology and safety can be improved.  Safety inspections likely need to be increased in frequency and intensity.  But legislation that creates an estimated $14billion in new litigation is not the way to do it.  This bill only helps union labor, trial lawyers, and pork loving politicians, while hurting the oil and gas industry and the American consumer of energy.

Oh, and before our more radical readers begin slinging mud about our inability to embrace anything the Obama administration attempts to do; the regulations and

bureaucratic restrictions apply to the creation of renewable energy facilities, such as solar and wind farms, on federal lands, just as they apply to oil and gas.

As the unfortunate process of moving the CLEAR Act – which would restrict oil and gas exploration through a series of harmful regulations and new taxes – toward a floor vote in the House of Representatives continues, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a step yesterday to carry water for President Obama and against the people of the Gulf Coast who are asking for an independent, bi-partisan investigation of what happened to the Deepwater Horizon and what should be done to keep it from happening again.

An amendment to the CLEAR Act which would have established such a commission was offered in the House Natural Resources Committee by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Baton Rouge), and it passed through committee on a unanimous vote. But things went south from there. As Connie Hair of HUMAN EVENTS reports:

The Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed the amendment in committee markup July 14 offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that would establish a bipartisan, independent, National Commission on Outer Continental Shelf Oil Spill Prevention.

Unlike the commission set up by President Obama — packed only with environmental activists and no petroleum engineers — the commission unanimously approved by the Natural Resources committee would be comprised of technical experts to study the actual events leading up to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Not a single member of the committee voiced opposition at the bill’s markup.  The Senate has also approved an independent commission.

“To investigate what went wrong and keep it from happening again, the commission must include members who have expertise in petroleum engineering.  The President’s Commission has none,” Cassidy, the amendment’s author, told HUMAN EVENTS after the announcement.  “It defies common sense that this amendment passed unanimously in committee, only to be deleted in the Speaker’s office.”

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), top Republican on the Natural Resources Committee said the Obama’s administration’s commission was set up to protect the President.

“By deleting the bipartisan, independent oil spill commission that’s received bipartisan support in both House and Senate committees, Democrats have shown they are more interested in protecting the President than getting independent answers to what caused this tragic Gulf spill.  Some of the biggest failures that contributed to the Gulf disaster are the direct responsibility of the federal government and by deleting this bipartisan, independent commission, Democrats ensure that only the President’s hand-picked commission will be digging into any failures of his own Interior Department appointees.  There is widespread agreement that no member of the President’s commission possesses technical expertise in oil drilling, and several are on the record in opposition to offshore drilling and support a moratorium that will cost thousands of jobs,” Hastings said.

Why would Pelosi have been opposed to such a commission? Now that the spill has largely been contained and its response can begin to focus on cleaning up the damage, it would seem the next step is to come to a common agreement as to what happened on the Deepwater Horizon and how it should be prevented.

But Pelosi knocked the legs off that smart approach. Instead, we’ll see a bill which punishes the oil and gas industry go through the House along a partisan vote, we’ll only have a hand-picked Obama commission full of left-wing environmentalist kooks and Soros stooges to assign blame for the spill and we’ll see the spectacle of the administration holding out passage of the CLEAR Act as his price for lifting the moratorium.

Rep. John Fleming (R-Shreveport), whose district includes the Haynesville Shale natural gas field - the development of which will be impacted by this bill, told HUMAN EVENTS this is nothing but politics.

“This ‘fix it’ bill is being rammed through without an accurate and full understanding of what actually went wrong. The Presidential Commission is just barely beginning its work, no investigations are yet concluded, and the failed [blowout preventer] still on the ocean floor, yet we are voting on a bill without knowing what went wrong,” Fleming said. 

“Furthermore, at a time when Washington should be focused on creating jobs, this bill will do just the opposite by hampering future energy development and stifling job creation along the Gulf Coast,” Fleming added.  “This knee-jerk legislation — coupled with the Administration’s damaging Moratorium on offshore drilling — will worsen, not help, the situation.”

One way or the other, though, the truth will eventually come out. For example, a lawsuit in federal court in New Orleans alleges that fire teams responding to the blaze aboard the Deepwater Horizon flooded the rig and destabilized it, which caused it to sink and commenced the oil spill. If that is proven, it’s possible that the Coast Guard could be complicit in the economic damages the spill has caused – or perhaps more importantly, that proper procedure to handle future offshore blowouts will be refined.

Items like this are unlikely to be addressed by a hand-picked presidential commission. They might have been addressed by a commission such as the one proposed by Cassidy.

“This bill has less to do with preventing another spill than it does preventing domestic energy production,” Cassidy said.

Heading to the House floor this week is yet another legislative bullet aimed at the heart of Louisiana industry. The CLEAR Act (H.R. 3534) is being sold as Congress’ response to the Gulf oil spill but in typical House of Representatives fashion, it’s loaded with crap. And virtually everything the bill offers as a solution to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy goes exactly the wrong way. It will effectively codify the Interior Department’s shutdown of offshore Gulf drilling, and it will have a chilling effect on onshore drilling as well – including drilling for natural gas, which could affect the coming Haynesville Shale natural gas revolution. For good measure, the bill even codifies the shutdown of Louisiana’s fisheries in large part by dredging up the Obama administration’s “marine spatial planning” ideas which created such a terrible stir back in March.

Among the parade of horribles in the bill…

• The Obama Moratorium on deepwater drilling has already cost tens of thousands of jobs and this bill will eliminate even more American energy jobs by making it harder and more expensive to produce American energy both onshore and offshore. The Gulf spill has already taken a terrible economic toll on the Gulf Coast and affected businesses across the country – and Congress shouldn’t enact laws that impose even further economic harm and lead to thousands of more lost jobs.

• Reforms are clearly needed to make American offshore drilling the safest in the world, but this bill gets ahead of the facts in a rush to write new laws. The investigations need to be completed so that Congress can act intelligently. For example, the Deepwater Horizon rig’s blowout preventer that is supposed to be a fail-safe device to prevent any spill is still a mile under the ocean – it needs to be retrieved and examined. The focus must be on permanently stopping the leak, cleaning up the oil, assisting Gulf Coast communities, holding BP 100% accountable, and getting to the bottom of all that went wrong. To ensure it makes the right reforms, Congress must first know exactly what caused and contributed to this disaster.

• With this bill, Democrats are exploiting the Gulf oil spill tragedy as a political opportunity to push through provisions that are unrelated to the spill response or reforms to offshore drilling. The latest version of the CLEAR Act:

-     Imposes job-killing changes and higher taxes for onshore natural gas and oil production. It fundamentally changes leasing onshore by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which affects not just leasing for natural gas and oil, but also for renewable energy including wind and solar. Forest Service and BLM leasing are shoved into the three new agencies that are replacing the former Minerals Management Service (MMS).

-     Creates over $30 billion in new mandatory spending for two programs that have nothing to do with the oil spill (the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund). In the version of the bill headed to the House floor, Democrats added brand new language that expressly allows this $30 billion to be earmarked by the Appropriations Committee.

-     Raises taxes by over $22 billion in ten years – with the taxes eventually climbing to nearly $3 billion per year. This is a direct tax on natural gas and oil that will raise energy prices for American families and businesses, hurt domestic jobs, and increase our dependence on foreign oil. This tax only applies to U.S. oil and gas production on federal leases – giving an advantage to foreign oil and hurting American energy jobs.

• Requires the federal takeover of state authority to permit in state waters, which reverses sixty years of precedent. The mismanagement, corruption and oversight failures of the federal government are being used as justification to expand federal control by seizing management from the states.

-     Allows 10% of all offshore revenues – an amount possibly as high as $500 million per year – to be spent on a new fund controlled by the Interior Secretary to issue ocean research grants (ORCA fund). There is no requirement that the fund is used for the Gulf region or anything related to oil spills or offshore drilling. These funds can be earmarked.

-     Establishes “marine spatial planning” regulatory authority – which allows for ocean zoning that could lead to restrictions on fishing, energy production and even onshore activities such as farming. This vague new regulatory authority could cost fishing jobs, energy jobs, manufacturing jobs, farming jobs, and many more jobs that may impact waterways that drain into the ocean.

• The bill includes unlimited spill liability for offshore operators, which could effectively eliminate independent producers from operating offshore if they cannot obtain insurance policies to cover their operations. According to an independent study from IHS Global Insight, “by 2020 an exclusion of the independents from the Gulf of Mexico would eliminate 300,000 jobs and result in a loss of $147 billion in federal, state, and local taxes from the Gulf region over 10 years.”

• Democrat leaders also deleted a provision adopted without objection in the House Natural Resources Committee just two weeks ago to establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the oil spill – a provision that has also passed a Senate Committee in a bipartisan vote.

It was the CLEAR Act to which Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Baton Rouge) attempted to add an amendment which would end the Obama moratorium on deepwater drilling. That amendment was shot down on a mostly party-line vote in the House Natural Resources Committee, 26-22, with the decisive margin coming from five “non-voting” delegates from Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Cassidy is still pushing the amendment, which would state that the moratorium would have “no cause or effect,” and introduced it on the House floor today.

“There is no reasonable justification for this moratorium,” said Cassidy. “As the Administration’s handpicked engineers point out, the moratorium does not reduce risk, but does cause immeasurable economic harm to the people and communities most affected by the spill in the Gulf. It represents the triumph of partisan politics over reason, science, and tens of thousands of Louisiana jobs.”

The CLEAR Act is scheduled for a floor vote on Friday.

In this update: rising scrutiny for Traylor, Cassidy mastering the influence game and Villere pulls Tea Party endorsement.

SPOTLIGHT SHINES HOTLY ON TRAYLOR: Republican Senate challenger Chet Traylor, whose primary campaign against incumbent David Vitter depends on his casting himself as the squeaky-clean alternative to Vitter’s checkered personal history, continues to get national notice as his two-week-old campaign continues. Today’s Daily Caller has a story by Steven Powell on Traylor and his prospects to unseat Vitter, casting those prospects in an uncertain light but quoting longtime Louisiana political wag John Maginnis in casting a Traylor upset as a potential win for the GOP.

Despite Traylor’s confidence in Vitter’s vulnerability, John Maginnis, a Louisiana political analyst and the publisher of LaPolitics Weekly, offers a different view of the situation.

“Vitter still has support among Republicans, especially the Tea Party, religious and business groups,” he said.

Vitter has the right stances on political issues to win among Republicans – which is why Traylor mirrors Vitter’s stances on the issues, Maginnis said. But the biggest fear haunting Republicans is that the Democrats may be sitting on another Vitter scandal to release right before the general election. This will be Traylor’s main line of attack.

Maginnis said the best-case scenario for Democrats is for Vitter to win the primary after a hard-fought battle.

“Democrats are hoping for Vitter to win, they just need Traylor to bloody him up a little,” he said. “The down side to a Traylor victory for Democrats would be Republicans carrying momentum into the general election.”

Maginnis says Traylor will need to raise $700,000 to mount a credible campaign against Vitter, who has $5.5 million in the bank. He also says that’s an attainable number.

But today’s Monroe News-Star probably shoots down Maginnis’ hypothesis. The story the paper tells about the former Louisiana Supreme Court Justice isn’t exactly one which would cast him as the good-guy alternative to Vitter’s black hat. It largely corroborates the words of our Walter Abbott, who first stated Traylor’s issues with marital infidelity last week, and fleshes out in somewhat gory detail the circumstances of Traylor’s relationship with the family of state representative Noble Ellington.

But Traylor has his own ethical questions that could threaten the upstanding image his campaign has opted to present. They include:

- His complicated romantic history, including allegations of affairs with two married women.

- A lawsuit filed by Traylor’s stepsons, who say Traylor has resisted efforts to collect information on the estate of their dead mother, Traylor’s former wife, Peggy McDowell Traylor.

Traylor contends he’s done nothing unethical in his personal conduct.

“I’ve done nothing I’m ashamed of,” he said.

“I’ve done everything I’ve done in the open.”

The two alleged romantic affairs themselves present a tangled family web.

State Rep. Noble Ellington, D-Winnsboro, said that Traylor was “significantly involved” in the cause of his divorce from Peggy McDowell, who later married Chet Traylor and became Peggy McDowell Traylor.

Noble Ellington said in an interview Monday that Traylor was “certainly part of the reason” for his divorce from his then wife.

Traylor denies the accusation and said Ellington and the former Peggy McDowell, who died last year, were separated before his relationship with McDowell began.

“That’s absolutely untrue,” Traylor replied when asked if he played a part in Ellington’s divorce.

Traylor is also currently involved in a romantic relationship with Denise Lively, the estranged wife of his stepson, Ryan Ellington, the son of Noble Ellington.

Lively and Ryan Ellington remain legally married, but both he and Traylor said the Lively-Traylor relationship began while Lively and Ryan Ellington were separated.

A few months after the death of Peggy McDowell Traylor, Chet Traylor began the relationship with Lively.

Ryan Ellington said a divorce with Denise Lively is pending.

Beyond those relationship problems, a new lawsuit also could raise further questions about Traylor’s image.

Ryan and Noble Ellington III, both of Winnsboro, filed a lawsuit against Traylor last month in Fifth Judicial District Court stating that in the months since the death of their mother, Peggy McDowell Traylor, in August 2009, Traylor has resisted efforts by the sons to collect information on their mother’s estate and to take possession of some of her property.

Noble Ellington III and Ryan Ellington’s lawsuit asks the court to compel Traylor to turn over bank records, their mother’s property and other relevant financial records.

Peggy McDowell Traylor died without a will.

Noble Ellington III and Ryan Ellington were appointed by the court as the independent co-administrators of their mother’s estate, some of which is shared as community property with Chet Traylor.

The lawsuit states that Chet Traylor “resists production” of financial records and “exhibits no cooperation with the court appointed administrators.”

After Ryan Ellington and Noble Ellington III issued a subpoena to Franklin State Bank in Winnsboro for financial records, Traylor filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

The Ellingtons’ attorney, Paul Spillers of Monroe, contends that Traylor has provided no legal basis for refusing to provide financial records.

It’s pretty damning stuff, and it’s also the kind of thing which is nearly impossible to hide. You can’t conduct a romantic relationship with a state legislator’s wife, not to mention the son of a state legislator’s wife as well (who also happens to be your stepson), and then run for the U.S. Senate without that coming out pretty quickly. And this stuff isn’t a secret in the northern part of the state. As James H. wrote in the Opinionated Catholic yesterday…

I have to admit I am a tad surprised they are being talked about openly in the newspaper so soon.

Not only did he screw around and cause the divorce of a State Rep and his wife but now is involved with his Step Sons WIFE.!! Sounds like a porn film. Maybe I am old fashioned but I find Vitter’s problems less objectionable compared to that.

None of this is really news to me as a North Louisiana guy but I suspect it might be news to other down south.

Traylor’s issues might be overcome in a different race, but it’s hard to see how his market positioning against Vitter will be successful given this baggage.

CASSIDY BUILDING AN EMPIRE: The Baton Rouge Business Report has a blurb on Rep. Bill Cassidy’s burgeoning influence operation up in DC, and the Baton Rouge Congressman’s strategic use of campaign funds to promote conservative candidates.

According to the piece, Cassidy just contributed $125,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the political action committee he formed with the Baton Rouge accounting firm Postlethwaite & Netterville, CASS PAC, “raised more than $100,000 for the second quarter and is responsible for sending 66 financial contributions to 54 conservatives in races around the country.” CASS PAC, which stands for Continuing America’s Strength and Security PAC, has $60,000 left in the bank. Cassidy himself has $924,000 on hand for his campaign against Democrat Merritt McDonald, a contractor and former Baton Rouge Metro Council candidate.

VILLERE LANDS TEA PARTY NOD: Louisiana Republican Party chairman Roger Villere picked up a welcome bit of news in his campaign for Lieutenant Governor, as one of Louisiana’s largest Tea Party organizations announced an endorsement of Villere this morning. The Tea Party of Louisiana cited Villere’s low-tax, small-government platform as the reason for their backing.

“The Tea Party of Louisiana is pleased to endorse Roger Villere for Lt. Governor,” Tea Party of Louisiana Spokesman Chris Comeaux said. “For a quarter century, Roger Villere has served as a volunteer in the fight for less government and more freedom in Louisiana. As Lt. Governor, he will be a strong voice and lead the fight to usher in a new wave of conservative revolution in Louisiana,” Comeaux said.

“This is going to be a momentous year for those of us who value less government spending, reject government intrusion into business, want to stop socialized healthcare and believe in the Constitution as it was written by our founders,” Comeaux said.  “It’s time that we take our country back from career politicians who say one thing and then vote differently when they are in office. We are making it our mission across America this fall to shine the light of truth on those politicians who have made a career treating our tax dollars like their piggy bank.”

As we posted last week, an amendment offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy which would have done away with the Obama administration’s illegal (according to federal courts at the district and circuit levels) moratorium on deepwater drilling was beaten in the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday by a 26-22 vote. (Click here for the tally sheet of the committee vote.)

And as we posted last week the vote on that amendment was decided by “no” votes by five “non-voting delegates” from Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, America Samoa and the Virgin Islands.

The five, all Democrats, are not allowed to vote on the House floor, though in committee their votes are binding. They can also vote on amendments on the House floor thanks to an innovation courtesy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It’s also no surprise that the five populate the House Natural Resources Committee, as a subcommittee of that group handles the nation’s oceans policy.

The jurisdictions represented by those delegates pay no taxes to the federal government. Thanks to their votes on the moratorium Thursday, many Louisianians will be paying far less in taxes over the next six months and beyond.

Connie Hair at Human Events, in a piece today on the topic, recounts a conversation with Cassidy in which the Congressman notes that the “non-voting delegates” voting against his amendment were only part of the problem – the bulk of the votes against the amendment came from representatives of non-energy producing states who live under the assumption that energy grows on trees.

Cassidy said there’s a great sense of relief that no new oil is currently leaking into the Gulf but there’s a sense of impending doom in Louisiana over the drilling moratorium.

“There’s just a sense here that Obama hates Louisiana,” Cassidy said.  “This moratorium is not hurting Tony Hayward or BP.  They’re just going to move their rigs to Libya and start drilling there.  The people it is hurting are families.  Imagine the typical middle class family if you interrupt their income for six months what that would do to their finances.  This is a people moratorium.”

“There is an ideological bias in this Congress starting at the top against domestic energy production unless it is the ephemeral promise of windmills and solar panels,” Cassidy said.  “If it were not for the representatives of the territories, she would have stacked it with someone else.  There are only three Democrats on that committee who represent areas that produce energy:  the Chairman [Nick Rahall (W.V.)], Jim Costa (Calif.) and Dan Boren (Okla.).  Those are the three that voted for my amendment to end the moratorium.”

Primary and Filing Status

On the primary front, it has been relatively quiet this month. The Alabama runoff has been the only election held since June 22, and it provided yet another example of voters (in this case, in the Republican runoff for governor) choosing someone other than the preferred candidate of the local political establishment, by an unambiguous 56-44% margin.

There has been more action, however, with Congressional/gubernatorial filings; in the past week, filing has concluded in Maryland, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and New York, for a total of 48 states (all but Delaware and Hawaii have concluded their congressional qualifying). Thus far, 37 House members (31 Republicans and 6 Democrats) will not have major party opposition; this list expanded by two when after the close of Louisiana’s qualifying, Democrats decided not to compete for the seats held by Rodney Alexander (R-Quitman) and Charles Boustany (R-Lafayette). (7/18 Editor’s updates: (1) As of press time, candidate filing has concluded in New York, but a finalized list of candidates is not yet available until sometime before August 9, according to their Board Of Election. We currently believe that four New York City Democrats will have no Republican opposition, and once we have the final list, we will revise the paragraph above; (2) We had incorrect dates for filing deadlines for Minnesota and Vermont, and in fact, their filing deadlines have passed)

While Congressional qualifying concludes, the only other electoral action this month will be the Georgia primary on July 20 and the Oklahoma primary on July 27. We are watching two races in Georgia - the governor’s race and a U.S. House race in the suburbs of Atlanta.

On the Democratic side of the governor’s race, we have yet another example (in addition to California, Iowa, Maryland, and Oregon) of a former governor wanting his old job back. Democrat Roy Barnes was defeated by a Republican when he ran for re-election in 2002 (incidentally, the victor was the first and only Republican to win that office since Reconstruction), and is seeking a comeback now that the Republican is term-limited. While he’s expected to win the Democratic primary easily, the more interesting race is the Republican primary. With this being an open seat race, a crowded field of seven candidates is seeking the nomination. What makes this race interesting is that it is yet another test of the power of the Sarah Palin endorsement, as she has thrown her support behind Secretary of State Karen Handel, who leads in a recent poll with 32%.

We are also watching a House race in the eastern suburbs of Atlanta. This majority black district has seen a series of contested Democratic primaries since 2002, and was the district that twice rejected former Congresswoman (and firebrand) Cynthia McKinney. The person who defeated her in 2006, Hank Johnson, is now in some political trouble himself: his two primary opponents have made hay over recent remarks he made in a committee hearing asserting that “…relocating Navy personnel to Guam would cause the small island to ‘become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize’…” . As a result, the picture they are painting to Democratic primary voters in that district is that he is “aloof and out of touch”, and that he “runs his campaign by press releases.”

Shortly after the Georgia and Oklahoma primaries, Congressional qualifying concludes in Delaware on July 30, and contested primaries return with a vengeance, starting on August 3. Throughout the month of August, 14 states (including Louisiana’s August 28 Congressional party primaries) will be holding primaries, and we have summarized those races below (7/18 Editor’s note: We have found out that Minnesota and Vermont have their primaries in August and not on 9/14, as we originally thought):

August 3: Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri – We are focusing on the Republican primary for Senate in Kansas. While throughout the election cycle, “political establishment” candidates have suffered defeat after defeat, Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin have been more successful in their endorsements whenever they weigh in on a race. And in Kansas, two Republican Congressmen are seeking the nomination for this open seat, and Sarah Palin has endorsed Todd Tiahrt, whose endorsement list is a “who’s who” of conservatives: Sean Hannity, Steve Forbes, the Tea Party Express, and Focus On the Family.

August 5: Tennessee: While the Kansas primary will be a test of the power of Sarah Palin’s endorsement, we are following a Democratic House primary in Memphis, Tennessee to assess how viable the use of the “race card” still is in black majority districts. In this situation, two-term incumbent Steve Cohen is a white liberal representing an inner city district that voted 78-22% for Barack Obama. His holding this seat for two terms has ruffled the feathers of the local black political establishment, so pugnacious former Mayor Willie Herenton (who is black) is challenging Cohen in the primary. Yet in this contest, the racial overtones have been counteracted by endorsements Rep. Cohen has received from both members of the Congressional Black Caucus and of President Obama.

August 10: Colorado, Connecticut, and Minnesota: The Colorado Senate race features contested Democratic and Republican primaries. The Democratic primary is an interesting proxy battle between President Obama and former President Clinton. This senate seat initially became vacant at the start of the Obama administration when former Senator Ken Salazar was appointed Secretary of the Interior. To fill the vacancy, Colorado’s Democratic governor appointed Michael Bennet, who was at the time the superintendent of Denver’s public schools. Though Bennet has compiled a generally liberal record and has the strong support of the Democratic establishment (including President Obama), some local politicians like former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff felt slighted, and Romanoff is challenging Bennet in the primary with the endorsement of former President Clinton.  This “national vs local establishment” subtext to this race seems similar to the Specter/Sestak race in Pennsylvania, except that Bennet has always been a Democrat who has worked within the political system, and he has (unsurprisingly) led in the polls throughout the campaign.

On the Republican side, the Colorado Senate primary is, like Kentucky and Nevada, another test of the strength of the Tea Party movement in Republican primaries. DA Ken Buck is running with Tea Party support. His main opponent is Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, who is viewed as more of an establishment favorite.

August 17:Washington and Wyoming: In Washington, the GOP scored a recruiting coup when former state senator (and two time gubernatorial candidate) Dino Rossi agreed to run against three term incumbent Patty Murray, the “Mom in tennis shoes.” However, local Tea Partiers are not enthusiastic about his candidacy, and have rallied behind former Washington Redskins tight end Clint Didier. Didier also claims the endorsements of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, so in a sense, this race is also a test of the power of the Palin endorsement. Washington State, however, is a more hospitable environment for political moderates and/or moderate Republicans, so we believe that Rossi will survive the primary and become the Republican challenger to Senator Murray.

August 24: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, and Vermont: In Alaska, Sarah Palin (and Tea Partiers, for that matter)  is supporting the insurgent candidacy of attorney Joe Miller against eight year incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary. There is a personal aspect to this endorsement: former Senator Frank Murkowski (the incumbent senator’s father) was elected Governor in 2002 and promptly appointed his daughter to the seat. This appointment proved to be bad politics for both father and daughter. While Lisa was barely elected to a full term in a year George W. Bush was carrying Alaska with over 60% of the vote, Governor Murkowski was politically humiliated in his 2006 re-election bid. Not only was he defeated in the Republican primary by Sarah Palin, but he came in third place.

The Palin endorsement also is playing itself out in Arizona as well, although this time, Sarah Palin is endorsing the incumbent. In the Republican Senate primary, four term incumbent John McCain has stiff opposition from sportscaster/former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, and Hayworth’s candidacy is an outlet for Arizona Republicans who’ve felt that over the years McCain is not conservative enough. There is a very simple reason for Palin endorsing the incumbent: simple gratitude for McCain’s making her his running mate in his unsuccessful 2008 Presidential candidacy. Also on the ballot is the gubernatorial primary, which was effectively settled on the Republican side when formerly embattled incumbent Jan Brewer decided to enforce federal immigration laws on her own and has since attained hero status with conservatives across the country and in Arizona.

For months, the Republican primary for an open Senate seat in Florida was a marquee event, especially after Governor Charlie Crist saw his poll numbers steadily decline after embracing President Obama during a 2009 visit to the state. When he decided to change parties and run as an Independent (thus bypassing any party primaries), former House Speaker Marco Rubio effectively became the Republican nominee. The race took another twist on the Democratic side, however, when presumptive nominee, Kendrick Meek (a black Congressman from Miami) got a primary challenge from controversial billionaire Jeff Greene. This has been a hard fought 3 way race for several months now, and will continue to be competitive after the primary.

August 28: Louisiana Congressional Party Primaries: This is the last year that Louisiana will hold party primaries for Congressional races (this practice started with the 2008 election cycle and has never been very popular with voters comfortable with Louisiana’s open primaries). There are several races worth following, however. Keep in mind that only Republicans can vote in Republican Congressional primaries, while Democrats and/or unaffiliated voters can vote in Democratic Congressional primaries:

Senate – While both David Vitter and Charlie Melancon face two opponents each in their respective party primaries, we are most interested in the percent of the vote in each parish that Senator Vitter’s challengers will receive, since that vote represents the potential defections Senator Vitter may face in November to any of the 10 independent candidates running. What makes the Republican primary race especially interesting is the last minute entry of former Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor; his candidacy was borne out of disgust at Senator Vitter’s prior conduct with a prostitute, as well as assault charges facing one of his aides.

House – There are also several Congressional  primaries we are watching: (1) in New Orleans, can the Democrats unite behind a single challenger to vulnerable Republican freshman “Joseph” Cao, or will they be pushed into a runoff, thus giving Cao an additional month to campaign and raise money ?; (2) in New Iberia/Houma/Chalmette, three Republicans are seeking Democrat Charlie Melancon’s vacated House seat. Will the financial firepower of attorneys Jeff Landry and Hunt Downer put them in the runoff against each other, or can political newcomer Kristian Magar use his grassroots support to pull off an upset by making it into the runoff ?;(3) Three term incumbent Rodney Alexander is facing a primary opponent this year who is questioning his credibility as a conservative. Rep. Alexander similarly faced a more conservative primary challenger in 2008, and whipped him 90-10%. Will the challenger (Todd Slavant), with his Tea Party affiliations, make it a more competitive race in this anti incumbent year?

After the gauntlet of August primaries, all will be quiet on the political front until “Super Tuesday II” on September 14, when 7 states hold their primaries on that day. “Super Tuesday II” pretty much concludes primary season nationally, although Hawaii has a primary on September 18, and on October 2, Louisiana will have (if necessary) party runoffs for Congress, as well as “open primary” races for statewide (Lt Governor, PSC) and local (judge, school board, etc) races. And if no one in those local/statewide races receives a majority, they will have to compete in a runoff held on the same day as the midterm elections.

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

This morning, Rep. Bill Cassidy offered an amendment in the House Natural Resources Committee that would have overturned the Obamoratorium, stating that the May 30 and July 12 deepwater drilling bans “shall have no force or effect” and containing the following language:

“No Federal official may establish any general moratorium on or suspension of offshore oil and gas operations that is substantially similar to the moratorium, the decision memorandum, or any suspension referred to in subsection.”

Cassidy then addressed the committee by making the point that Louisiana’s economy is going to be devastated by the moratorium (it’s already happening), and that “To support this moratorium you have to ignore the evidence, the testimony of experts, and the ruinous consequences this irrational political decision will have on tens of thousands of Louisiana families.”

He then went further:

Of course, following his question why the proponents of the Obamoratorium would reject the advice of the actual experts in favor of Ken Salazar and Michael Bromwich, who between them couldn’t tell you the difference between an oil well and a wishing well, there was no answer.

Cassidy actually managed to get support for the amendment from Natural Resources committee chair Nick Rahall (D-WV). Another Democrat, Jim Costa of California, also came aboard. But the amendment lost by a 22-26 vote, including five votes by supposedly “non-voting” delegates from places like American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, the Virgin Islands and Guam.

And Ed Markey, whose boss George Soros stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars off the moratorium thanks to his near billion-dollar investment in Petrobras.

The 26 House members who voted to kill the economy of coastal Louisiana are:

Rep. George Miller (D-CA)
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)
Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Del. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa)
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam)
Del. Del. Gregorio Sablan (D-Northern Marianas)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands)
Rep. Dianna DeGette (D-CO)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)
Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD)
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Rep. Nikki Tsongas (D-MA)
Rep. Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
Del. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)