The BP oil spill puts Republicans in a real bind. Speaking of Rep. Barton’s (R-TX) apology to BP, Josh Marshall at TPM puts their dilemma into context beautifully:

… Dems take lots of oil money too. But while Dems have one night stands with the oil industry or relationships, with Republicans like Barton it’s a committed and loving relationship. Even when it’s not even helpful.

Locally, nobody exemplifies the GOP love affair with Big Oil better than Roy Blunt, who has been twisting and turning with the best of them as he tries to talk tough while getting his oil industry cronies off the hook. We noted earlier how quick he was to jump on the GOP “drill, baby,drill” effort to portray the moratorium on offshore drilling as as a greater catastrophe than the spill. However, he has branched out and is now, according to Fired Up Missouri, creating a genuinely twisted narrative in order to oppose the spill-inspired resurgence of clean-energy legislation. Yesterday morning – I swear to God – on Jamie Allman’s  KSDK radio show, he made the claim that clean-energy legislation is bad for the environment:

Cap and trade is a terrible thing for our state, it’s a terrible thing for the country, and it’s a terrible thing for the environment.  Because when we lose the jobs, those jobs go to somewhere that cares a whole lot less about what comes out of the smokestack than we do. And you know, America is a lot of great things, but it’s not, it’s not, it’s not, it’s not a planet. So we can’t solve this problem ourselves.

There is so much wrong with this assertion that one hardly knows where to start. However, what I’m really interested in here are Blunt’s errors of fact, which bring us to his assertions about jobs. Blunt knows as well as most of us that big swaths of our jobs went overseas long ago, even before the recession, and, if they continue to move off-shore, it will not be because of federal energy legislation. To find the culprit look no farther than misguided dedication to a one-sided, utopian concept of free-trade. Former Senator Fritz Hollings summed it up in a Huffington Post interview:

 

An important part of the job fraud is to make the people feel like the loss of jobs is due to the recession, not off-shoring. Long before the recession, South Carolina lost its textile industry; North Carolina lost its furniture industry; Detroit its automobile industry, and California its computer industry, etc. President Obama wants to increase exports, but we have nothing to export. … Most of the job loss is from off-shoring, not the recession.

Roy Blunt was playing a leadership role in Washington during the eight years of the Bush administration during which the off-shoring of our manufacturing jobs continued to  accelerate, and I can’t remember that he got too hot and bothered about job loss then. Senator Hollings outlined several possible correctives – simple measures like canceling tax exemptions on off-shore profits for instance. But I don’t remember Roy Blunt even discussing off-shoring as a problem. One can’t be blamed for asking what exactly has changed.

This question is particularly salient since there are many convincing arguments that clean energy legislation will create jobs. Even ConservaDem Claire McCaskill understands this fact, which is why she recently signed on to a letter affirming the importance of moving forward on the green jobs front.

I don’t know about you, but before my leaders decide we can’t afford to address a potentially catastrophic climate-change crisis because jobs might go overseas, I expect them to at least discuss alternatives like those suggested by Hollings. Before we decide that clean energy legislation will hurt our job situation, I want to hear Blunt make a serious intellectual effort to justify his evident belief that green energy jobs aren’t good enough.

On one point, I do agree with Blunt – the U.S. is not a planet.  It is precisely because the U.S. aspires to a leadership role in a shared world that it behooves us to be among the first to act. Blunt, was more than willing to go along unquestioningly with the assertion that the U.S. should, as a world leader, bring “freedom” to the Middle East. Why then is he opposed to exercising U.S. leadership to combat potentially catastrophic climate change? What reason could he possibly have – apart from the fact that he might suffer personally  if he supports anything that threatens the profits of his big oil paramour.

Tonight President Obama eloquently elaborated on the lessons that we need to take from the disastrous gulf oil spill – lessons that apparently are way over Roy Blunt’s head. Blunt, simple soul that he is, professed via twitter that:

I was stunned to hear the president use the BP oil spill disaster as an opportunity to push for his job-killing national energy tax plan

It does seem clear that ol’ Roy hasn’t had time to peruse the EPA analysis of the American Power Act:

The Environmental Protection Agency has released its analysis of the American Power Act today, agreeing with independent studies that the legislation would cut energy bills, create jobs, and strengthen national security. Most critically, they also looked at the effect of the legislation on the fate of the planet’s climate. Scientists have repeatedly warned that catastrophic tipping points – global species collapse, megadroughts, rapid sea level rise, ice cap destruction – become inevitable as the planet warms more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Quite simply, an American cap on carbon is the deciding factor

Of course, since the EPA has as its mission the protection of the environment, Blunt, like other GOPers and some ConservaDems who have as their mission the protection of oil and coal cronies,  might not be inclined to consider the EPA’s expert analysis any time soon.

Nevertheless, when we’ re dealing with a crisis, I’m not sure I want my politicians to spout pre-digested focus group talking points, complete with catchy but empty phrases like “job-killing national energy tax.” I know that it’s got to be so much easier than actually thinking, but don’t we elect these clowns to actually, substantively deal with our problems?  

It’s a sure thing that Kit Bond will respect the GOP love affair with Big-Oil and King-Coal, not to mention his party’s general policy of obstruction when it comes time to consider the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act – just consider his absurd response to new EPA clean air regulations. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, may hew to her Republican-not-so-light line, but, given her recent actions in regard to clean energy initiatives, it’s just possible that she may be coming around to understanding that CO2 emission control is part-and-parcel of getting to where we need to be, and that she needs to take a few risks and show some innovative, forward-looking leadership to help us get there.

It is surely this possibility that has led organizations like  Repower America and Clean Energy Works to lobby as hard as they can to bring Senator McCaskill on board. Which brings us to a conference call earlier this morning organized by Clean Energy Works. The call, which consisted of brief presentations from Missourians representing political, business, farm, and military interests, fleshed out four compelling arguments for passing the American Power Act (and, I hope, for improving that flawed proposal):

Clean energy alternatives are here right now: This point was made forcefully by Steve Flick, Board President of Show Me Energy Cooperative, “a non-profit, producer owned cooperative founded to support the development of renewable biomass energy sources in West Central Missouri.” The Cooperative has used “stable biomass” as the basis for a “bio-pellet” that can be used for heat as well as to create electricity – recently the KCP&L utility company purchased the pellets to try them out as an alternative to coal for generating electricity.

Better yet, given McCaskill’s concern that Missourians not “get the short end of the stick” economically, bio-pellet production has the potential to increase farm income. One of the goals of the Cooperative, for instance, is to  “provide additional revenue streams for farmers and producers for their products by utilization in biomass energy production.”

Clean Energy is politically viable: State Senator Joan Bray (D-24) observed that the public is ahead of the policy makers and wants the transition to clean energy now. She noted that the Massey coal mine disaster and the current catastrophic BP oil spill have brought home to Americans the costs of doing nothing. The public expects action not dithering from a congress that, according to Bray, doesn’t seem to be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” This argument might reassure our politically cautious McCaskill, especially since it is supported by some recent polling (see also here).

McCaskill, who professes to worry about the impact of precipitate action on the business climate, should also be receptive to Bray’s observation that Congress must make prompt decisions about energy for economic reasons as well, since businesses need to be able to rely on known rules if they are to plan intelligently.

Clean Energy makes us more secure: Jack Hembree, a U.S. Army veteran from Springfield and a member of Operation Free discussed the fact that because most of our oil comes from the Middle East – only 3% of our consumption is supported by domestic oil production – we will have no choice but to continue our military involvement in the region until we can move to clean energy. Listening to Hembree, it occurred to me that since McCaskill claims to support our troops, given the role of oil in putting them in harm’s way, how can she do other than to vote for the American Power Act?

Clean Energy has no downside: Ralph Bicknese, of Hellmuth & Bicknese Architects in St. Louis offered this formula for evaluating the real costs of our energy sources: just ask what happens when things go wrong.

Coal? Produces coal ash that ends up in unlined and unregulated sludge ponds. And what’s wrong with that? Think about toxic chemical byproducts seeping into your water, not to mention spills – remember what happened in Kingston Tennessee?

Oil? If I need to spell the downside out, you’ve been living in a cave for the last four decades.

Nuclear? As Bicknesse put it, when Nuclear goes wrong, it goes very wrong. Think Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and then think abut the problems inherent in storing poisonous waste with a half-life of a couple of millennia. Not to mention that power from nuclear energy is expensive. It’s a dangerous energy source and it’s not cheap.

Wind, solar? Maybe there are some little implementation problems but nothing that can go catastrophically wrong – no downside at all really. Biomass? essentially no downside that can’t be easily dealt with.

Given Senator McCaskill’s obvious understanding of at least some of the issues, as she articulates them on her Website, if she continues to walk backwards, as she did in her response to the proposed EPA regulations, we must demand that she tell us just why the considerations above do not convince her to not only support, but work to improve the American Power Act. So go call her – let her know that if she does the right thing, we’ll have her back in 2012.

Via The Wonk Room, Claire McCaskil is a charter memeber of a new Senate group which has coalesced around energy policy:

These “Brown Dog” senators – [Sherrod] Brown , Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Robert Byrd (D-WV) – have been among the most skeptical of Democrats about climate legislation, raising spurious concerns that limits on coal and oil pollution would harm their states’ economies. They finally appear to have turned the corner, recognizing that being shackled to the dirty fuels of the past is the true threat to the future of American manufacturing jobs.

The members of the group sent a letter  to Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham which emphasizes the need to retool American manufacturing while cushioning the transition to mitigate economic pain. The letter emphasizes the importance of taking a  leadership role in the global clean energy economy.

It seems that the light may have come on for McCaskill and she can finally see that clean energy is a potential winner, both politically and in terms of what it will do for Missouri’s future economic growth. If this new initiative is what it seems – and the letter handles the topic of carbon emissions in a somewhat ginger fashion – we will need to let McCaskill know that we have noticed and applaud her first steps away from endorsing the bad, old coal-powered energy model.

Both literally and figuratively things are heating up. First, of course, there is the fact that last winter was overall, despite several winter storms, the warmest on record. So it’s good to be able to report that, according to Gretchen Wieland of  Repower America, things are also heating up on the legislative front with the Senate energy bill from Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman scheduled to debut later this month.  

As Wieland explained to me during a telephone call, this means that the activities of the two organizations that make up Repower America, the Alliance for Climate Protection and the Climate Protection Action Fund, are heating up as well. They  have a lot of work to do to educate voters and build support for strong clean energy legislation.

In Missouri this means that for the last thirty-four days staff have been coordinating volunteers to make daily visits to one or another of Senator Claire McCaskill’s Missouri offices. The goal is not only to persuade the Senator to support strong energy legislation, but to urge her to take a proactive role in helping to shape it when it is considered in the Senate. This effort will continue until Earth Day on April 22. Undaunted by McCaskill’s recent skittishness when confronted with the possibility of EPA emissions regulation or  cap-and-trade legislation, Repower America is hoping that McCaskill will do the right thing once she “does the numbers” and is convinced of the economic benefits of clean energy for Missourians.

Repower America staff have also been organizing educational meetings with local groups, small business people, and staff from state agencies such as the Bureau of Agriculture to explain the goals of the legislation, and to counter some of the misconceptions that some of our Missouri Republican “cap-and-tax” bamboozlers have been trying to spread. Voters have to support clean energy – it’s a rare congress person who’ll go out on a limb to support unpopular legislation.

But Repower America can’t do it alone – they could use your help. The plan is for this intense bout of lobbying to culminate with a massive call-in event starting April 20 and lasting until Earth Day on the 22nd. Anybody can call the Repower America office during this time and be patched through to their Senators’ offices.  The number to call is 1-877-9-REPOWER (9-737-6937).

Repower America is, of course, aware of the rumors that the Senate bill is full of “bipartisan” compromises that could hobble its effectiveness. Wieland stated that their analysts will go into action the minute that the bill is is released, pouring over each line of the content so that the organization can shape its lobbying response accordingly. The goal is to ensure that the final Senate legislation is at least as strong as the ACES (The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) legislation produced in the House – or that when the bills are reconciled, the most important provisions, real regulation of carbon emissions for instance, are not lost.

After months of coy hints, Claire McCaskill finally came out of the closet about her opposition to clean energy legislation when she signed on to a letter seeking to stop EPA regulation of CO2 emissions from “stationary sources” (e.g. coal-burning utilities and factories). One naturally assumes that McCaskill is going for the short-term pander for political reasons – she is certainly not as dim as her various statements on this topic make her sound. However, a new study indicates that McCaskill’s stance could well backfire.

The Benson Strategy Group conducted a poll of 16 battleground states, including Missouri, asking the followinng question:

This past summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy bill that limits pollution and greenhouse gas emissions through what’s been called a Cap and Trade plan and also invests in clean, renewable energy sources in America. Soon, the Senate will debate it.

58% of the respondents favored the provisions of the House legislation, the  American Clean Energy and Security Bill (ACES), while only 37% disapproved. Even more telling in regard to McCaskill and her re-election strategy, 56% said that they would be more likely to vote for their Senator’s re-electon if he/she voted for the bill, while 50% said that they would be likely not to vote for them again if they voted against it. Only 37% said that they would vote against their Senator if he/she voted for the clean-energy bill.

The poll also indicated that this level of approval could withstand strong attacks of the cap-and-tax, job-killer, catastrophic energy costs,  etc. variety as long as they were met with equally strong messages about the merits of the legislation. For example, respondents were presented with a paragraph that was harshly critical of the economic implications of the legislation, but they remained steadfast in their support when that criticism was balanced by this paragraph:

Other people say opponents of this bill – oil companies and corporate lobbyists – have fought energy reform for decades to protect their profits. They’ve made America more dependent on oil from hostile nations – hurting our economy, helping our enemies, and putting our national security at risk. We spend a billion dollars a day on foreign oil and this bill will cut that figure in half – creating secure, clean energy sources made right here in America instead of sending that money overseas to countries that support and finance terrorists groups.

And, just to put the cherry on the sunday, the poll also found that:

The public’s desire to regulate carbon polluters is so strong that, by large margins, voters believe the EPA should act if Congress doesn’t.

Does anybody besides me think that maybe all that Tea Party Sturm und Drang last summer impressed our junior Senator overmuch? If so, she could be in for just as rude an awakening as Blanche Lincoln over in Arkansas.

 

Yesterday I wrote about Claire McCaskill’s sad decision to join a cabal of Democratic senators out to derail the EPA’s authority to regulate green-house gases from industrial sources. Today we learn that their efforts have succeeded in delaying new EPA rules – which were devised in the first place to compensate for the unwillingness of the Senate to respond to our developing climate crisis.

The reason McCaskill and her fellow letter writers give for their delaying tactics is that they represent the interest of coal-dependent states. Of course, one goal of the EPA regulations as well as the the cap-and-trade provsions in proposed House legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), is to wean the U.S. from its coal addiction – currently 50% of U.S. electricity is coal generated.

Coal is definitely not a benign source of energy.  Its extraction destroys our natural environment, the fine particles produced by burning coal are harmful to human health, and, of course, coal constitutes one of the main factors exacerbating the climate crisis we face since coal-burning plants are the largest producers of CO2 emissions in the U.S.

So why is McCaskill, a politician who loves to claim that she shares the progressive values of the Democratic party – in fundraising letters at least – trying to prolong Missouri’s dependency on coal? Instead of whining about the short-term costs of moving us from coal dependency, shouldn’t she be exercising the leadership we expect from her?

I would suggest that McCaskill could learn from the example of Russ Carnahan, who, in his just released economic action plan, A Regional Approach to Job Growth, emphasizes the importance of legislation like ACES in guaranteeing Missouri’s continued, long-term prosperity:

Nations around the world are emerging as leaders in clean-energy production creating jobs in their respective countries because of the growing demand of these technologies. Clean energy technology can and must be made in America. The Clean Energy and Security Act – which was passed by the House of Representatives in June, 2009 – would create millions of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, making America the global innovation leader; it would increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and it would preserve our planet by reducing the pollution that causes global warming.

Too bad McCaskill, who has signaled her opposition to ACES, doesn’t have this kind of vision or courage, but, instead, seems to be choosing to work against our long-term good to further the goals of the powerful coal-lobby and placate brainwashed rural voters.

 

Say what you will about the current Republican strategy in their ongoing war against reality, but they are disciplined.  Give them their cue and they respond right on time with the set pieces they have committed to memory and to which they will will hear no dissent, or, God forbid, any competing facts.  

Missouri’s Todd Akin (R-2nd) and Kit Bond are no exceptions. Today, they both mounted their favorite hobby horses, respectively health care reform (a.k.a. “big government”) and  energy policy, especially cap-and-trade legislation.

Speaking in the House today, Akin voiced his opposition to:

…socializing healthcare in America regardless of any so-called “opt out” provisions.

Congressman Akin noted that giving states the alternative of “opting out” of the proposed public option is a misnomer in the sense that is does not insulate the residents of state form increased taxation, Medicare cuts] and overall drag on the U.S. economy.

The key word above is “socializing,” as in socialism,  and it has the effect of drowning out any real-world issues for Akin and his fellow alternative reality enthusiasts.  

Of course, since not everybody has been trained to salivate upon hearing the magic words, Akin must manufacture claims about taxes, chimerical Medicare cuts and persistently ignore the real drag on our economy that will result if nothing is done abut the spiraling costs of our current, out-of-control health care delivery system.

Bond’s shtick is a little more subtle if just as narrow in focus. It consists of an appeal to cupidity with unfounded assertions about the costs of cap-and-trade. During his weekly conference call with Missouri reporters today, he once more cited bogus studies that assert that cap-and-trade would raise electricity rates.

If you are curious about how Bond thinks we need to go about fixing the climate crisis which, to his credit, he does not entirely deny, he offered this prescription:

Add a hundred new nuclear power plants, use electric-powered vehicles, conserve more energy and we could add jobs, produce more tax revenues, and avoid expending very expensive taxpayer subsidies on things like wind and solar which only work when the wind blows and the sun shines

Sounds familiar doesn’t it?  It’s all seems so easy when Bond puts it out there – go nuclear and just ignore long-term problems with safety and increasing piles of radioactive waste.  In a similar fashion, pretend that you don’t know that solar power, for example, contrary to the assertions of our Republican friends, is proving so viable that France plans to build solar plants in every region  and that even China recently jummped  on the bandwagon.  

If you listen to Mr. Bond, you would think that cap-and-trade is intended to happen in a policy vacuum. Bond is getting really good at banging that one-note drum to rally the forces against clean energy.  Too bad, as Media Matters demonstrates, he isn’t as good at facts.

Do contact these and other Missouri congress members and make sure they have their facts straight, but don’t expect Akin and Bond to change their tune.  Inconvenient facts only disrupt the harmonies that both these sons of Missouri like so much. No matter what arguments you raise, rest assured that Akin knows no other tune than his signature “Big-Government Rag,” while Blunt will continue to croon the “No-Cap-and-Trade Blues” no matter how often you show him he is wrong.  

When I fume, I just sputter. WillyK spouts sense. Of course, it helps that she has a firm grasp of facts on a wide variety of topics.

At the end of the showing of “Not Evil Just Wrong” Wednesday night, a docufictionary pretending that there’s solid reason to doubt that humans are causing global warming, the three Republican state reps who sponsored the evening–Sue Allen, Andrew Koenig, and Cole McNary, all from West County in St. Louis–took questions. Willy, after listening to a few audience members make remarks indicating they trusted the film’s nonsense, raised her hand and succinctly skewered the movie’s–well, to be charitable–inaccuracies.

The filmmakers had painted a grim picture of job loss because of precipitate switches from good ole dependable coal to such will o’ the wisp energy sources as solar and wind. Indeed, Representative Allen remarked afterward that those sources would not work in Missouri because we do not have enough sun or wind.

Willy responded that part of the point of the new energy legislation (ACES) is to construct a nationwide, standardized grid so that energy could easily, efficiently be moved from, say, sunny Arizona to Missouri when we need it or from windy Wyoming to our state. What’s more, strides are being made at storing such energy for future use.

Willy felt that the film’s misrepresentation of the intent in the cap-and trade legislation echoed its misrepresentation of climate and environmental concerns in the film, one of the most egregious examples being the claim that DDT had been banned for  purposes of malaria eradication.  In the U.S. legislation banning the use of DDT and in the later Stockholm convention, DDT was banned only for agricultural uses but its use was permitted for “medical vector” purposes,  and indeed its use has continued outside the U.S and Europe where other factors had made use of DDT unnecessary.  One of the reasons that DDT is not used more widely at present is that because of its overuse, mosquitoes are becoming resistant.

Willy suggested that if the elected officials conducting the discussion really wanted to discuss cap-and-trade in a fair way, rather than mislead in the same way that the film misled about global warming and DDT use, they  should have  also mentioned that the cap-and-trade provisions will take place slowly in order to allow people to transition to alternative energies. Furthermore, the legislation offers subsidies to help states with high coal use adapt to other kinds of energy.

Rep. McNary accepted her remarks graciously, urging her to send him links by e-mail to verify her claims. Later, though, when she made a second, briefer comment, he ran out of patience and suggested that perhaps she should rent a hall and arrange to hold her own event. Oops. He was finding  her facts inconvenient. The liberal bias of reality can be annoying.

Despite that and other minor tensions between us and the organizers, Willy and I spoke to Representative Allen at the end of the Q & A, and Willy expressed her concern at seeing Rep. Allen associating herself with a film so riddled with inaccuracies. It’s a fair admonition, but I don’t hold much hope that she and the other two representatives will shun such bad company.

Climate Progress reports  that the Murkowski amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that I wrote about last Tuesday was debated yesterday and ultimately denied a vote, effectively killing it. The amendment was designed to do an end run around the EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions comprise a dangerous pollutant. It would have prohibited the EPA from regulating emissions from stationary (industrial) rather than mobile (automotive) sources.

In one sense, it is unfortunate that this piece of drek was not brought to a vote, since it would have given us a chance to see whether or not Claire McCaskill’s inclination toward coal industry interests is steep enough for them to push her completely over when it comes to the  American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act.  The fact that legislators like  Murkowski can try to undercut the ability of the EPA to do its job underlines the importance of persuading weak Democrats like McCaskill to put their votes where their progressive claims in fund-raising letters suggest they should be.

The furror over the Murkowski amendment reinforces the importance of ACES since, as Climate Progress points out, EPA regulation alone cannot substitute for strong congressional action to slow climate change:

1. It would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation,” as John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said.  The endangerment finding is far better suited to addressing new sources that it is existing sources.

2. A subsequent president could trivially stop or endlessly delay whatever actions Obama was able to start with the EPA.

3. If Congress rejects the binding targets of W-M, then we have no basis for negotiating with other countries as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.  Indeed, we would have no basis for a deal with China.  A promise by Obama that he would try to use the limited authority EPA has to commit to a modest cut in CO2 by 2020 – and deep cuts in 2030 and 2050 – would be seen as meaningless.

Nor do McCaskill’s stated reasons for trying to weaken the ACES cap-and-trade provisions hold up. Her claims that the legislation would “unfairly punish” coal-dependent Missourians shows (willful?) ignorance of what the legislation contains.  ACES ensures that coal-dependent states are provided with billions in subsidies to ameliorate the impact of cap-and-trade and develop alternatives.   Neither does it help her cause when she channels her inner Republican and claims that the United States can’t be expected to do more than developing nations like China and India – particlarlly since both of those countries have announced plans to take relatively major steps to curb emissions (see here and here).

It is great that the Murkowski amendment failed, and those of you who phoned McCaskill and did all the good things you do deserve huge credit, but we cannot keep fighting this battle over and over. We need Claire McCaskill to do her job and provide real leadership on the vital issue of climate change.  We need her to unequivocally support ACES so that retrograde lawmakers like Murkowski cannot continue to use the legislative process to serve the interests of their wealthy, corporate clients to our detriment.  

ADDENDUM:  Note that per Fired Up Missouri! Kit Bond tried to horn in on Murkowski’s act.  Nor were Bond and Murkowski alone in offering amendments designed to weaken environmental protections according to the New York Times.  You see what I mean about Republican intransigence and why we need ACES?