Mr. Johnson has spent the past three decades fighting for the people and the issues politicians don’t care to talk about. Since the 1970s, Mr. Johnson has been engaged in the fight against climate change, and in March 2016, he helped organize a Climate March in South Kingstown. In the late 1990s, Mr. Johnson became heavily involved in the protests against the inhumanity of the American sanctions on Iraq which killed an estimated 500,000 children. Opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, Mr. Johnson, alongside thousands of people, participated in the Iraq War demonstration in NYC on February 15, 2003. Over the years, Mr. Johnson has brought to the high school activists like Ralph Nader and the late Howard Zinn to speak on issues ranging from climate change to perpetual war.

But even with all of these things going on, Mr. Johnson always finds time to help his students. When I was at the high school, Mr. Johnson was always helping someone after school, whether it was with biology concepts, family problems, writing an essay or a science fair project. These conversations would go well into the afternoon, sometimes into the night. And it was one of these late afternoon conversations that sparked the idea for this campaign.

Today, his campaign is run by the volunteer work of a dozen of his students (current and former). We have spent countless hours working on a campaign platform (available online) that covers everything from agricultural policy to social security reform. We have been kicked out of libraries while collecting signatures outside. We have marched through torrential rain holding deteriorating cardboard box anti-war signs in our arms. We have designed a bumper stickers and yard signs, brochures and a website. We do this because we have talked to Mr. Johnson; we have gotten to know what a passionate man he is; and we really believe that he has the ability to affect change, meaningful change, where Mr. Langevin hasn’t in his decade and a half.

To Mr. Johnson, and perhaps to his campaign’s detriment, the election isn’t just about winning and a job in Congress— it is about his students. “The reason why I got into politics was because I was always talking about issues like climate change, but if all you do is talk about them, all you do is depress kids,” he told me earlier today in his classroom, “I felt like I had to do more than a hollow, academic exercise. It had to be a tangible part of my life. I was tired of feeling guilty.” This same feeling motivated Mr. Johnson to run in 1994, 1998 and then again in 2000 for statewide office. In 1994, Mr. Johnson ran for Lieutenant Governor as a Green, receiving about 6% of the vote. To date, no statewide election has matched that vote share result for a Green candidate.

Mr. Johnson is a candidate who will not represent corporate greed and war. He will never take money, as Mr. Langevin has, from defense contractors: General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman. He will not be passive as climate change ravages our world— he will be practicing civil disobedience with the activists— he will be getting arrested on the streets so that people will pay attention. Mr. Johnson is a person who understands the plight of the “American dream” and the American worker. He was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and today, he holds four degrees. He has worked as a submarine welder, a quahogger, a farmer, a prison dishwasher, a medical technician, a Ford assembly line operator, a gas station mechanic, a painter, a landscaper, a book editor and a paperboy. Nowadays, in addition to the high school, he commutes to Providence to work in DCYF group homes on weekends. Private sector, public sector, white collar, blue collar, Mr. Johnson has seen it all. He has seen for himself the struggle and hardship Americans must face every day.

This election season, we hang on the precipice. We must think carefully about whether we want to maintain this status quo of wage stagnation and environmental degradation. We must be open to alternatives, no matter our political affiliation or views. And more than anything, we must courageously vote our conscience after we have given all candidates a fair assessment. Mr. Johnson, I believe, offers alternatives to our status quo, alternatives that will leave a healthy planet for future generations, alternatives that will heal our economic system so that it is more equitable and fair for both the American people and those abroad.

If you want to read more about our campaign and our views, please visit out website. And check out our Facebook page!

In many ways, Congressman Jim Langevin and upstart progressive challenger John Hamilton have a lot in common even as they compete in the Democratic primary for the second congressional district seat.

For example, they both think Langevin is a strong favorite to win.

“It’s an uphill battle,” Hamilton said. “He has a lot of money and he’s the incumbent. All the advantages go to the incumbent.”

Langevin said, “I’m hopeful and optimistic about it. I feel good about the race, but never overconfident.”

And both describe themselves as being progressive.

“I’m a progressive from way back,” Hamilton said, “which used to be known as a liberal.”

Langevin said, “If you look at my voting record I think I have a very progressive voting record.”

On policy matters, too, Langevin and Hamilton agree more often than they disagree. Both cited income inequality as the biggest issue facing America.

“To my view concentrated wealth at the top is the problem,” said Hamilton.

Langevin said, “We talk about fighting for a living wage and closing the income gap and trying to create an economic system that the vast majority of American families would benefit under, as opposed to the 1 percent, I’m a pretty consistent vote on all of those things.”

It’s the subtle differences in their responses that shows why Hamilton is challenging Langevin, despite conceding that “we’re both pretty good” when asked where the two candidates find agreement.

“I’m seeking to be a change agent in this election,” said Hamilton, who was inspired to run for congress by Bernie Sanders.

Langevin, the eight-term Democrat first elected in 2000, said, “It is my job to reflect the views of my constituents, the people I represent, and I hope I’ve been doing that effectively.”

Both are voting for Hillary Clinton in November, but Langevin is an avid supporter of hers and Hamilton, who served two terms in the state legislature in the early 1980’s, more reluctantly. He says he returned to politics only because “both parties are taking a wrong direction.” For 30 years, less-than-liberal Democrats helped Republicans and corporations ruin the American middle class, according to Hamilton.

“The Democratic Party took a wrong direction in the 1990’s,” he said. “We had the golden years of economics in America … and what happened? Well, we started cutting taxes for the very wealthy – the billionaires, the millionaires and the corporations – so we had less revenue to reinvest in our country. Then we started doing these trade agreements … and then we deregulated the banks, we did away with Glass Steagall, which was an important separation of investment and regular banking. I call those the triad of middle class destruction. We had job sucking trade agreements, we had bank deregulation and we had the trickle down economics and taxation that started with Reagan and then later in the Clinton era.”

On these finer points, Langevin and Hamilton only partially agree.

Both candidates oppose trade deals, in general, and the Trans Pacific Partnership, in particular. But there is a concerted difference in their words.

“I see TPP as nothing more than a corporate takeover of America and I consider anyone who votes for TPP to be voting against the United States of America,” Hamilton said.

Langevin was more measured, saying, “I’m not a supporter of that right now. I’m waiting to see what is going to be negotiated in terms of an agreement. I have not been impressed with many of the trade agreements in the past, including NAFTA, that have worked well for other countries, it seems, and corporations but hasn’t benefited American workers or American companies as much as it has overseas companies.”

They have stronger differences on reinstating the Glass Steagall, which historically prevented lending banks from also being investment banks but was repealed in 1999. It is a favorite policy prescription of  many progressives looking to reign in Wall Street..

“Not that I’m opposed to reinstalling the provisions of Glass-Steagall,” Langevin said, “but the Consumer Protection Division that we just created, I do want to give that a chance to work to see if that could be more effective.”

Both said gun safety and gender equality are important areas for Congress to act on next session. Hamilton is solidly pro choice and Langevin more pro life when it comes to abortion, but it’s hard to imagine legislation that would divide them as Langevin often votes against anti-abortion bills sponsored by Republicans. Langevin voted with Republicans last session on a bill that would have made it more difficult for Syrian refugees to come to the United States and Hamilton criticized him for it. But, for the most part, if Republicans control the House of Representatives again, which Langevin said seems likely, he and Hamilton would probably often vote the same way.

But there are big differences between Langevin’s style and Hamilton’s – and nowhere is that difference more acute than in their approaches to the proposed Burrillville power plant.

“That plant is not needed in Burrillville,” Hamilton said. “If there is any politician who hasn’t come out against it and stood with them against this power plant, they need to send that message that they are never getting their vote again.”

Langevin isn’t taking a position on the issue.

“I think everyone recognizes that we have to do more to meet our state’s energy needs and help bring down the cost of energy and some feel that the Burrillville power plant is something that will help in that area but we also have to mindful of the environmental impacts,” he said. “That’s why I support the whole process and fact finding that’s happening right now. Although it’s not a federal issue, it’s local and state, I’m certainly monitoring the issue very closely.”

Hamilton, whose first political awakening came when protesting against a proposed nuclear power plant in Charlestown in the 1970’s, called Langevin’s hands-off approach “unacceptable.” Remembering how they stopped the proposed nuclear power plant from being developed where Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge is today, he said, “John Chafee and Claiborne Pell did not remain neutral on the Charlestown nuclear power plant.”

“We are resolved and committed to speaking out for victims, survivors, and families at home who deserve a vote,” said a letter signed by Cicilline and 16 other Democrats to House Speaker Paul Ryan. “We are prepared to continue standing on the House floor whenever the House is in session to assist you in bringing these bills to a vote.”

According to Politico, “more than 40 Democrats walked into the chamber just before noon and pledged to ‘occupy’ the House floor until GOP leadership allowed a vote.”

Cicilline, in a speech on the House floor just prior to the sit-in, said the incident at the Pulse nightclub in Orland should compel a legislative response to the increased mass shootings and gun violence America is facing. “This monstrous attack on the LGBT community in a place of refuge and empowerment requires us to act,” he said. “The shooter in Orland used an assault rifle that is virtually identical to the ones used by mass killers in San Bernandino, Umpqua Community College, Aurora and Sandy Hook Elementary. That’s no coincidence. Out of the eight high profile mass shootings that have taken place in the past year, seven involved the use of an assault weapon.”

Congressman Jim Langevin also participated in the action. In a statement, he said, “These are not radical ideas. These are commonsense proposals, and the time to take action is long overdue. As the victim of an accidental shooting, I know firsthand the devastating effects that guns can have on a life, even when being handled by experts. I was lucky. I lived. The 49 innocent people killed in Orlando – and the thousands killed by guns in our country each year – did not have that chance, and their families and friends deserve better. The vast majority of Americans support responsible gun reforms, like universal background checks, and those constituents deserve a vote.”

Here’s the full text of the letter from the 17 representatives to Speaker Ryan:

Dear Mr. Speaker:

As the worst mass shooting in our nation’s history has underscored, our country cannot afford to stand by while this Congress continues to be paralyzed by politics. We urge you to lead the House into action and work with both sides of the aisle to pass commonsense solutions to keep American children and families safe.

There is broad agreement among Americans – greater than 90 percent by some measures – that expanding background checks for firearms purchases is a reasonable measure for this Congress to pass. An overwhelming majority also agree that we should enact safety measures that keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.

The question before us is, what is this Congress waiting for?

Over the last 12 years, gun-related crimes claimed more American lives than AIDS, war, and illegal drug overdoses combined. Since Newtown, tens of thousands of lives have been lost to this deadly crisis. The number of bills that have been debated and passed by this Congress to prevent such deaths is zero.

Together we represent families who are worried and frustrated – millions of Americans who are fed up with the inaction in Congress. There is no doubt that our path to solutions will be arduous, but we have to agree that inaction can no longer be a choice that this Congress makes. We cannot enact solutions for families at home if the Speaker will not even allow a debate.

Therefore, we stand with thousands of brokenhearted families who have not been served by this Congress, and millions more who are counting on us to find the moral courage to do the right thing. We stand together in our refusal to sit by while this Congress abdicates its fundamental responsibility to protect American families from harm. We urge you to keep the House in session until we have robust debate and votes on expanding background checks and banning the sale of firearms to suspected terrorists.

Until then, we are resolved and committed to speaking out for victims, survivors, and families at home who deserve a vote. We are prepared to continue standing on the House floor whenever the House is in session to assist you in bringing these bills to a vote.

Sincerely,
Rep. Katherine Clark
Rep. John Lewis
Rep. Gregory Meeks
Rep. John Larson
Rep. Robin Kelly
Rep. John Yarmuth
Rep. Chellie Pingree
Rep. Stacey Plaskett
Rep. Michael Capuano
Rep. Rosa DeLauro
Rep. David Cicilline
Rep. Kathy Castor
Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman
Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. Bill Pascrell
Rep. Joyce Beatty
Rep. Joseph Kennedy

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s DISCLOSE Act is a central piece of a new package of legislation liberal Democrats and an independent put together to “reform government and make sure it works for all people, not just special interests,” according to a press release from the Rhode Island senator.

The DISCLOSE Act, or Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, would require Super PACs, corporations and other big donors to divulge their associations with political advertisements. It was originally introduced in 2010 by Senator Charles Schumer. Whitehouse took over the legislation in 2012. That year, ThinkProgress called it one of the five most important bills blocked by congressional Republicans.

“Since the disastrous Citizens United decision in 2010, we’ve seen a tsunami of dark money and special interest influence wash over our political system and co-opt our government,” Whitehouse said in a news release. “We’ve got to shed light on the rigging of our system and return the power over government to the American people.”

Whitehouse’s contribution to the new legislation “would require organizations spending money in elections –  including super PACS and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups – to promptly disclose donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle,” according to the news release. “The provision includes robust transfer provisions to prevent political operatives from using complex webs of entities to game the system and hide donor identities.”

Also in the package, Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, has a bill that “shuts down individual-candidate Super PACs and strengthens the rules that prohibit coordination between other outside spenders and candidates and parties,” according to the release.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, has a bill that “requires all candidates for federal office, including those for the U.S. Senate, to report contributions of over $1000 to the FEC within 48 hours,” the news release said.

Sen. Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat, has a bill that “creates a new independent agency to serve as a vigilant watchdog over our nation’s campaign finance system” that “would consist of five commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and would have greater enforcement and investigation powers than those of the gridlocked FEC.”

Sen. Michael Bennett, D- Colorado, has a bill in the package that “permanently bans both House and Senate members from lobbying either house of Congress after they retire.” Another one from Bennett “requires lobbyists to register if he or she makes two or more lobbying contacts for a client over a two-year period, regardless of whether the lobbyist spends more than 20 percent of his or her time serving the particular client.”

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat “has a provision that prohibits private sector employers from offering bonuses to employees for leaving to join the government. Her bill also includes language to slow the revolving door by increasing cool down periods for those leaving government service and expanding recusal requirements for those entering.”

This bill is a continuation of an overreach by the right wing conservative majority that has over taken the House of Representatives.  The vetting process for refugees entering this country is already more than sufficient. These additional layers of bureaucracy are completely unnecessary. They put an undue burden on our security departments, and they will unnecessarily increase the time that it takes for Syrian refugees to be admitted. And with a military budget of $600 billion we should all wonder why the implementation of effective and expedited screening isn’t already in place.

It can take years for refugees to be allowed to enter this country. With these additional redundant and unnecessary security checks it could delay the process even longer. President Obama has promised to veto the legislation and one would think that a Democratic Representative of a supposedly blue state would support the President on such an important issue.

By siding with the Republican right wing majority, Langevin sets himself apart from the compassionate and understanding legislators who know that there needs to be a balance with security and timeliness in getting refugees vetted and resettled in this country. His actions show, once again that the D next to his name means nothing. He has shamed the state, our founding father Roger Williams, and all of the great people of Rhode Island who want to do more for the people of Syria.

The people of Syria have no choice but to leave their homeland due in large part to the United States destabilizing the region in the first place. The people of Syria are not Daesh. They are civilians who want to live in peace, who want to have shelter, who want to save the lives of their children.

Langevin’s reaction to this crisis is just another reason why 2016 should be his last year in Congress.

• Langevin defends voting with GOP on Syrian refugee bill
• Dems draw more with love than GOP does with fear
• Cathy Cool Rumsey will run against Elaine Morgan
• Rep. Nardolillo thinks Elaine Morgan owes Muslims an apology
• State senators to hold rally to support Syrian refugees
• Humanists of RI support sheltering Syrian refugees in RI
• Cicilline to Obama: Accept 100,000 Syrian refugees
• Diossa to Obama: Central Falls will take in Syrian refugees
• Dorcas International explains Rhode Island refugee process

“After reading the bill, I was convinced that it does not stop the process, it really doesn’t shut the program down, nor does it significantly slow it,” Langevin told RI Future in an interview, which you can listen to in its entirety below. “It added modest layer of new security in terms of the vetting process but nothing that would shut down or significantly slow the vetting process, and that’s ultimately why I supported it.”

He said it wasn’t difficult to vote against President Obama, who strongly urged Democrats not to support the Republican-backed bill. “All of my decisions are based on the merits. They don’t belong to a particular party or special interest.”

Langevin, who told me he didn’t see State Sen. Elaine Morgan’s comments about Islam and Muslim refugees, said he thinks the United States should accept more Syrian refugees than the 10,000 Obama has called for – and that he thinks the government should add resources to ensure the refugee process moves quicker.

“I strongly support additional resources that will expedite the process,” he said. “The best thing we can do to make sure we’re not slowing the process down is put more resources into vetting so we can speed it up.”

When asked how he thinks Rhode Islanders feel about the issue, he said, “I’ve heard from people on both sides of this issue.”

You can listen to our full 20 minute conversation on his vote in particular and the Syrian refugee crisis in general here:

• Dems draw more with love than GOP does with fear
• Cathy Cool Rumsey will run against Elaine Morgan
• Rep. Nardolillo thinks Elaine Morgan owes Muslims an apology
• State senators to hold rally to support Syrian refugees
• Humanists of RI support sheltering Syrian refugees in RI
• Cicilline to Obama: Accept 100,000 Syrian refugees
• Diossa to Obama: Central Falls will take in Syrian refugees
• Dorcas International explains Rhode Island refugee process

The House is in crisis.

Favoring the wealthiest 0.2 percent, House Republicans would eliminate estate taxes, increasing deficits for a decade by $320 billion. Do families of megarich magnates, who own more than the bottom 90 percent, need charitable relief?

As for spending, Republicans’ 2015 House budget chops food stamps by $125 billion; cancels Pell Grants for many students; and block-grants Medicaid, cutting health care for the destitute.

Mainstream Republicans also oppose health coverage for 16 million new insureds; obstruct realistic laws reducing the annual carnage of 32,000 gun deaths; and reject crucial infrastructure repairs and jobs.

House Republicans neglect justice. They eagerly demolish both taxes and spending to benefit the uberwealthy—at everyone else’s expense.

The Tea Party believes these policies are not sufficiently strict. Jim Jordan of Ohio spearheaded the sequester’s automatic dire cutbacks—too large to execute—but enacted due to right-wing rigidity.

With a dysfunctional process, America’s AAA credit rating was downgraded, triggering historically high debt-servicing costs. Louisiana’s John Fleming contended, “If we miss the deadline it’s no big crisis. We can use it politically.”

Jordan organized some 40 iron-fisted Tea Party members into the “Freedom Caucus.” Their Dickensian proposals make establishment Republicans appear liberal.

Consider Louie Gohmert of Texas. He introduced a farm bill amendment to cut off food stamps for 47.6 million needing food—including 16 million children. Afflicting America’s most vulnerable, this survival-of-the-fittest mentality would deliver many diseases and death sentences.

Kansan Tim Huelskamp and numerous colleagues promote privatizing Medicare. This would boost premiums and co-pays considerably, eliminating coverage for millions.

Libertarian David Brat of Virginia advocates demolishing Social Security and Medicare, cutting benefits by two-thirds. He also justifies decimating education funds: “Socrates trained in Plato on a rock. How much did that cost?”

Instead of balancing national debt interest with the deficit—nearly achieved—Arizonan Matt Salmon joins many Tea Partyers who claim we must balance the budget. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says this would “kill the economy.” This requires ripping apart America’s safety net, discarding all discretionary programs, and significantly reducing Social Security and Medicare. This crushing austerity also slams the brakes on the economy, substantially increasing unemployment.

Colorado’s Ken Buck wants to privatize the VA. After criticism, he denied favoring “fully privatizing” veterans’ health care. As to Medicare, Medicaid and ‘Obamacare,’ he states, “We need to let the market work, make people responsible for their own insurance…” Such free-market fundamentalism is despicable, denying health insurance to about 100 million seniors and indigents.

Some howled when Florida Democrat Alan Grayson depicted the Republican health plan for the uninsured who get sick: “Die quickly.” Actually, about 19,000 lives are saved annually by Obamacare, yet the Tea Party pushed for more than 50 votes to expunge this essential health care. They offer no bills to replace it.

Tea Party austerity neglects justice.

In a 2013 Mother Jones exposé, “Inside the Republican Suicide Machine,” author Tim Dickinson concludes, “[Tea Party] insurgents are championed by wealthy ideologues who simply seek to tear down government.”

Mainstream Republicans inflict austerity measures, but Tea Party austerity is even worse: Slashing taxes for the wealthy is combined with plundering programs affecting disabled, jobless, working-class and middle-class Americans. This poisonous plot would delight Ebenezer Scrooge.

So why don’t voters choose Democrats? In 2012, they did—by 1.4 million votes. The outcome: Republicans, 234 seats; Democrats, 201. The system is rigged. With gerrymandered districts, voters don’t choose politicians; politicians choose voters. Analyst Sam Wang calculated that to control the House, Democrats needed to win by seven, not 1.2, percentage points.

Democracy is defeated. Austerity adored. Justice neglected—as the Tea Party worships the wealthy.

The House crisis is deeply rooted. It may require several election cycles but, with passionate resistance, perhaps our nation will yet overcome Tea Party tyranny.

Rev. Harry Rix is a retired pastor and mental health counselor living in Providence, RI. He has 50 articles on spirituality and ethics, stunning photos, and 1200 inspiring quotations available at www.quoflections.org.

A new poll from Monmouth State University released Monday shows 41 percent of respondents are unsure if the deal should be inked while 32 percent think lawmakers should not support it and 27 percent think they should. And according to The Hill, 35 House Democrats support the deal and 29 are undecided while 18 Senate Democrats support and 20 are undecided.

The Rhode Island congressional delegation is on the fence, too.

“Congressman Langevin continues to review the agreement and consider the options in advance of Congressional action this fall,” said his spokeswoman Meg Geoghegan. “He has not yet made a final decision on how he will vote on the issue.” Rich Luchette, a spokesman for Congressman David Cicilline said simply, “Congressman Cicilline is reviewing the proposed agreement.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse “hasn’t announced a position on the Iran deal yet,” according to spokesman Seth Larson. And Chip Unruh, spokesman for Senator Jack Reed, said the ranking member of the RI delegation, and a nationally-regarded foreign policy expert, “continues to thoroughly review.”

As a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reed has been conducting hearings on the issue with Arizona Sen. John McCain. The Hill lists Reed in the yes column but RIPR coverage from July 16 says Reed “has not decided whether he supports President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.” Unruh said The Hill “must be speculating.”

Speculation or not, The Hill lists noted progressive leaders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as supporting the deal.

This agreement is obviously not all that many of us would have liked but it beats the alternative – a war with Iran that could go on for years,” Sanders said, according to The Hill. And quoting her from the Boston Globe, Elizabeth Warren has said, “The question now before Congress — the only question before Congress — is whether the recently announced nuclear agreement represents our best available option for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I am convinced that it does.”

Progressives have largely supported the deal with Code Pink calling it “a great victory for peace-loving people around the world.” The New York Times has a 200 word summary of the deal.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse helped to craft portions of the law as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

“As I listened to Rhode Islanders on this issue, I heard the same things over and over again: we need to protect federal funding for local districts, give more control to teachers and local officials to design education plans, and get rid of high-stakes testing that has harmed students and teachers by placing too much emphasis on test scores,” Whitehouse said in a press release.

Under the new law, yearly testing will remain for grades three through eight, and once during high school. But, funding and improvement strategies are no longer tied just to the outcomes of these tests. Now, a number of factors will be considered, such as graduation rates, the enrollment rates for Advanced Placement classes, incidents of bullying and violence, and teachers’ working conditions.

Whitehouse penned a number of provisions in the law concerning a range of topics, such as middle school success, after school programs, support for students suffering from addiction, grants for an American History and Civics program, and support for unique, high-ability leaners.

Whitehouse also helped to author language in the bill that requires states to properly assess the needs of students when they enter a juvenile justice facility. States must make sure that students have access to education opportunities while in these facilities, and that the credits they earned while in that setting will transfer to a regular school when they return.

“Overall, these policies are intended to ensure that troubled children who enter the juvenile justice system are given an opportunity to reform their behavior and get ahead, rather than being marginalized and falling further behind in their education,” the press release said.

Another large provision that Whitehouse wrote is designed to give schools a fast-track process for schools to obtain relief from regulations that can act at barriers to school-level innovations. These schools will be able to do a number of things, including extend the school day for struggling students, own their budgeting and accounting, and manage human resources. For a school to participate in this fast-track program, they must demonstrate support from administrators, parents, and at least two thirds of the teaching staff. These schools will also be allowed to form advisory boards to get the opinions of the business community, higher education, and community groups, and use those opinions to influence school planning. These “innovation schools” will remain part of their district, but also be used as locations for experimentation, and serve as a model for other schools in the district.

Whitehouse also partnered with Senator Jack Reed (D- RI) on a third provision, which authorizes funding to provide grants to educational agencies to give students better access to modern library materials, as well as arts-related education and outreach programs.

“Our core goal is to provide all of our kids with the best possible education, and I’m confident that the changes made by this bill will result in real improvements in our schools,” Whitehouse said.

The president is also largely at odds with Rhode Island’s congressional delegation on fast-tracking a potential trade compact with 12 Pacific Rim nations. Of the Ocean State’s four elected officials in Congress, three have now spoken out against giving Obama fast track authority. Only Senator Jack Reed is still holding his cards close as the Senate Finance Committee considers granting the president trade promotion authority today.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said he opposes fast track authority for the TPP deal, he told RI Future exclusively today.

“It would be a mistake to provide fast-track authority for trade agreements that could further undermine American wages, manufacturing jobs, and our environment,” he said in an emailed statement. “We need the opportunity carefully review any proposed trade agreements to ensure we’re not repeating the mistakes of past free trade deals.”

In February, Whitehouse gave a speech against trade agreements in general on the Senate floor in February, saying: “I start with a state that has been on the losing end of these trade deals. People say that they are going to enforce the environmental and human rights and labor and safety requirements of these agreements. I haven’t seen it. And I gotta say I don’t like the process very much either. It is secret, we are kept out of it. Who’s in it is a lot of really big corporations and the are up to, I think, a lot of no good in a lot of the deals.”

Congressman David Cicilline is against it, too. He wrote this op/ed in the Providence Journal last month.

“Any agreement that promotes fast-track trade to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership without thorough review and Congressional input is a bad deal for Rhode Island workers,” he told RI Future yesterday. “Congress should play an important role in making sure trade policies are fair for American workers, businesses, intellectual property holders, and consumers. The fast-track model undercuts oversight of trade agreements and makes it more difficult to protect the interests of working families. We should be working to promote American manufacturing, implement flexible workplace policies that benefit middle-class families, and finally raise the minimum wage so everyone has an opportunity to succeed.”

Also yesterday, Congressman Jim Langevin reaffirmed his opposition to a TPP deal. In February he and Cicilline signed onto a letter opposing it and yesterday he emailed this statement to reporters:

“The United States has been working with TPP negotiating partners for more than three years. This agreement could greatly shift global trading patterns and accordingly deserves the highest level of scrutiny to ensure it does not displace U.S. jobs or undermine our country’s competitiveness. While I favor expanding global trade, it is important that any free trade agreement places American workers and companies on an enforceable level playing field with foreign trading partners when it comes to labor rights, environmental regulation, intellectual property protection and other critical issues. For that reason, I am opposed to passing Trade Promotion Authority legislation with respect to the TPP.

“Congress has the responsibility to set trade policy, and ‘fast track’ procedures largely circumvent this important review. There is a better way to make decisions of this magnitude that significantly impact America’s place in the global economy, and that must include robust debate and discussion from all partners, including Congress. I will continue to work to ensure that trade agreements protect American workers and consumers and do not undermine America’s ability to compete in the global market.”

Reed, on the other hand, isn’t as vocal, according to spokesman Chip Unruh, who said Rhode Island’s senior senator “will take a look at the Finance Committee’s proposal, but he wants to ensure any trade agreement benefits Rhode Island consumers, workers, and businesses.” Unruh noted Reed rejected such TPA authority in both 2002 and 2007.

According to the Washington Post “most Congressional Democrats are opposed” but Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is pushing for a deal that he says has benefits for liberals.

In March the New York Times reported the “ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document.” The Nation called the TPP proposal “NAFTA on steroids” in 2012.