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.

You are the people I voted for to represent me at the federal level of government. And because I participate in this democracy, I authorize the federal government’s actions. I bear some responsibility, one vote’s worth, for everything done by the United States.

Therefore, I must say to you, in the strongest terms possible, don’t torture in my name.

I have felt shame and remorse for years now at the torture perpetrated during the Bush administration. I greeted Obama’s directive to end torture with relief. However, we now have the official report on torture from the Senate and we also have the reactions to that report from streams of torture apologists. It has become clear that much more must be done. Just because the monkey is off your back, it doesn’t mean the circus has left town. There is a culture of torture that must be dealt with.

Here are some things I’d like you to do. Phrased another way, here are some things you will do if you want me to keep voting for you. (Barack, in your case, here are some things you will do if you want me to donate to your post-presidency foundation.)

1. Dianne Feinstein is a national hero and every one of you should go out of your way to state so publicly. Get your picture taken with her at every possible opportunity.
2. Never use the phrase enhanced interrogation techniques. The person who controls the language of the debate wins. Here is what happened: some kid got picked up in the desert and taken to a secret prison. He was not charged with anything. He did not go to trial. There was a one in five chance that even his captors would admit to having taken him in error. He refused to eat his dinner. His captors put his food through a blender, anally raped him, and squirted puréed humus and crackers up his rectum. This was done to “exert total control over the detainee” and induce a condition of “learned helplessness.” This ain’t enhanced nothing. Never use that phrase again.
3. Don’t engage in the debate about whether torture produced good information. It doesn’t matter! I don’t want some guy water boarded in my name even if he gives up Bin Laden’s home address. If evil people get you to be evil, they win.
4. Identify anyone who thought up, authorized, signed off on, contracted for, wrote memos in support of, opined on the legality of, or in any other way brought about the culture of torture. Give them a chance to come clean and admit their culpability. If they don’t, prosecute them. I’m talking about a Truth and Reconciliation type procedure. Propose it, sponsor it, push for it.
5. Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell are the two “psychologists” who had the major contract for interrogations during which detainees were tortured. They were paid $80 million of my dollars! Get it back. They took it under false pretenses. Denounce them as sick bastards and war profiteers. Do this loudly and frequently.
6. Fire John O. Brennan. Hey Barack, Joe, doesn’t this guy work for you? Did you see him go on TV from inside CIA headquarters and totally contradict your anti-torture stance? Didn’t you feel a little disrespected? How come you’re letting him keep his job? How can the culture of torture be ended at the CIA when the director is a torture apologist? Wait a minute… When you say you are anti-torture, you mean it, don’t you?
7. Identify and acknowledge all the people who resisted torture in the middle of this despicable situation. They are national heroes. Give them the Medal of Honor.

There is a guy named John Kiriakou who is currently serving time for bringing torture to the attention of the press back in 2007. He was prosecuted in 2013 and sent to prison. Ah… excuse me… Barack and Joe, weren’t you guys in office in 2013? Are you sure you mean it when you say you’re anti-torture? Pardon John Kiriakou. Apologize to him. Compensate him. Is one to laugh or cry at the irony of this man, who has five kids, being locked up while Dick Cheney is free to rant and rave on Fox News?

So, Barack, Joe, Jack, Sheldon, James, that is my to do list for you. I know you got a lot on your plates, but, in terms of the soul of this country, there are few things more important than making sure nothing like this ever happens again.

See you at the polls.

Your constituent,

John Kotula

P.S. Obama, Nice job on Cuba!

The Senate report, more than five years in the making, details how CIA agents tortured suspects in the so-called war on terror to little or no avail and systematically lied to Congress and the American public about the efficacy of such techniques.

Reed, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee who is often on the short list for a high-level position in the Pentagon, said in a statement: “The use of torture is abhorrent and stands in stark contrast to our constitution and values.  It is not an effective tool to obtain reliable intelligence. As we continue to confront the threat of terrorism at home and abroad, we are reminded that we are stronger as a nation when we remain true to our democratic principles.”

Senator Sheldon Whithouse was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the early stages of developing the report. He’s taken an active role in opposing torture, such as chairing a 2009 Judiciary Committee hearing on torture during the Bush Administration.

Whitehouse said of the report in a statement sent out yesterday, “After years of effort and millions of documents reviewed, the Senate report at last lays out in painstaking detail how the CIA under President Bush and Vice President Cheney turned down the dark path to torture, and then to cover its tracks misled Congress and executive officials about the efficacy of the torture program.  These are hard facts to face as Americans, but it’s important that the facts be known.  Chairman Feinstein and our Intelligence Committee staff deserve our country’s deep appreciation for their extraordinary efforts.”

Congressman David Cicilline, a member of the House Foreign Intelligence Committee, said in a statement: “The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is deeply disturbing. Among the many findings, this report reveals that the CIA employed more brutal interrogation techniques than had been previously detailed publicly, deliberately misled Congress and the White House about the program’s effectiveness, and damaged the United States’ reputation around the world. These abuses are a violation of basic human rights and are in stark contrast to our values as a nation, and this report provides further confirmation that these techniques simply fail to provide results that strengthen our national security. I applaud the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee for their efforts to provide the American people with an account of the actions carried out in their name. It is now our duty as elected officials, and American citizens who believe in the values upon which our nation was founded, to ensure serious violations such as this never occur again.”

And said Congressman Jim Langevin in a statement: “I am deeply concerned by the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The tactics detailed in the report are contrary to American values, and these programs have been rightly ended. Human rights must be preserved in times of peace and war, and I sincerely hope we can learn from this dark moment in our history.”

Fossil Free Rhode Island stands in solidarity with the courageous protestors and takes emphatic exception to the statement issued by Senator Reed’s office that the senator is an “environmental champion” who “always puts public health and safety first.”

In June of 2013, the Obama administration launched the President’s Climate Action Plan, which touts natural gas as a “bridge fuel.” In June, the EPA proposed its Clean Power Plan that allegedly “will maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health and environment.” Both Rhode Island U.S. senators, although aware of the problems associated with natural gas, are on record for their strong support of its expanded use.

At a public forum held May 16, 2014, responding to a question of the senators’ stands on natural gas, Whitehouse said:

I actually think that it is a bridge fuel.

He went on to explain:

I do think that trying to ease the choke points into New England so that we are not seeing price spikes, as a short-term benefit for our economy, is a value.

Reed concurred and stated that:

We should be able to generate significant resources to safely rebuild our pipelines in New England so that we do not have methane leakage so that we tap into energy sources around the country.

Unfortunately, a “short-time economic benefit” is inconsistent with the typical 50-year lifetime of natural gas infrastructure. Even more jarring is that science tells us that humanity has about a decade to develop a global, sustainable energy system. A report released in December of 2013 by a multidisciplinary team of scientists “conclude[s] that the widely accepted target of limiting human-made global climate warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level is too high and would subject future generations and the earth itself to irreparable harm. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use must be reduced rapidly to avoid irreversible consequences such as a sea level rise large enough to inundate most coastal cities and extermination of many of today’s species.”

More important than what the senators say are their omissions. In their pitch for a business-as-usual infrastructure in New England they mention that escaping methane is a serious problem. However, they fail to mention that 75% of the leakage occurs near the fracking wells rather than in the pipelines. Nor do they utter a word about the public health and safety concerns associated with fracking: “A significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are inherently dangerous to people and their communities. Risks include adverse impacts on water, air, agriculture, public health and safety, property values, climate stability and economic vitality.”

Meanwhile, the planned use of natural gas is based on serious underestimates by the EPA[10] of how much methane leaks into the atmosphere. The bottom line is that this development is likely to exacerbate the greenhouse gas emission problem.

At the same time, this course of action will delay the development and deployment of renewable energy technology. In fact, it is but an excuse for inaction.  Indeed, one of the authors of the Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, that just came out,  Michael Oppenheimer, a principal author of the report said:

We’ve seen many governments delay and delay and delay on implementing comprehensive emissions cuts. So the need for a lot of luck looms larger and larger. Personally, I think it’s a slim reed to lean on for the fate of the planet.

The climate disruption resulting from “all of the above” is morally unacceptable in terms of its human, environmental, and economic toll.

Here’s his 15 minute speech:

Taking the nation’s temperature, The New York Times reports this headline: “Weary of War, but Favoring Airstrike Plan”. It could as easily apply to Rhode Island’s congressional delegation.

All four supported additional airstrikes and, for various reasons, agreed more troops on the ground would be counterproductive. Here are each of their full statements.

Senator Jack Reed (senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee):

“Tonight, the President made a clear, compelling case that denying these terrorists safe havens will require a targeted, smart, and sustained multi-national effort.

“Like many Americans, I am skeptical of deeper military involvement that could lead to an open-ended conflict.  I don’t want to see more U.S. combat troops on the ground because I think that is what ISIL wants: to try to bog us down in a bloody and costly fight that helps them recruit more terrorists.  Indigenous forces on the ground are going to have to step up.

“This President’s deliberate and thoughtful strategy ensures we will not repeat the mistakes of rushing into ground combat as we did in Iraq in 2003.  Instead, he developed a comprehensive strategy that includes our allies in the region, together with the force of our diplomatic power, intelligence capabilities, and targeted military might.”

Congressman David Cicilline (A member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Cicilline received a national security briefing from Administration officials on Thursday, before issuing this statement):

“Last night, President Obama addressed the nation and outlined a comprehensive strategy to defeat the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, including increased U.S. military action in the region and military and technical support for our allies. The President reaffirmed his position that our response will not include U.S. combat troops on the ground and the President made clear he has no plans to do so. I strongly support this position.

“It is clear that ISIL poses a serious threat to U.S. national security interests in the region and has expressly threatened the American homeland, and we must do everything we can to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. We must also remain vigilant as a nation and ensure we’re fully equipped to respond to all threats against America or American personnel. The President laid out a thoughtful strategy to work with Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the ground, as well as a broader international coalition, to defeat this grave danger to U.S. national security interests and regional stability.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Whitehouse visited Syria in January 2013):

“After a decade of war, I share the concerns of many Rhode Islanders about further military engagement, but I also share their alarm over the rising influence of ISIL and their horror over the brutal tactics used by these extremists.  I will continue to oppose the deployment of regular ground troops, but we must take seriously ISIL’s ruthless beheading of Americans, its threat to U.S. personnel and facilities in the region, and its ability to capture territory and resources to conduct terrorist attacks.  I believe the plan outlined by the President tonight – to build a coalition of regional partners and work with the newly formed Iraqi government to drive ISIL out of that country – is the right approach.  I also support expanding our efforts to provide military advice and airstrikes, and arming moderate rebels in Syria – a step I first called for after visiting the region early last year.  Syria and ISIL present a complex set of problems to which there are no easy answers, but I believe President Obama is pursuing the best set of options available to us at this time.

Congressman Jim Langevin (senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence):

“The threat posed by ISIS demands the world’s attention and action. They are the very definition of extremist, and their brutality knows no bounds. They have perpetrated unspeakable acts of violence against innocent people, including women, children and religious minorities who have been targeted for their refusal to adhere to an extreme and dangerous set of principles cloaked in religious sentiment.

“Intelligence officials estimate that thousands of Americans and Europeans have joined ISIS fighters, and these individuals could return home with the intent of doing harm to the United States and our allies.

“This terrorist threat, combined with existing sectarian tensions and an Iraqi government that, until now, has marginalized too many of its people, has created a complex challenge in the region, and it will take a multifaceted, collaborative effort to ultimately defeat ISIS. That approach must include a more inclusive government in Iraq, and I am encouraged by the improvements we are starting to see on that front.

“Like so many of my constituents, I do not want to see the United States embroiled in another ground war in the Middle East. We have learned over the past 13 years from our mistakes in Iraq. But on the eve of September 11, a date so deeply ingrained in the minds and hearts of Americans, we remember where we have been, and can see a clearer path forward. Evil cannot be left unchallenged. I applaud the President’s speech tonight as a first step towards addressing this threat, and I appreciate his commitment to working with Congress and keeping the American people informed. Going forward, I expect to hear further details of the timing and scope of the strategy he proposes, and I will continue to exercise rigorous oversight of the military commitment to come.

“The challenges we face are tremendous, but in the face of this adversity, the United States of America is ready to lead a broad coalition of partners in the region and worldwide to address the threat posed by ISIS. And as we face this threat, I continue to be so grateful to the brave men and women of our military. To the service members here and abroad, and to the troops that will join this effort to defeat ISIS, thank you for your tireless commitment to preserving freedom and protecting our country.”

“Most folks agree that paying companies to relocate American jobs overseas makes no sense,” said Senator Jack Reed, about Senate Bill 2569, the Bring Jobs Home Act. It would end a tax loophole for compensates companies for moving expenses when they move jobs overseas and instead reward companies that bring jobs back stateside.

But some Senate Republicans didn’t think this made sense when Reed co-sponsored the bill in 2012. In July of that year it was killed by a GOP filibuster in spite having four Republican backers. But Senators Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse are hoping it can pass this summer, free of the politics of a presidential campaign.

“Now, the Senate has a chance to close this loophole and open a new chapter of bipartisan, commonsense cooperation,” Reed said in a statement. “This kind of straight-forward legislation deserves a swift up or down vote.  I hope we can get bipartisan cooperation to improve our economy and give American-based companies and workers a competitive advantage in the global marketplace.”

Here’s how Reed’s office described the bill:

The Bring Jobs Home Act will close a tax loophole that pays the moving expense of companies which send jobs overseas.  Under the current tax code, the cost of moving personnel and components of a company to a new location is defined as a business expense that qualifies for a tax deduction.  The Reed-backed bill will keep this deduction in place for companies that bring jobs and business activity back to the United States, but businesses would no longer be able to claim a tax benefit for shipping jobs overseas.  The bill also creates a new tax cut to provide an incentive for companies to bring jobs back to America.  Specifically, it would allow companies to qualify for a tax credit equal to 20% of the cost associated with bringing jobs back to the United States.

The Senate voted today to re-open debate on the bill. Reed, Whitehouse and their allies now have 30 hours to muster up 60 Senate votes to avoid another filibuster.

Until then, your tax dollars are helping companies leave the country.

“From the Old Slater Mill in Pawtucket to modern submarine production at Quonset Point, the manufacturing sector has always been central to Rhode Island’s economy,” Whitehouse said in a statement.  “It’s time to stop rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas and start rewarding them for bringing jobs back home.  Rhode Island taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill to help create jobs in other countries.”

We know why the oil and gas industry wants to export fracked gas — they stand to make quite a profit by selling to countries like China and Ukraine. This bill is making fast progress in the House — but we can stop it in the Senate. Rhode Island’s delegation will help.

“Senator Reed has real concerns about the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on the environment and public health,” said Chip Unruh, a spokesman for Reed. “He is a cosponsor of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act).  This bill would require fracking to be subject to the protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  This legislation would also require oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in fracking operations.”

But, the oil & gas industry is promoting a PR campaign to convince Americans that *fracking* is THE answer to American energy independence.  This lie is so widespread that I even hear b.s. PR on my beloved NPR.  In fact, I’ve been listening to it for months now.

That’s right, folks.  NPR.  (Is nothing sacred?)

NPR is a valuable public resource, so I don’t mean to hate on it.  It is an entity that remains vulnerable to such corporate arm-twisting. Nonetheless, when it runs stories about families who are sick as a result of fracking, then pushes “Think About It” ads a few minutes later, there is a blatant contradiction here.  There exists an utter disregard for Truth, and lack of accountability.

Let me sidebar for a moment, and point out some key stats that emphasize why this should get you riled up:

• In rural Pennsylvania counties where fracking began, sexually transmitted infection rose by 32.4%- (that’s 62% more than the increase in rural unfracked counties).
• Social disorder crimes — especially substance abuse and alcohol-related crimes — increased by 17% in counties with the highest density of fracking (compared to only 13% in unfracked rural counties).
• Heavy-truck crashes increased by 7.2% in counties with high fracking activity (whereas they fell in unfracked counties)
• Truthfully, fracking only exists because frackers passed “The Halliburton Loophole” which allowed them to frack our land / water without telling us what chemicals they used. Without such secrecy, it is unlikely that fracking would have been allowed at all, in dozens of states. We know that even the EPA was convinced to cover up its own research that proved fracking had contaminated groundwater.

Fracking will continue to poison our water, air, and health, while increasing methane emissions in the atmosphere, unless we ACT.  This means we must hold our politicians AND journalists accountable, (Yes NPR, I’m lookin’ at you!) and each do our part to speak the truth.  Our quality of life depends on it; our collective future demands it of us.

So please, do yourself (and your neighbors) a favor:   Tell your Senators to oppose fracked gas exports.  Tell them we are paying close attention, and will no longer tolerate anything but GREEN energy independence.  And if possible, get involved in the “Don’t Even Think About It” push to get the American Natural Gas Alliance off our airwaves.

And Reed is keeping the pressure on.

“Months ago, not many people thought we’d have a bill that would emerge from the U.S. Senate to restore unemployment insurance,” Reed said at a press event today. “But something happened.  The voices of the American people were heard in the United States Senate.  They were heard by both Democrats and Republicans and we came together to pass bipartisan, fiscally responsible legislation that will restore benefits to over 2 million Americans.”

Reed authored the bill with Republican Dean Heller of Nevada, and it was also cosigned by Senators Collins, Murkowski, Portman and Kirk – all Republicans. It would reauthorize unemployment insurance for as many as 12,000 Rhode Islanders and 2.35 million Americans who have been cut off, according to a press release.

“We need to finish the work,” Reed said.  “And now that work is the hands of Sandy Levin, Steny Hoyer, Speaker Pelosi, and others who will help amplify the voices of the American people.”

In the House, seven Republicans sent Speaker John Boehner a letter expressing their support for the bill. But still, the AP said, “despite the appeal, the bill’s prospects are cloudy at best, given widespread opposition among conservative lawmakers and outside groups and Boehner’s unwillingness to allow it to the floor without changes that Republicans say would enhance job creation.”

According to Congressman David Cicilline, “the Speaker is the only thing standing in the way of renewing this vital lifeline and instead of blocking this legislation, he should immediately bring it to the floor for a vote,” he said in a statement. “I will continue fighting with my Democratic colleagues to force a vote on this critical piece of legislation to ensure Americans receive the support they need in difficult times.”

Reed’s press secretary Chip Unruh said in an email, “We have facts, figures, and CBO scores on our side: reauthorizing emergency unemployment insurance will help save jobs, it will help improve our economy, it will help restore our nation’s fiscal health, and most of all, it will help people.  And the real difference makers in this debate are not stats – they are people. If the House Leadership refuses to address this issue, they will be hearing from their constituents.”

Here’s today’s full press conference. Reed speaks at 8:47.

One company thought Campanella’s freelance rate was too high, so they hired her into a full time position at a lower hourly rate. Two months later, when the job was done, she was laid off. I asked her if she thought she had been tricked by the company into doing the work on the cheap. She told me that she didn’t think that was the case, but that the company simply needed to make the cut because of the bad economy.

As for moving back in with family, she is grateful that she was able to, but she can’t imagine what those without family must be going through.

He also asked three Rhode Islanders to tell their stories.

• Read Steve Ahlquist’s full series here
• Clarise Thompson tells her story
• Reed, Cicilline fight to restore unemployment benefits

Rhonda McMichael is 54 years old, and she has lived in Rhode Island and worked all her life. She “never asked for a penny” while she was raising her two children, because she always felt there was someone else who needed the money more.

“So,” she says, “I went and got two or three jobs…”

McMichael has exhausted her 401K, and as a breast cancer survivor without unemployment benefits, she can’t afford her medications.

She later added, “Because I’m in this situation, I have to now start applying for food assistance, housing assistance, my health care is going to end on the first of the year so what do I do?”