The Senate amendment, which has a recent House counterpart, would give Congress and states the authority to regulate money spent in federal and state political campaigns.

Franken formally signed on to support the Senate amendment last week. It was proposed at the start of November by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico.

“Minnesotans’ right to fair and transparent elections have been severely compromised since the Supreme Court held that American corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections ,” Franken told the Minnesota Independent in an email. “This constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money in federal and state campaigns, which is why I strongly support it.”

The move comes as a slew of new Super PACs have raised millions of dollars in anticipation of next year’s presidential and congressional races.

The study averaged the net worth of each member. When members file their financial disclosure statements, they list assets and liabilities as part of minimum and maximum bet worth and CRP averaged those. For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar reported a minimum net worth of $345,029 and a maximum of $1,104,000 for an average net worth of $724,512.

In Minnesota politics, the Republican members are much wealthier than the DFLers.

The wealthiest member of Minnesota’s delegation was Sen. Al Franken with an average net worth of $8,747,525 followed by Rep. Michele Bachmann at $1,783,508 and Rep. Chip Cravaack in 217th place with an average net worth of $1,391,551.

Those three plus were in the top half of Congress’ 535 members.

After Klobuchar’s $724,512 comes Rep. Erik Paulsen with an average net worth of $487,017, Rep. John Kline had $471,006, Rep. Collin Peterson had $263,005, Rep. Tim Walz with $247,502, and Rep. Betty McCollum with an average net worth of $88,005.

Rep. Keith Ellison had the lowest net worth, with negative $14,497.

The generally accepted cutoff for the top 1 percent of Americans in terms of net worth is about $9 million on 2010, a threshold that none of the Minnesota delegation report.

Eleven percent of Congress is in the top 1 percent in terms of net worth.

Both testified that DOMA hurts same-sex couples who are legally married in several states. Franken told his colleagues that repealing the law would have not consequences for heterosexual couples, and that allowing same-sex marriage won’t make anyone gay.

The repeal effort passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 10-8. It still needs to pass a full vote on the Senate floor and faces opposition in the Republican-controlled House, although Minnesota Reps. Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum and Tim Walz are supporters of the House version.

Klobuchar said she was “struck” by the number of people who testified against DOMA in hearings last summer.

“They were discriminated against and unfairly harmed,” Klobuchar said. “They were denied protections like the ability to take off work to care for a dying partner and denied survivor benefits when a partner died.”

Klobuchar also said the issue wasn’t about religion.

“Whatever we vote on today and whatever happens today, the bill doesn’t require any church or mosque or synagogue to perform same-sex marriage. As the debate on this continues, we cannot lose sight of that,” she said.

Franken took issue with a statement by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who argued that marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. Franken argued that was false.

“In many cultures, men have been able to marry many women and young girls. For centuries, women have been treated as cattle in marriage. Further, if the religious purpose for marriage is procreation, why would we sanction marriage between an 89-year-old widower and an 80-year-old widow?” Franken said. “I just think we need to be accurate when we talk about the history of marriage, the history of man and woman, the history of our institutions.”

Franken spoke about couples in Minnesota who have been harmed by DOMA including a young couple who met in divinity school and married in Connecticut who have to lie on their federal tax forms and say they are single.

He talked about another Minnesota couple that married in Iowa, John and Jeff Westerfield. John was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

“Jeff won’t have the federal right to take a medical leave. If John passes, Jeff won’t see a dime from Social Security,” said Franken. “DOMA hurts people who love each other. DOMA hurts people who want to adopt kids and raise them and take care of them. DOMA hurts families.

“We need to pass this bill. Straight people aren’t suddenly going to become gay, Straight people aren’t going to stop getting married. We are going to be just fine. Really.”

The bill, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act, passed the committee on a party-line vote.

All the the committee’s Democrats approved the Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal DOMA and allow legally married couples to access federal benefits such as Social Security. Republicans countered that the repeal would undermine “traditional marriage.”

The bill was offered by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, and every Republican on the committee spoke out against it.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said, “The Fourteenth Amendment would probably never have been ratified if the public understood it to provide for same-sex marriage.

“This goes against the morality of many millions of Americans. I’ve always supported the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. It’s not about discriminating against anyone.”

It’s about “stable families, good environments for raising children and religious beliefs,” Grassley said.

“The Iowa Supreme Court made up a right to same-sex marriage. The people rose up and voted out all of the judges who were up for retention. In Iowa, the judges ignored the constitution,” Grassley added.

Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, a Democrat, said, “I support this bill because it takes the federal government out of the business of defining marriage.”

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said it would cost the government too much money if same-sex couples had access to Social Security like their heterosexual counterparts.

He also charged Democrats were out of touch by raising the issue.

“What’s changed since 1996? This is just another sign of how out of touch some of our friends across the aisle have been. I think it’s a transparent appeal to an interest group the other side needs in 2012.”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said even though he voted for DOMA in 1996, he realized his vote was wrong.

“I believe I was wrong and I readily acknowledge that my views on this issue changed. It’s not because of votes,” he responded to Coburn. “It’s the right thing to do. I don’t care if it costs me votes.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said the repeal would “force states to recognize same-sex marriage.”

“Repealing Section 2 [of DOMA] means these sates may be forced to recognize valid marriage that their laws prohibit,” he said.

Cornyn said states have mostly chosen to affirm traditional marriage, adding he wished Democrats would support state’s rights in other instances. “I wish my liberal friends would pay attention to the prerogatives of the individual states in other situations.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said “repealing DOMA respects states right to make their own determination about marriage.”

On state-based bans on same-sex marriage, he said, “It’s not a question of if they are repealed, it’s a question of when.”

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said, “I was struck at the hearing on the bill last summer by the people who testified. They were discriminated against and unfairly harmed. They were denied protections like the ability to take off work to care for a dying partner and denied survivor benefits when a partner died.”

She also said the issue wasn’t about religion.

“Whatever we vote on today and whatever happens today, the bill doesn’t require any church or mosque or synagogue to perform same-sex marriage. As the debate on this continues, we cannot lose sight of that.”

“I have tremendous respect for Sen. Grassley,” Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, said. “I just believe you misstated the history of marriage. Marriage has not existed as a union between one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture. In many cultures, men have been able to marry many women and young girls. For centuries, women have been treated as cattle in marriage. Further, if the religious purpose for marriage is procreation, why would we sanction marriage between an 89-year-old widower and an 80-year-old widow? I just think we need to be accurate when we talk about the history of marriage, the history of man and woman, the history of our institutions.”

Franken spoke about couples in Minnesota who have been harmed by DOMA including a young couple who met in divinity school and married in Connecticut who have to lie on their federal tax forms and say they are single.

He talked about another Minnesota couple that married in Iowa, John and Jeff Westerfied. John was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

“Jeff won’t have the federal right to take a medical leave. If John passes, Jeff won’t see a dime from Social Security,” said Franken. “DOMA hurts people who love each other. DOMA hurts people who want to adopt kids and raise them and take care of them. DOMA hurts families.

“We need to pass this bill. Straight people aren’t suddenly going to become gay, Straight people aren’t going to stop getting married. We are going to be just fine. Really.”

Last December, the FCC implemented rules that limited the establishment a “fast-lane” by internet service provides available to those with the highest bid. Under the rules laid out in December by the FCC, telecommunications companies cannot discriminate in what internet content they allow their customers to access. Net neutrality advocates have said that without a framework, large businesses could pay large telecommunications companies to direct internet traffic to their businesses without the consumer knowing that other websites had been skipped over, a practice known as paid prioritization.

That rule takes effect on Nov. 20, but House and Senate Republicans have pushed to have that rule withdrawn through legislative means. The House already passed the bill, and Senate Republicans are pushing a similar one as the deadline approaches. They are using a procedural gimmick in the Senate to force a floor vote without the option of a filibuster.

Republicans have put the issue into a resolution that simply reads that the FCC rule “shall have no force or effect.”

On Tuesday, Sen. Franken penned an column explaining what he feels will be the result if Senate Republicans are successful.

“While millions of Americans have become familiar with the concept of net neutrality, it’s important that we’re all on the same page,” Franken wrote. “Net neutrality isn’t a government takeover of the Internet, as many of my Republican colleagues have alleged. It isn’t even a change from what we have now. Net neutrality has been in place since the very beginning of the Internet.”

He added, “But many Republicans want to change that so that the large corporations they represent can increase their profit margins at the expense of small businesses and consumers.”

Franken has been a champion of net neutrality since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008.

But he also felt the net neutrality rules created by the FCC weren’t strong enough.

“The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications and devices,” Franken said in December. “Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.”

The Obama administration pushed back on Tuesday as well, indicating to Senate Republicans that a veto any bill that weakened net neutrality would be likely.

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy—an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Today more than ever, the open Internet is essential to job creation, economic growth, and global competitiveness,” the White House said on Tuesday. “If the President is presented with S.J. Res. 6, which would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution.”

Paradoxically, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the author of the rules repeal, says her bill would encourage an open and free internet.

“The Internet and technology have produced more jobs in this country than just about any other sector. It has been the cradle of innovation, it does not have a problem, and it does not need fixing,” Hutchison said in a statement on Tuesday. “More regulation of the Internet is going to stop the investments, it’s going to stop the creativity — and put our businesses and our providers at a competitive disadvantage with Europeans and others that have kept their Internet free of over-regulation.”

It was signed by 41 members of Congress, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Betty McCollum, Sen. Al Franken, Rep. John Kline, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Erik Paulsen, who the Minnesota Independent previously reported is a major recipient of the industry’s campaign donations.

The letter notes that medical devices are appearing in Europe months or years before they’re approved in the United States.

“Unless we make significant improvements to the predictability and transparency of the regulatory process, we will lose the industry, the jobs that go with it, and the innovation to transform our healthcare system,” the letter states.

The members of Congress offer some changes to the FDA’s approval process in the letter, including instituting a new tracking system and changing conflict of interest requirements of those serving on advisory panels.

“We recognize the need to balance risk and benefit; we all share patient safety as our primary concern, but there must be a “least burdensome approach” to achieve this without crippling an industry,” the letter states.

The medical device industry is a major backer of Paulsen, with donations from industry Political Action Committees (PACs) and executives helping to make him the lead fundraiser in Minnesota’s House delegation.

The New York Times later noted that efforts to reform the agency’s procedures are part of a push from venture capitalists investing in the industry. Congressional hearings on the subject have been overloaded with industry supporters, paying little attention to the potential dangers of medical devices.

The letter from Klobuchar and other signatories:

Dear Dr. Hamburg,

The bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Medical Technology Caucus, and other members of Congress join together to express our concerns about regulatory issues facing the medical device industry. This is an industry that has become increasingly important as dramatic improvements over the last decade have revolutionized healthcare and improved the quality of life for millions of Americans.

We share your commitment to ensuring safe and effective medical devices are available to patients. However, we are very concerned about recent declines in FDA performance. Increased review times, inconsistent expectations, and poor communication from the FDA are causing a lack of confidence and instability in the industry.

From the President’s own Jobs Council report released this month

“Today, however, our medical innovation ecosystem is in jeopardy. Investment in the life sciences area is declining at an alarming rate because of the escalating cost, time and risk of developing new drugs and devices. While many factors have contributed to this decline – including challenges around reimbursement and the general state of the economy – an important factor is the uncertain FDA regulatory environment. These concerns come at a time when Europe, China, and India continue to entice companies to take their medical research and development enterprises abroad, putting at risk our ability to keep private investment and jobs here at home.” [1]

Dissatisfaction with the approval process is no longer just anecdotal: data shows the average time to approve a 510(k) application has increased by 43% from the 2003-2007 period to 2010.[2] The average time to approve a PMA application has increased 75%.[3] The total review times for both 510(k)s and PMAs are now actually longer than they were before the user fee program was instituted.[4]

It has also become significantly more costly to get new products approved. Companies spend an additional $520,000 a month as they wait for FDA approval of a 510(k) product and $740,000 each month for a PMA product.[5] This is simply unsustainable.

Today, the United States accounts for 40 percent of the global medical technology market[6] and the industry indirectly creates two million American jobs.[7] Maintaining American leadership in this field is essential for jobs and for patients. Unless we make significant improvements to the predictability and transparency of the regulatory process, we will lose the industry, the jobs that go with it, and the innovation to transform our healthcare system.

We recognize the need to balance risk and benefit; we all share patient safety as our primary concern, but there must be a “least burdensome approach” to achieve this without crippling an industry. We urge you to make every possible improvement to cut down device approval time by:

• Recognizing and correcting the disparity between “FDA time” versus real time when tracking device approvals

• Considering potential benefits of harmonization with international testing standards

• Addressing the unintended consequences of the conflict of interest rules for advisory panels

• Creating a transparent tracking and review system for applications and clearance decisions

These are just some of the ways the FDA can improve the process.

We appreciate the FDA’s efforts in developing an Innovation Agenda and we recognize these changes will not take place overnight. However, stakeholders from innovators and patients, to investors and physicians all note that if the FDA does not restore regulatory certainty, predictability, and transparency, investment in the industry will continue to decline and this uniquely American success story could disappear.

Sincerely,

Anna G. Eshoo                                                           Erik Paulsen

Amy Klobuchar                                                          Scott P. Brown

Richard Lugar                                                             Al Franken

Debbie Stabenow                                                        Brian Bilbray

Jay Inslee                                                                    David Drier

Michael Honda                                                           Dan Burton

Betty McCollum                                                         Marlin Stutzman

Bob Filner                                                                   Ken Calvert

Jason Altmire                                                              Charles Bass

Andre Carson                                                              Mary Bono Mack

Susan Davis                                                                Michael Burgess

Joe Donnelly                                                               Todd Young

Pat Tiberi                                                                     Michael Rogers

Marsha Blackburn                                                       Jim Gerlach

John Kline                                                                   Michael R. Turner

Charles Dent                                                               Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Michele Bachmann                                                     Brett Guthrie

Aaron Schock                                                             Glenn Thompson

Anne Marie Buerkle                                                    Chris Gibson

Bill Huizenga                                                              Patrick Meehan

Todd Rokita

cc: Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

About 1,300 union workers have been locked out of their jobs by American Crystal Sugar since Aug. 1. Since the lockout started, the union and company have only met twice, both times at the urging of a federal mediator. Following the rejection of Monday’s offer, there are no plans to meet again.

Sen. Al Franken said “it’s imperative that both sides continue to work to come to an agreement that will end this lockout and get workers back on the job,” pointing out that all sides play a role in the sugar industry’s success.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Collin Peterson released a joint statement highlighting the impact of the lockout on communities across the Red River Valley: “We continue to urge both Crystal Sugar management and workers to come together at the negotiating table to work out an agreement that allows workers to return to their jobs as soon as possible. American Crystal and these jobs are very important to the region.”

Locked out workers in Minnesota are receiving unemployment benefits, but those who live in North Dakota are denied them under state law. Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said in a statement that the “lock-out is taking a serious toll on families in North Dakota and Minnesota and the economic and social impact can be felt up and down the Red River Valley.”

In an interview with the Grand Forks Herald, Conrad admitted that the dispute could harm the chances of a farm bill. Franken has warned in the past that American Crystal Sugar’s tactics of locking out workers could alienate pro-worker members of Congress who have previously supported protections for the sugar industry.

Conrad told the Grand Forks Herald that the “company needs to think long and hard about the consequences, about the implications of their strategy.”

In a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack (below), the eight senators proposed that potatoes are healthier if topped with broccoli. The letter recommends that the USDA consider food preparation when compiling guidelines.

A Senate amendment to take away the agency’s ability to limit potatoes passed on Oct. 18, and will likely be merged with a House version.

The proposed rule limited kids’ lunches to one cup of starchy vegetables every week, which includes white potatoes, corn, lima beans and peas. The rule would also have removed starchy vegetables from breakfasts, limit sodium intake and mandate more non-starchy vegetables during lunches, among other nutritional improvements.

Franken said the rule change could “disproportionately affect” agricultural producers “without necessarily improving student nutrition,” according to a post Monday on his Senate site.

“While I applaud the USDA’s efforts to improve vegetable variety in our nation’s schools, it’s important that we consider the possible consequences of this rule on our farmers, and its disproportionate effect on Minnesota,” Franken said in the statement. “That’s why I urged the USDA to give our children the nutritious foods they need without making dramatic cuts to the dietary staples provided by Minnesota’s agricultural producers.”

The letter to Vilsack proposed that potatoes can be healthier if topped with broccoli. The letter recommends that the USDA consider food preparation when compiling guidelines.

The cost of the entire proposed rules, which covers many areas of nutrition, could have reached an addition $6.8 billion over five years, according to the USDA report. The revisions are designed to combat the childhood obesity epidemic and prevent related health problems.

Groups like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine have advocated for healthier school lunches. Other advocates, like Chef Ann Cooper of the Food Family Farming Foundation, have said opposing the new limits on starchy vegetables doesn’t serve the best interest of children’s nutrition.

111031_USDA_vegetable_letter

Our sister site, the Colorado Independent, reported that Obama was in full campaign mode as he told a Denver crowd that he intends to relieve economic distress without going through the gridlocked Congress.

Obama’s plan is for speeding up student loan repayment reforms passed last year but wasn’t scheduled to take effect until 2014. His executive order will lower the maximum percentage of income students will have to pay toward their student loans to 10 percent. After 20 years, the remaining debt will be forgiven. There is also a loan consolidation component to the plan.

The plan would help 1.6 million borrowers reduce their monthly payments, according to the White House. Another 5.8 million could benefit from the loan consolidation program. But the conditions of the plan are restricted. The Education Finance Council told Reuters that they were disappointed by the limited scope of the proposal.

“President Obama’s proposal, available to a limited group of students for a limited amount of time, does not address the real student loan problem: rising tuition and the lack of well-paying jobs,” a statement from Education Finance Council said.

Student advocacy groups told the Chronicle of Higher Education that they were thankful, considering the gridlocked political scene, for the new measures.

“The president is doing what he can with a paralyzed Congress,” said Richard T. Williams, a lobbyist with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “It might be a limp when we need a leap, but we need Congress to provide that leap.”

Sen. Al Franken commended the President on the proposal.

“I’ve traveled around Minnesota and have heard how much families are struggling to make ends meet, and I’m glad the president recognizes that people need this kind of relief now,” Franken said in a statement. “The cost of a college education shouldn’t bankrupt a family, and with our struggling economy, these reforms couldn’t come at a better time.”

U.S. Student loan debt has recently overtaken credit card debt. There is roughly $1 trillion in outstanding loans and this year’s crop of university graduates holds the highest average debt to date, the Colorado Independent reported.

Obama also touched on the economic impact of student loan debt.

“Other countries are hustling to out-educate us so they can out-compete us tomorrow. They want the jobs of the future. I want you to have those jobs. I want Americans to have those jobs. I want us to win the future. That means we should be doing everything we can to put a college education within reach for every American,” Obama said. “It’s never been more important, but let’s face it, it’s also never been more expensive.”

The president spoke about the debt he and his wife Michelle racked up as students. He said together they owed in excess of $100,000 in student loans when they married.

“We combined liabilities, not assets,” he joked.

John Tomasic contributed to this report.

The campaign hired Broderick Johnson of the lobbying firm Bryan Cave LLP this week. According to U.S. House of Representatives records, Johnson lobbied to “support submission of a presidential permit for Keystone XL pipeline” in the final quarter of 2010.

Environmentalists are upset with the pipeline and with Pres. Barack Obama’s unwillingness to reconsider the project.

According to Friends of the Earth campaigner Kim Huynh:

“President Obama ran for office in 2008 promising that the days of lobbyists setting the agenda in Washington were over, yet now he’s hired a top oil pipeline lobbyist into his campaign,” Huynh said. “This is a deeply troubling development. A lobbyist who has taken corporate cash to shill for this dirty and dangerous pipeline now has even more opportunity to whisper into the President’s ear.”

On October 6, Friends of the Earth and the Center for International Environmental Law and Corporate Ethics International amended (pdf) a Freedom of Information Act request so that it now includes a request for all State Department documents that pertain to interactions with Johnson and several other pipeline lobbyists.

Bryan Cave earned more than $1 million from 2009-2011 from its lobbying activities on behalf of TransCanada.

Johnson was also a lobbyist in Comcast’s massive effort to influence the Federal Communications Commission to approve a merger with NBC-Universal, which made it one of the biggest media conglomerates in American history, as the Minnesota Independent reported. Sen. Al Franken was a prominent critic of the merger, which consumer advocates said would reduce options and increase costs for customers.

Brian Cave LLP received at least $440,000 in lobbying income from Comcast from 2009-2011, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Johnson is listed on the House disclosure forms throughout the period, some of the forms disclose his role as “advocacy work regarding Comcast/NBC-U transaction.”

The Comcast merger was approved in early 2011. Later this year, Comcast snapped up FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who supported the merger, as the new Comcast vice president for government affairs, what’s known in Capitol circles as the “revolving door.”

Johnson himself has held a number of official and lobbying positions, including deputy assistant to the President for legislative affairs in the Clinton White House. Johnson was also an informal advisor for Obama’s 2008 election, according to his bio on another firm’s website.

Ed Brayton contributed to this report.