Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) is asking federal officials to protect Lake Michigan from coal ash pollution from the S.S. Badger car ferry which operates between Luddington, Michigan and Manitowoc, Wisconsin.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the operators of the coal-powered car ferry operators hope to avoid U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules against dumping coal ash in the lake by placing the vessel on the national list of historic and cultural landmarks, and that a National Park Service advisory panel voted to approve the ferry’s nomination on Wednesday.

Coal ash contains mercury, arsenic, lead and other health-damaging heavy metals and the S.S. Badger dumps at least 509 tons overboard each year.

In letters to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Sen. Jay Rockeller (D-WV), who chairs the committee that oversees the Coast Guard, Durbin argued against exempting the vessels from EPA rules.

“We cannot let Historic Landmark status be used to evade the federal regulations we rely on to protect public health and the environment,” Durbin wrote to Salazar, who has the final say on the Badger’s application. “This Great Lake cannot take any more toxic dumping, no matter how historic or quaint the source may be.”

Last Friday the U.S. House approved an amendment to the Coast Guard budget that would allow the S.S. Badger to continue its current mode of operating for the life of the vessel.

Durbin asked Rockefeller to remove that amendment from the Coast Guard budget when it comes before his committee.

“I strongly disagree with the premise in Buckley and the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of precedent in Citizens United versus the FEC [Federal Elections Commission],” said Udall at the press conference introducing the bill. “The court had previously allowed Congress to pass laws preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. But the latest reinterpretation of the Constitution has left our political system vulnerable like never before.”

For the bill to become law, it must pass with a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. While acknowledging the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Udall seems to want to capitalize on the growing mood of disaffection with big money overall as evidenced by the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers. In comments to the online site, Politico Influence, days after his proposal, Udall said, “I believe there is a significant grass-roots movement out there to take the money out of politics.”

He said that the momentum on Capitol Hill has already picked up since introducing the bill, claiming 10 of his fellow senators have agreed to co-sponsor the amending (in addition to the six who signed on with him and Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, including Richard Durbin of Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Tom Harkin of Iowa). “It’s pretty dramatic how the campaign landscape has changed.”

Although Udall had no response when asked about the recent kerfuffle over both Republican Governor Susana Martinez’s campaign-contribution issues or those of the state’s Democratic Attorney General Gary King, nor did he have anything to say about James Bopp Jr.’s lawsuit challenging the state’s constitutionality of those very same campaign-contribution limits, his bill cosponsor, Durbin, said at the press conference, “If you want to take our political campaigns out of the hands of special interest groups and Super PACs and groups we’ve never heard of, this is the way to do it.

“I do not begrudge corporations or lobbyists a seat at the table when it comes to making decisions in Washington,” continued Durbin. “But they aren’t entitled to own the table. The table really belongs to the American people.”

Schumer put it even more emphatically, referring to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and Buckley decisions, stating, “These are awful decisions that need to be overturned.”

The move required special arrangements with Canadian regulators because the generators are so large that no International Atomic Energy Agency approved container can hold them and because the amount of radiation they contain exceeds the limits for shipments under international law.

Because the shipment would pass through U.S. territories in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway en route to Sweden, U.S. approval is necessary.

The agency responsible for oversight of nuclear shipments in the U.S. is DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an agency that has come under criticism recently for its failure to prevent oil and gas pipeline ruptures.

In the final days of his tenure as a U.S. Senator, Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin spearheaded an effort to ensure that the agency doesn’t simply rubber stamp the plan.

Feingold, together with Sens. Robert Casey Jr.(D-PA), Kirsten Gellibrand (D-NY), Carl Levin (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Charles Shumer (D-NY), asked PHMSA to explain how it would handle the request to move the nuclear waste through U.S. waters.

In a Nov. 8, 2010 response PHMSA Director Cynthia Quarterman said the agency would begin considering Bruce Power’s application for a “special arrangement” once the shipping plan was approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Over the past two decades the agency has made special arrangements for the shipping of approximately 40 large nuclear power plant components, she said, but “almost all of the prior U.S. consignments had a lesser radioactive hazard than the proposed Canadian steam generator transport.”

All but one of the previous nuclear shipments appear to involve ocean shipping rather than transport over the Great Lakes.

Quarterman said that PHMSA would solicit input from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before granting Bruce Power an exemption from safety regulations.

Feingold asked whether PHMSA be complying with the National Environmental Policy Act [which requires formal environmental review of federal actions with significant environmental impact] and how the agency would ensure public participation and transparency.

Quarterman stated that the agency would comply with NEPA, but offered no details on actions to engage the public.

“It should be noted that although Canada may approve the initial certificate, the U.S. is in no way bound by their approval,” she said. “The U.S. could require additional conditions or elect not to validate.”

PHMSA must conduct a formal environmental review of the plan, said Toledo-based attorney Terry Lodge, who is working with a coalition of U.S. environmental and nuclear watchdog groups intent on stopping the transport.

“This precedent-setting project, if allowed to proceed, will normalize some risky practices that have larger implications for human health and the environment,“ he said. “Bruce Power’s aim is to save money on long-term stewardship costs of radioactive waste by reducing its volume and mixing some of it into recycled metal markets.”

“We believe the proposed shipment manifests as yet unquantified threats to water, the environment and public health in the event of a seal rupture on the generators,” Lodge said. “Radionuclides could enter the Lakes and Seaway, and if so, fisheries and resort activities will be seen as contaminated.”

Lodge said that the transport plans presented by Bruce Power do not detail emergency response measures in the event of a freighter accident and do not include cleanup plans, spill remediation protocols or drinking water protection measures.

Representative Pete Sessions, a Republican in leadership, said he could back extending jobless benefits, favored by Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in exchange for an extension of all Bush-era tax cuts, including for the wealthiest groups.

“What we’re going to do is sit down and talk with Mrs. Pelosi,” Sessions told Reuters as he left a meeting of House Republicans. “I see nothing wrong with her winning as long as the American people do.” [...]

“It really strikes me as hard to explain why we would give charity to the richest people in America with additional tax cuts of $100,000 a year and deny the basic necessities of life to people who are out of work through no fault of their own,” said Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

Obviously, no deal is yet in sight, but the comments above indicate that a link between the two concepts is becoming increasingly likely — and it’s doubtless a good messaging strategy for Democrats. As a lobbyist pushing for a year-long unemployment benefits extension told the Huffington Post, “Leadership is very aware of the beautiful symmetry of tax cuts for millionaires doesn’t need to be offset but $293 a week for the long-term unemployed does.”

Neither the Senate nor the House plans to be in session next week, however, meaning an extension of unemployment benefits would have to pass this week for nearly 2 million Americans to avoid losing their benefits come December. Linking the extension to the tax cut debate might give it a greater chance of passing, but it also seems destined to drag out the debate and virtually ensure that Congress will allow the crucial benefits to lapse one again. With Republican leadership rescheduling its much anticipated meeting with President Obama until after Thanksgiving, don’t look for any major deals to occur in the meantime.

“We’re not giving up,” he told DREAM Act supporters at an event organized by Campus Progress. “This is not the end of the fight, it’s just the beginning.”

Durbin has been a longtime champion of the DREAM Act, and said yesterday’s Republican filibuster of the defense authorization bill (the DREAM Act was a planned amendment) was “a sad moment.” It showed the DREAM Act does not have enough votes to pass, he said, but this could change if voters and student activists continue to pressure senators.

Asked whether senators could pass the DREAM Act in a lame duck system, Durbin said he was trying to be optimistic. “Some members of the Senate who are not going to return may vote in our favor,” he said. “I hope that’s the case.”

If not, Durbin said he would continue to push for the DREAM Act next year. He said a number of Republican senators might be more likely to support the DREAM Act on its own, and some have told him next year will be a better year for immigration reform. “I’m going to hold them to that,” he said.

Reid and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the Democratic Whip, spent the majority of their time ripping the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and reminding Republicans that, once upon a time, they too supported increased transparency and disclosure of campaign spending as an alternative to strict limits on total dollar amounts. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) continued to claim that Democrats are raising the issue at at time when they should be focused on jobs and the economy — and that the bill is an attempt to rig the electoral system to their advantage.

Reid began things by surveying the current election spending landscape. “Nameless, faceless individuals are spending huge amounts of money – corporate money and other money — for which there is certainly no transparency whatsoever,” he said. “I repeat, no transparency. That’s what the debate’s about today. It is important the American people know how outrageous the Supreme Court’s decision was.”

Durbin, for his part, turned a portion of his speech into a trivia game of sorts, asking listeners to guess the senator who made the following comment. ”What we ought to have is disclosure. I think groups should have the right to run those ads but they ought to be disclosed and they ought to be accurate, end of quote. Who said that?” Durban asked the Senate. “The Senator from Kentucky who has just come to the floor — the minority leader — in the context of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill in 2002.”

The Democratic Whip also went on to quote Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) – “I don’t like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable. To the extent we can I tend to favor disclosure” — and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) – “I think the system needs more transparency, so people can more easily reach their own conclusions” — in an apparent attempt to publicly shame Republicans for their change of hearts.

Neither Democrat made mention of the Republican Senators from Maine — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins — and their previous championing of campaign finance measures, however. As Senators who might conceivably still vote for the measure, Snowe and Collins were clearly deemed off-limits for such rhetorical attacks.

McConnell, meanwhile, spent little time criticizing the specifics of the bill, instead trying to tie the Democrats’ decision to revive the DISCLOSE Act to other efforts in the Senate this week surrounding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the DREAM Act, grouping them all together as an attempt to play politics before the election. “This is a bill that’s back on the floor no other reason than our friends on the other side have decided that this week is ‘politics only week’ in the Senate,” he claimed. “That’s all this is: pure politics.”

The Minority Leader also coined a new name for the bill — “an incumbency protection act for Democrats in Congress” — and argued that, “now, after spending the last year and a half enacting policies Americans don’t like, they want to prevent their opponents from criticizing what they’ve done…. They’re trying to rig the system to their advantage.”

Both parties, in a sense, are engaged in a game of chicken on the DISCLOSE Act. Democrats think the disclosure of political spending is a political winner and a no-brainer for most Americans, so on the campaign trail they’ll be happy to highlight Republican obstructionism if McConnell and his compatriots once again block a vote tomorrow. Republicans, for their part, are gambling that they can convince the public that the bill favors unions and other special interests partial to Democrats, weaving the measure into a tapestry of right-wing election paranoia that stretches back to ACORN and now The New Black Panther Party, chalking it up as once last ditch attempt by Democrats to steal the elections.

What is it?

The DREAM Act — the acronym is for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act — was first introduced in 2001 by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). (He’s now an opponent of the bill.) The idea is to provide a path to citizenship for young people who came to the U.S. as children, some of whom don’t even realize they are not citizens until they try to get a driver’s license or apply for college.

Under the act, eligible students can apply for a conditional legal status for a six-year period. During that period, they must graduate from a two-year college, complete two years of a four-year university, or serve in the military for two years. (The military addition replaced community service, which some immigrants rights advocates have criticized.) At the end of the six-year period, they can become permanent legal residents if they have a clean criminal record.

The DREAM Act has come up in Senate a few times since 2001, but only went to a vote as a standalone bill once, after a push in 2007 by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). This year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will attach it to the defense authorization bill.

Who would it impact?

To be eligible for the DREAM Act, illegal immigrants must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time the bill is enacted. They must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and lived there for five years consecutively since their arrival. So-called “DREAMers” must demonstrate “good moral character” — which roughly translates to a clean criminal record — and earn an American high school diploma or GED.

The DREAM Act would not provide citizenship, or even legal status, to all of those eligible. About 2.1 million unauthorized immigrant youth and young adults who would be eligible to apply for legal status under the DREAM Act, but only about 825,000 would eventually gain citizenship, in part due to educational barriers, according to July estimates by the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. Immigrants who meet the baseline criteria and have already completed two years of college or military service are eligible for citizenship.

The argument for it

Supporters of the DREAM Act argue it is the fair way to deal with young people who have grown up in the U.S. but have no clear path to legal residency. The bill would save students from deportation and keep American-educated students, whose childhood education was funded with tax-payer dollars, in the U.S.

“DREAM Act students should be allowed to get on with their lives,” according to the pro-reform Center for Community Change. “If Congress fails to act this year, another entire class of outstanding, law-abiding high school students will graduate without being able to plan for the future, and some will be removed from their homes to countries they barely know.”

The argument against it

According to its opponents, the DREAM Act is amnesty for illegal immigrants and should be stopped. Many Republicans have taken this stance, arguing it should be combined with enforcement-heavy measures so it won’t draw illegal immigrants to the country.

“It will provide a powerful incentive for more illegal immigration by allowing states to give in-state tuition to illegal students,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “It’s really an insult to legal, tax-paying citizens.”

It’s been a long time coming for the DREAM Act, which was first proposed in 2001. It went up for a vote once, in 2007, but was eight votes short of overcoming a filibuster. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the original sponsors, introduced the bill in this session in March 2009.

Reid had previously expressed doubt that he could find the votes to pass the act, but at a stakeout today seemed confident it could pass as part of the defense authorization bill.

“When that passes, millions of children will be able to get the education they need to contribute to our economy,” he said. “Boys and girls who come here before they turn 16 and have been here for five years — kids who grew up as Americans — should be able get their green card after go to college or serve in the military.”

Reform advocates turned their hopes to the act this year as comprehensive immigration reform looked increasingly unlikely.

Reid’s decision is a step in the right direction, Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said in a press release.

“We are thrilled that the Senate will address one of our immediate priorities,” he wrote. “It is our hope they find a similar way forward for AgJOBS, as well as our final goal of comprehensive immigration reform.  This is an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats alike to lead the nation forward and fix our broken immigration system.”

DREAM Act supporters at a May rally in Michigan (Detroit Free Press/ZUMApress.com)

On Tuesday, about 300 students — many non-citizens who have been living in the U.S. for years — filed into a church near the Capitol for a mock graduation ceremony. Clad in caps and gowns, they came from as far as California to lobby members of Congress to pass the DREAM Act, legislation that would help students who immigrated to the U.S. as children obtain citizenship. Their goal is to see the bill pass this year, with or without comprehensive immigration reform.

[Immigration1] “We cannot wait one more year,” said Virginia Gonzalez of the Immigrant Youth Justice League. The other students joined her in a chant: “Undocumented and unafraid.”

As comprehensive reform looks increasingly unlikely to pass this year, many immigration activists have shifted their focus to the DREAM Act. But the legislation, introduced in this session by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) last March, is caught in a tenuous middle ground. It’s too much for conservatives, who call it a form of amnesty that would encourage others to break immigration laws. Yet it’s too little for Democratic leaders in Congress, who are still holding out hope — at least in public statements — that comprehensive reform is possible, and arguing that the DREAM Act should be incorporated into a larger reform bill rather than pushed on its own.

Immigration activists, such as the ones gathered at the Capitol, see the DREAM Act as a way to move forward as comprehensive immigration reform stalls. “If we have the DREAM Act here and it’s alive and it has support, why not give the youth that opportunity?” said Juan Escalante, communications director for the DREAM Activist mobilization. The activists have chosen to push for smaller reform to cut their losses. It’s not that they don’t want to see comprehensive reform pass, he said — they just don’t want to go down with the ship if it doesn’t.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was first proposed in 2001 and fell eight votes short of overcoming a filibuster in 2007. Critics call it amnesty for illegal immigrants, but there are conditions: To be eligible, the immigrant must enter the country before the age of 16, live five consecutive years in the U.S., earn a high school diploma or the equivalent, and demonstrate good “moral character.” (There are no specifics on what that means, but it is generally interpreted as the absence of a criminal record.) Applicants would be limited to those between the ages of 12 and 35.

Once eligible, participants would be required to put in at least two years in college or the military in order to eventually become citizens. Of the 2.1 million unauthorized immigrant youth and young adults who would be eligible to apply for legal status under the DREAM Act, only about 825,000 would eventually gain citizenship, according to estimates released this month from the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.

Critics argue that the DREAM Act would reward illegal behavior. “What you’re doing is creating an incentive for people to come here,” said Ira Mehlman of the pro-enforcement Federation for American Immigration Reform. Instead, he argued, the government should focus on enforcing the laws already in place.

But supporters of immigration reform see the DREAM Act as a good way to help fix a broken system without adding harsh enforcement measures that could be lumped in with a comprehensive reform bill. Ali Noorani, executive director of National Immigration Forum, said the DREAM Act or AgJOBS, a reform bill that focuses on immigrant farm workers, could be a good step toward reforming immigration policy. “Whether it’s the DREAM Act or AgJOBS that passes, we have to make sure that neither passes with enforcement measures,” he said.

The DREAM Act has another advantage over comprehensive reform: It has bipartisan support. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) is the bill’s only Republican co-sponsor, following the resignation of fellow co-sponsor Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) last year. Lugar’s stance is arguably closest to the that of DREAM Act supporters when it comes to strategy.

“We’re not going to do comprehensive reform this year,” a spokesman for Lugar told TWI. “It’s not in the cards.” He said the senator supports comprehensive immigration reform, but if it’s not possible this session he’s willing to look at other options, such as the DREAM Act.

Still, Lugar’s support distinguishes him from his Republican colleagues. Most Republicans say that tougher border control is necessary before a path to citizenship is laid out. In March, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) notably called the DREAM Act a “nightmare for the American people,” arguing that it could open citizenship to “millions” if DREAM Act beneficiaries were able to help their families gain citizenship.

Other Republicans’ positions are more difficult to pin down. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), for example, in 2003 referred to the deportation of young people who grew up in the U.S. as a “tremendous loss to our society.” He was an original sponsor of the legislation, and still speaks about the DREAM Act in positive terms during town hall meetings. But he’s not a sure “yea” vote — Antonia Ferrier, Hatch’s spokeswoman, said in an email that Hatch does not support the current version of the DREAM Act and believes the Senate should prioritize border enforcement.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats are hesitant to push for the DREAM Act if it means giving up on comprehensive reform this year, even though many of them have said a far-reaching immigration bill is unlikely. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he wants comprehensive, not “piecemeal,” immigration reform. A spokesman declined to comment on Reid’s plans for the DREAM Act or comprehensive reform, saying he would defer to Durbin, the party’s second-ranking senator, on his plans for the bill.

At Tuesday’s event, Durbin told DREAM Act supporters, “We can pass the DREAM Act this year,” but he added that he hopes to see it included in comprehensive reform. Durbin told The Hill in May that he planned to lay low on the act. “I don’t want anyone to think I’m pushing the DREAM Act at the expense of comprehensive immigration reform,” he said at the time.

Durbin spokesman Max Gleischman told TWI there are no definitive plans to move forward with the DREAM Act instead of comprehensive immigration reform. “We’re certainly open to that option, but right now we’re focused on making sure that’s a part of comprehensive reform conversation,” he said, adding that comprehensive reform is still possible this year. (Durbin told The Associated Press last week that it is “very unlikely” that the DREAM Act would pass before November.)

Another advocate of immigration reform, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), has acknowledged that comprehensive reform doesn’t have the votes to pass right now. Still, he said in an email that he is in favor of tying the DREAM Act to a comprehensive reform bill as “a critical component of reform that fixes all aspects of our broken immigration system.”

Some immigration activists are hopeful that if comprehensive reform doesn’t happen this year, the DREAM Act will get a shot instead. Escalante of DREAM Activist said passing the bill would only help the odds of comprehensive reform down the line.

“It’s not like we’re going to pass the DREAM Act today and then tomorrow we’re going to go to Disney World and just live the rest of our lives,” he said. “These students will keep fighting for reform.”

Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute at NYU School of Law, said the DREAM Act is one of the few standalone pieces of immigration legislation that has a chance of moving forward. Will it mean a steeper climb for comprehensive reform in the future? Chishti said he suspects those who oppose the DREAM Act would have opposed comprehensive reform anyway.

“At the end of the day in legislative strategy you have to make choices, and this looks like a reasonable call to make,” he said. “Will it have fallout? Sure. But everything has fallout.”

The deal keeps most of Durbin’s language intact. But it keeps authority over swipe fees with the Federal Reserve, rather than transferring authority to the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. It also lets the Fed consider fraud-prevention costs when determining fee limits. The language does not impact credit card fees.

Durbin’s office released a good summary of the changes to the “swipe fee” provision, named after the banks’ term for the charges for using a debit card. Alterations are in italics. I’ve trimmed down to just some of the changes.

Government administered cards

The Senate-passed amendment would regulate the interchange fees associated with debit or prepaid cards issued by large banks on behalf of government-administered payment programs (e.g., unemployment insurance, TANF, child support).

The compromise exempts federal, state and local government program debit and prepaid cards from interchange regulation, provided that after a two-year grace period the prepaid cardholding beneficiaries are not charged any overdraft fees or fees for the first monthly in-network ATM withdrawal.

• Definition of “interchange transaction fee”

The Senate-passed amendment defined “interchange transaction fee” to include debit card fees that are established by a payment card network (e.g., Visa and MasterCard) and that accrue to either the card-issuing bank or to the network itself.

The compromise provides that the Fed cannot regulate network fees (i.e., the fees that Visa and MasterCard charge and that accrue to themselves) except to ensure that the fees are not used to circumvent interchange fee regulation. These changes are a different way of accomplishing the same goal of protecting consumers from loopholes which would allow banks to raise fees to cover any loss in interchange revenue.

• Reloadable prepaid cards

The Senate-passed amendment would regulate the interchange fees associated with reloadable prepaid debit cards, which are in common use by consumers who lack bank accounts.

The compromise exempts these cards from interchange regulation, provided that after a two-year grace period the issuing bank must not charge cardholders any overdraft fees or fees for the first monthly in-network ATM withdrawal. The compromise is an attempt to protect the unbanked from being driven to payday lenders and other non-bank entities for their financial needs. It further ensures that fees won’t be charged on those who can least afford them.

• Authority of the Federal Reserve Board vs. the Consumer Financial Protection Agency/Bureau

The Senate-passed amendment provided for regulatory authority under the amendment to migrate to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency/Bureau after the CFPA/B is established.

The compromise provides that regulatory authority under the amendment shall remain with the Fed.

Consumer advocates will be happy with the changes to exclude government-issued cards and prepaid debit cards from the new regulations. Democrats were concerned that banks would have stopped offering the products under the initial swipe-fee language.