July, 12 2010, 02:33pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Caitlin MacNeal,COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER,(202) 347-1122,cmacneal@pogo.org
POGO Recommendations for Improvements to the CLEAR Act, H.R. 3534, 1to Strengthen Oversight and Accountability and End the Cozy Relationship between Interior and Industry
The Revolving Door: The
Deepwater Horizon disaster dramatically illustrates the enormity of the
risk to our safety, the environment, the economy, and the general public
interest by the capture of government agencies by private industry. The
revolving door between the oil and gas industry and its regulator is at
the rotten core of the lax oversight that led to oil spilling into the
Gulf of Mexico.2
While S.
WASHINGTON
The Revolving Door: The
Deepwater Horizon disaster dramatically illustrates the enormity of the
risk to our safety, the environment, the economy, and the general public
interest by the capture of government agencies by private industry. The
revolving door between the oil and gas industry and its regulator is at
the rotten core of the lax oversight that led to oil spilling into the
Gulf of Mexico.2
While S. 3516, the Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2010, includes
measures to slow the revolving door between the oil and gas industry
and its regulator, the House's CLEAR Act does not yet include such
measures.
POGO Recommends:
The CLEAR Act should include the Senate
language, but increase the cooling-off period to two years and add civil
and criminal penalties. Existing restrictions should be expanded and
strengthened so that all employees of the Department of the Interior
with responsibilities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act - not
just the highest-ranking employees - would be banned from lobbying for
industry for two years after leaving Interior, and also from making
lobbying contact with Interior for at least one year. In addition, there
should be a two-year cooling-off period that bans former Interior
employees from employment with any party that had interests pending
before them in their previous year of civil service. The
fox-in-the-henhouse phenomenon created by the reverse revolving door can
be addressed by ensuring that Interior employees cannot oversee matters
relating to their former industry employer or client for two years.
Both civil and criminal penalties for violations should be included.3
Training Academies (Sec. 102): The CLEAR Act
authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative educational and
training agreements with oil and gas operators and related industries.
POGO supports improved training, but no entity or industry being
regulated should be involved in the training of the federal inspectors
who will regulate them. In any regulatory agency, inspection is a core
function of the agency, and the agency must keep organic in-house
expertise in the laws and regulations enforced. That in-house expertise
is generally embodied in the federal employees who train the inspectors.
In addition, the cooperative educational and training agreements and
the programs should be more transparent.
POGO Recommends:
- Removing "oil and gas operators and related industries" from this
section. - Making information about the training academies public, including
the programs, and the individuals in charge of training. (Though POGO
would not advocate putting the training manuals online since this might
help industry to circumvent inspections.)
Whistleblower Protections and Incentives:
Whistleblowers are on the front lines of oversight and are the first
best defense against waste, fraud, abuse and other wrongdoing. If oil
and gas industry employees had had adequate protections against
retaliation and incentives for warning regulators, perhaps the Deepwater
Horizon disaster could have been averted. The CLEAR Act does not yet
provide for the whistleblower protections and incentives required for
adequate oversight and accountability.
POGO Recommends:
The CLEAR Act must provide oil and gas
industry employees with best-practices whistleblower protections such as
those included in the financial reform legislation for financial
industry employees, and the protections established for manufacturing
and transportation employees, Department of Defense contractors, and
others. Important disclosures to a supervisor, employer, law
enforcement, Interior and other regulators, Congress and others must be
protected. Real protections when retaliation occurs include adequate due
process rights, an administrative review at the Department of Labor,
and jury trial access. In addition, an incentive program to encourage
whistleblowers to come forward and disclose wrongdoing to the Department
of the Interior should be established. Such a program would allow for
an award to whistleblowers whose information leads to the federal
government pursuing successful sanctions on those regulated under the
OCS Act. Similar incentive programs exist at the IRS, and are included
in the financial reform legislation to encourage disclosures to the SEC
and CFTC.4
Conflicts of Interest: Investigations conducted by
the Department of the Interior's Inspector General and POGO revealed
gross misconduct at multiple Minerals Management Service (MMS) offices.
Instances of misconduct included reports of MMS personnel receiving
inappropriate gifts from industry, performing outside work that clearly
conflicted with the ethical performance of their duties, and in at least
one instance, negotiating for a job with a company that they were
inspecting. These findings are all indicative of an agency that is
inappropriately close to industry. While S. 3516, the Outer Continental
Shelf Reform Act of 2010, clarifies that gift bans and conflicts of
interest rules apply to all employees at Interior with responsibilities
under the OSC Act, the House's CLEAR Act does not yet include such
measures.
POGO Recommends:
Including the Senate language, but
including both civil and criminal penalties for violators of the gift
ban or conflicts of interest rules.
Federal Advisory Committees (Secs. 109 and 605):
The CLEAR Act rightly establishes that the OCS Safety and Environmental
Advisory Board is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
but FACA is only the floor for ethics and transparency in these bodies.
In 2004, the Government Accountability Office thoroughly examined the
FACA process and raised serious concerns about the ways agencies select
and designate members. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommended greater transparency for the member selection process such
as "providing information on how the members of the committees are
identified and screened, and indicating whether the committee members
are providing independent or stakeholder advice."5 In
order to ensure that the advisory board fulfills its requirement to
provide the agency with "independent scientific and technical advice,"
strengthening language is needed. In addition, any body that includes
non-federal employees and is providing information or guidance to the
federal government should be under FACA, and then have additional
disclosure requirements and safeguards against conflicts of interest.
This is particularly important given the role in grant making given to
the Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Review Panel in the bill.
POGO recommends:
- Specifying that the Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes Review Panel is
subject to FACA and including the other measures below (Sec. 605(c)(2)). - Requiring that the chairman and members of the OCS Safety and
Environmental Advisory Board and the Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes
Review Panel have no financial interests in the exploration,
development, and production of energy and mineral resources, or
designate the board members as special government employees (SGEs),
making them subject to conflict of interest statutes. - Requiring that the agency make public and disclose on its website a
list of the Advisory Board and Review Panel members with their
designation and affiliation, the committee charter (which should be made
public when the formation of the committee is announced), all experts
who are consulted, and resources from board meetings (minutes,
transcripts, and audio/video recordings), as well as the public
nominations.
Regional Citizens' Advisory Council: The CLEAR Act
does not provide for adequate public participation in oversight of the
regional oil and gas operations and its impacts. A Regional Citizens'
Advisory Council would provide a forum for public participation to
generate recommendations for exploration, development, production,
refining, and transportation of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and of
prevention, response and restoration measures related to the social,
economic and environmental impacts of an oil spill, drilling disaster or
gas release.
POGO Recommends:
The CLEAR Act should establish a Gulf of
Mexico Regional Citizens Advisory Council to increase public
participation in oversight. The Council should include representatives
of groups disproportionately impacted by risks of energy production from
each of the five Gulf States selected by their peers to conduct
citizens' oversight. The Council should be modeled after successful
citizens advisory councils in Alaska authorized in the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 after the Exxon Valdez disaster.6
Improving Natural Gas Reporting (Sec. 314): The
CLEAR Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide long-overdue
reforms to ensure accurate determination and reporting of BTU values,
but more could and should be done to improve standards.
POGO Recommends:
Incorporating Rep. Carolyn Maloney's
(D-NY) Study of Ways to Improve the Accuracy of the Collection of
Federal Oil, Condensate, and Natural Gas Royalties Act of 2009 (H.R.
1462), which would require a more comprehensive assessment to ensure
that taxpayer get their fair share for natural gas royalties.
Developing Innovations and Technology and Awards for Industry
(Sec. 219): POGO supports efforts to encourage the development of oil
spill and containment and response technologies, but we're concerned
about cash-prize award programs for industry and that current
technologies are not sufficiently evaluated. The cash-prize award
program is subject to conflicts of interest and also is unnecessary. The
grants offered and the exploration requirements in the CLEAR Act
provide sufficient incentives for the development of new technology.
POGO Recommends:
- Removing the awards program (Sec. 219 (d)).
- Adding the evaluation of current technology to the grant program.
Measuring the Effectiveness of Reforms: The CLEAR
Act contains many important reforms, and yet there are not enough
measures to determine the effectiveness and impact of the reforms in the
bill.
POGO Recommends:
The bill should require a GAO evaluation
as to whether the reorganization addresses previous GAO and IG concerns,
whether the increased hiring authority for the Secretary made Interior
more effective at addressing their oversight missions, and if there has
been a sufficient reduction in the conflicts of mission and interest.
Inspector General Reports: The Inspector General
has conducted many investigations tracking the problems at the Minerals
Management Service. The public must continue to have to access to their
work to hold Interior accountable for being effective custodians of
taxpayer resources.
POGO Recommends:
The CLEAR Act should make all Interior
Inspector General reports and investigations public.
___________________________
Endnotes
1 These recommendations are based upon the
Discussion Draft of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R.
3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2010,
dated June 22, 2010, and which was under consideration in the House
Natural Resources Committee Hearing on June 30, 2010.
2 The revolving door problem is well documented,
including in POGO's report Drilling
the Taxpayer.
3 POGO and 12 other organizations sent a
letter of support for the Wyden Revolving Door Amendment to S. 3516,
the Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2010.
4 POGO can provide detailed recommendations for
best-practice legislation.
5 "Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance
Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance," GAO, April
2004.
6 The Citizens' Advisory Commission also is
supported by the Publish What You Pay coalition, as referenced in their
recommendations on July 7, 2010.
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open and honest federal government.
LATEST NEWS
Senate GOP and Fetterman Block Effort to Stop Trump's War on Iran
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," one campaigner stressed after lawmakers refused to advance the resolution.
Jun 27, 2025
Nearly all U.S. Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania on Friday evening blocked a resolution that reiterated Congress' authority to declare war and would have ordered President Donald Trump to stop taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.
Every other member of the Democratic Caucus and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supported holding a final vote on the resolution—which Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, announced last week, before Trump's weekend bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war."
Citing the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Kaine's measure states that "the question of whether United States forces should be engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered following a full briefing to Congress and the American public of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a congressional vote."
Pointing to various other federal laws, Kaine's resolution "directs the president to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran."
In a statement after Friday's 47-53 vote, Kaine said that "the Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war because they believed that the decision to send our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way was too big for any one person. The Trump administration's chaotic strategy on Iran confused the American people and created significant risks for service members and their families."
"I am disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress needs to be part of a decision as important as whether or not the U.S. should send our nation's sons and daughters to fight against Iran," Kaine added. "I will continue to do all I can to keep presidents of any party from starting wars without robust public debate by Congress."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, was among the lawmakers who spoke in support of Kaine's resolution ahead of the vote. "We do not need another unnecessary and costly war. We have had enough of them," he said on the Senate floor, pointing out that the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq were "based on a series of lies."
"We should not go to war against Iran," Sanders declared. He condemned Trump's recent attack on the Middle Eastern country as "unconstitutional," and argued that "diplomacy is a better path," as demonstrated by the nuclear deal in 2015—which Trump ultimately ditched during his first term.
Sanders also made the case that the U.S. should not be allied with "war criminal" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who started the bombing of Iran and is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his mass slaughter of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Enough is enough," the senator said, noting that the U.S. gives Netanyahu's government billions of dollars in annual military aid. "It is beyond absurd that we continue to finance Israel's wars while neglecting the needs of our own people."
Meanwhile, in response to a question from a BBC reporter on Friday, Trump said that he would "without question, absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if intelligence suggested the country could enrich uranium to a level that concerned him.
After the Senate vote, National Iranian American Council president Jamal Abdi said that the outcome "says more about the makeup of the Senate than it does the merits of the resolution. Regardless, we saw a near majority do the right thing and stand up against war and for democracy, despite a cavalcade of misinformation from war hawks. We will continue to press the case that war with Iran is against U.S. interests and U.S. security, and redouble our work to prevent the conflict from reigniting."
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war," he continued, noting the cease-fire between Israel and Iran that Trump announced earlier this week.
"Though a cease-fire is holding for now, the most certain way to guarantee peace is through an abandonment of war and a bold pursuit of sincere negotiations," Abdi added. "We urge our Members of Congress to change course, and urgently support a return to U.S.—Iran talks and a diplomatic pathway forward for both countries."
We took an oath to defend the Constitution - just like every Senator. Today, Republicans broke that oath. We WILL hold them accountable. (2/2)
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) June 27, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Also responding to the Friday development in a statement, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian asserted that "today's vote sends a powerful message: There is a bipartisan movement to reject more war in the Middle East and prevent us from being unilaterally dragged into war before Congress and the American people can have their say."
"We thank Sen. Kaine for his leadership and Sen. Paul for his principled vote to stand up for the Constitution," Kharrazian said, urging the House of Representatives to pass a similar resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Ahead of the Senate's vote, more than 41,000 people nationwide had signed a petition from the progressive group MoveOn Civic Action that calls on Congress to vote for the resolutions in both chambers.
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," Kharrazian emphasized. "The U.S. must lead with restraint, not repeat the mistakes of endless war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Muslim Lawmakers Decry 'Vile' Bipartisan Islamophobic Attacks on Zohran Mamdani
The lawmakers asserted that "smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle" cannot be allowed to continue.
Jun 27, 2025
All four Muslim members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday condemned their colleagues' Islamophobic attacks on Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, which have come not only from Republicans but also from at least two congressional Democrats representing the candidate's home state.
"The vile, anti-Muslim, and racist smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani cannot be met with silence," Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue."
Mamdani—a democratic socialist who would be the first Muslim mayor of the nation's largest city if he wins November's general election—has come under fire by Republicans including Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who on Thursday formally appealed to U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi to initiate proceedings to denaturalize and deport "little Muhammad."
Earlier this week, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted a photo of Mamdani wearing a traditional tunic with the caption, "After 9/11 we said, 'Never Forget.' I think sadly we have forgotten."
As of Friday afternoon, no Democratic member of Congress from New York had explicitly condemned their GOP colleagues' Islamophobic remarks. To the contrary, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) falsely claimed Thursday that Mamdani had made references to "global jihad" and spuriously asserted that "globalize the intifada"—a call for Palestinian liberation and battling injustice—is a call to "kill all the Jews."
Freshman Rep. Lauren Gillen (D-N.Y.) also falsely accused Mamdani of "a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments."
The four Muslim lawmakers said in their statement that "these hateful, Islamophobic, and racist tropes have become so entrenched and normalized in our politics."
"We know these attacks all too well," they added.
Omar and Tlaib have been on the receiving end of Islamophobic attacks by House colleagues and outside death threats for years, stemming in part from Omar's status as refugee and Tlaib's as the only Palestinian American in Congress.
Like Mamdani, both lawmakers have also been targeted from both sides of the aisle for their support for Palestinian liberation, as well as their opposition to Israel's invasion, occupation, colonization and apartheid in Palestine, and the assault and siege of Gaza that are the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case.
Advocacy groups have reported a sharp increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian hate incidents since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led assault on Israel, a climate reminiscent of the pervasive Islamophobia following the September 11, 2001 attacks. There has also been a surge in antisemitism as Israeli forces obliterate Gaza, although critics have decried the widespread conflation of opposition to Zionism with hatred of Jewish people by groups including the Anti-Defamation League.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue," the four lawmakers stressed. "They directly contribute to the ongoing dehumanization and violence against Muslim Americans. We unequivocally reject the normalization of anti-Muslim hate and fearmongering and call on elected leaders across our country to speak out."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also issued a statement Friday condemning the "outpouring of disgraceful, dangerous, racist ideology from sitting members of Congress and [Trump] administration officials following Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York mayoral primary."
Jayapal continued:
The constant displays of Islamophobia are an affront to the millions of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. One of the most jarring called for the denaturalization and deportation of Mr. Mamdani, an American citizen who just won a massive Democratic primary with more votes than that member, Mr. Ogles, could ever hope to win. This is an insult to voters in New York City who take democracy seriously.
Denaturalization of U.S. citizens is part of the Trump playbook to attack all legal immigration. It is completely outrageous and flies in the face of the laws of this country.
"The hateful language directed at Mr. Mamdani will get someone killed, and we all should be outraged," Jayapal added. "It must end. Every person who cares about democracy, freedom of religion, and the right for all Americans to be treated equally should speak out immediately against these insane and dangerous attacks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Religious Opt-Out Ruling 'Could Wreak Havoc on Public Schools'
The ruling, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflects the right-wing majority's "failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
Jun 27, 2025
A day after many LGBTQ+ Americans celebrated the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established marriage equality in the United States, right-wing Justice Samuel Alito suggested in a new decision that public schools should not promote "acceptance of same-sex marriage."
Alito's opinion was handed down in a 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court's right-wing majority held that parents should be permitted to opt their children out of certain lessons in public schools on religious grounds.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by parents of several religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, who sued the county's school system for not giving parents advance notice and an opportunity to opt out of a curriculum that included storybooks dealing with LGBTQ+ themes.
The books included Pride Puppy, about a dog that gets lost at an LGBTQ+ pride parade; Love, Violet, about a girl who has a same-sex crush; Born Ready, about a transgender boy; and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about a gay couple getting married.
Alito pointed to the latter book in particular in his opinion.
"It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice," wrote the judge. "Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."
Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free speech group PEN America, noted the timing of Alito's comments about marriage equality.
"Just after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges and as we celebrate Pride Month, the Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and families," said Brinkley. "This ruling means that parents can opt their children out of any classroom activity that acknowledges same-sex marriages, the right to which this very court held was guaranteed by the Constitution."
The right-wing majority ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow families to opt out of any lessons that parents believe will interfere with their children's religious education, including stories or discussions with LGBTQ+ themes.
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights."
Legal scholars said that in addition to stigmatizing the families of an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who have one or more LGBTQ+ parents, the ruling could pave the way for parents to argue that their children shouldn't be exposed at school to materials involving any number of topics, including evolution, yoga, and mothers who work outside the home—all issues that have been the subject of earlier, unsuccessful lawsuits against schools.
"The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools' ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections," said the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the school district's "policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board."
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said that religious freedom is "fundamentally important" under U.S. law.
But freedom of religion, Mach said, "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views. This decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society."
Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, added that parents with religious objections will now be "empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption—ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences."
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, with Sotomayor making the unusual move of announcing her dissent from the bench.
Citizens fully experiencing the United States' multicultural society, said Sotomayor, "is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."
She also accused the majority of making a "myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which revealed, she said, "its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
The ruling is the latest victory for right-wing advocates of what they view as religious freedom at the high court; other recent rulings have allowed a web designer to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples and a high school football coach to pray with his team at school games.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, called Friday's ruling a "deeply troubling outcome for public education, equality, and the constitutional principle of the separation between state and church."
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights," said Gaylor. "Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular