September, 11 2020, 12:00am EDT
Senator McConnell's Not-So-Skinny Relief Package For Coal and Mining Special Interests Failed For A Reason
After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell carved out upwards of $184 million for coal and coal byproduct development in his 'skinny' relief package that would have potentially flowed into his home state of Kentucky, Accountable.US released details on the special interest funding that was included in the package--as well as an additional research that shows the legislation would have been a boon for uranium mining and other mining special interests.
HELENA, Montana
After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell carved out upwards of $184 million for coal and coal byproduct development in his 'skinny' relief package that would have potentially flowed into his home state of Kentucky, Accountable.US released details on the special interest funding that was included in the package--as well as an additional research that shows the legislation would have been a boon for uranium mining and other mining special interests.
"The Senate's relief bill was rightfully rejected because it turned out to be not-so-skinny after all for coal and mining special interests and was just another corporate taxpayer money grab while workers, small businesses, and state and local governments were largely ignored," said Accountable.US spokesperson Jayson O'Neill. "This package was a pork barrel special interest boon that Senator Majority Leader McConnell tried to ram through under false pretenses. Congress needs to put forth a serious relief bill immediately--one that actually puts American workers and their families ahead of corporate profits."
Accountable.US previously highlighted some of the worst previsions of the Senate package, including blanket corporate immunity, an extension of the flawed Paycheck Protection Program, and hanging public schools out to dry.
But the package specifically included handouts for coal and mining special interests. The Department of the Interior, led by former extractive resource lobbyist David Bernhardt, would have obtained $450 million in additional funding to assist mining corporations develop 'critical minerals' on public lands. Trump's Interior Department controversially included uranium on its list of non-energy critical minerals that has raised alarms about the future of public land protections around the Grand Canyonand recently proposed dropping already low royalty rates for mining corporations.
Even though coal hasn't been economical for years, taxpayer subsidies have continued to flow to the polluting industry and this failed bill would have directed another $184 million to the industry. While relief money has flowed to CEOs and top executives, reports out of Kentucky coal country highlight how workers have been left in the lurch.
McConnell's Failed Pork Package For Coal and Mining Corporations Included:
- The Bill Tried To Create A Grant Program For Colleges To Develop "Critical Mineral" And Coal Curricula. "The Secretary and the Secretary of Labor shall jointly conduct a competitive grant program under which institutions of higher education may apply for and receive 4-year grants for startup costs for newly designated faculty positions in integrated critical mineral education, research, innovation, training, and workforce development programs 7 consistent with paragraph (2)." [S.178]
- And The Bill Tried To Set Aside $184 Million To Study How To Extract Rare Earth Elements From Coal... "The Secretary of Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy (referred to in this section as the ''Secretary''), shall carry out a program under which the Secretary shall develop advanced separation technologies for the extraction and recovery of rare earth elements and minerals from coal and coal byproducts. [...] There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the program described in paragraph (1) $23,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 2 through 2028." [S.178]
- ...A Field Of Study That The University Of Kentucky Already Has A $1M Federal Grant To Pursue. "Much work is ongoing to discover the highest commercial concentrations of REEs in specific coal beds and specific coal byproducts. The Department of Mining Engineering, Center for Applied Energy Research, and Kentucky Geological Survey, all at the University of Kentucky, are testing Kentucky- mined coals and coal byproducts for their REE content and concentration, and testing the potential for commercial extraction of REEs from coal and coal byproducts. Professor Rick Honaker of the Department of Mining Engineering at UK was awarded a $1 million research grant from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory to develop a mobile pilot plant for the recovery of REEs from coal." [University of Kentucky]
- The University Of Kentucky Has The Largest Department Of Energy (DOE) Grant For Program On Extracting Rare Earth Materials From Coal By-Products. Current DOE Grant Projects for Rare Earth Recovery from Coal Byproducts. [DOE Rare Earth Recovery Award List]
- The Senate Bill Tried To Allocate $450,000,000 For Critical Minerals."There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2030." [S.178]
- The Bill Would Have Required The Interior Secretary To Revisit The Critical Mineral List Every Three Years. "The Murkowski-Manchin bill that is incorporated into the package would require the Interior Secretary to designate a mineral as critical for national security purposes. The department would be required to review and update the list every three years." [The Hill, 09/08/20]
- The Bill Would Have Mandated That The Interior Secretary Identify Ways To Speed Up Permitting, Exploration, And Development Of Minerals. "Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries shall submit to Congress a report that--(A) identifies additional measures (including regulatory and legislative proposals, as appropriate) that would increase the timeliness of permitting activities for the exploration and development of domestic critical mineral." [S.178]
- The Bill Would Have Required Agencies To Compare US Mining Permitting Time To Unspecified "Other Countries." "Beginning with the first budget submission by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, after publication of the performance metric required under paragraph (4), and annually thereafter, the Secretaries shall submit to Congress a report that--[...] compares the United States to other countries in terms of permitting efficiency and any other criteria relevant to the globally competitive critical minerals industry." [S.178]
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
LATEST NEWS
Trump's 9 New Prescription Drug Deals 'No Substitute' for Systemic Reform
"Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices," said one campaigner.
Dec 19, 2025
"Starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast and furious and will soon be the lowest in the developed world," President Donald Trump claimed Friday as the White House announced agreements with nine pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The administration struck most favored nation (MFN) pricing deals with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi. The president—who has launched the related TrumpRx.gov—previously reached agreements with AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.
"The White House said it has made MFN deals with 14 of the 17 biggest drug manufacturers in the world," CBS News noted Friday. "The three drugmakers that were not part of the announcement are AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron, but the president said that deals involving the remaining three could be announced at another time."
However, as Trump and congressional Republicans move to kick millions of Americans off of Medicaid and potentially leave millions more uninsured because they can't afford skyrocketing premiums for Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, some critics suggested that the new drug deals with Big Pharma are far from enough.
"When 47% of Americans are concerned they won't be able to afford a healthcare cost next year, steps to reduce drug prices for patients are welcomed, especially by patients who rely on one of the overpriced essential medicines named in today's announcement," said Merith Basey, CEO of Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, in a statement.
"But voluntary agreements with drug companies—especially when key details remain undisclosed—are no substitute for durable, system-wide reforms," Basey stressed. "Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices, because drugs don't work if people can't afford them."
As the New York Times reported Friday:
Drugs that will be made available in this way include Amgen's Repatha, for lowering cholesterol, at $239 a month; GSK's asthma inhaler, Advair Diskus, at $89 a month; and Merck's diabetes medication Januvia, at $100 a month.
Many of these drugs are nearing the end of their patent protection, meaning that the arrival of low-cost generic competition would soon have prompted manufacturers to lower their prices.
In other cases, the direct-buy offerings are very expensive and out of reach for most Americans.
For example, Gilead will offer Epclusa, a three-month regimen of pills that cures hepatitis C, for $2,492 a month on the site. Most patients pay far less using insurance or with help from patient assistance programs. Gilead says on its website that "typically a person taking Epclusa pays between $0 and $5 per month" with commercial insurance or Medicare.
While medication prices are a concern for Americans who face rising costs for everything from groceries to utility bills, the outcome of the ongoing battle on Capitol Hill over ACA tax credits—which are set to expire at the end of the year—is expected to determine how many people can even afford to buy health insurance for next year.
The ACA subsidies fight—which Republicans in the US House of Representatives ignored in the bill they passed this week before leaving Capitol Hill early—has renewed calls for transitioning the United States from its current for-profit healthcare system to Medicare for All.
"At the heart of our healthcare crisis is one simple truth: Corporations have too much power over our lives," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said on social media Friday. "Medicare for All is how we take our power back and build a system that puts people over profits."
Jayapal reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The senator said Friday that some of his top priorities in 2026 will be campaign finance reform, income and wealth inequality, the rapid deployment of artificial intelligence, and Medicare for All.
Earlier this month, another backer of that bill, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), said: "We must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system. Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions. Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits. We need Medicare for All."
It's not just progressives in Congress demanding that kind of transformation. According to Data for Progress polling results released late last month, 65% of likely US voters—including 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans—either strongly or somewhat support "creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called 'Medicare for All.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump: US Forces 'Striking Very Strongly' Against 70+ Targets in Syria
"Most anti-war president ever, also a winner of the FIFA Peace Prize, threatened to invade Venezuela for oil earlier this week and has now launched strikes in Syria," said one observer.
Dec 19, 2025
President Donald Trump—the self-described "most anti-war president in history"—on Friday said the US military is "striking very strongly" against Islamic State strongholds in Syria following the killing of two Iowa National Guard members and an American civilian interpreter in the Mideast nation.
"Because of ISIS’s vicious killing of brave American Patriots in Syria, whose beautiful souls I welcomed home to American soil earlier this week in a very dignified ceremony, I am hereby announcing that the United States is inflicting very serious retaliation, just as I promised, on the murderous terrorists responsible," Trump said on his Truth Social network.
"We are striking very strongly against ISIS strongholds in Syria, a place soaked in blood which has many problems, but one that has a bright future if ISIS can be eradicated," the president continued. "The Government of Syria, led by a man who is working very hard to bring Greatness back to Syria, is fully in support."
"All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned—YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A.," he added.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on X that "earlier today, US forces commenced OPERATION HAWKEYE STRIKE in Syria to eliminate ISIS fighters, infrastructure, and weapons sites in direct response to the attack on US forces that occurred on December 13th in Palmyra, Syria."
According to the Wall Street Journal, Jordanian warplanes also took part in Friday's attacks, which reportedly hit more than 70 targets in Syria.
"This is not the beginning of a war—it is a declaration of vengeance," said Hegseth. "The United States of America, under President Trump’s leadership, will never hesitate and never relent to defend our people. As we said directly following the savage attack, if you target Americans—anywhere in the world—you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you. Today, we hunted and we killed our enemies. Lots of them. And we will continue."
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that one of Friday's airstrikes killed ISIS leader Abu Yusif in Dayr az Zawr province in eastern Syria.
“As stated before, the United States—working with allies and partners in the region—will not allow ISIS to take advantage of the current situation in Syria and reconstitute," CENTCOM commander Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla said in a statement. "ISIS has the intent to break out of detention the over 8,000 ISIS operatives currently being held in facilities in Syria. We will aggressively target these leaders and operatives, including those trying to conduct operations external to Syria."
During his first term, Trump followed through on his promise to "bomb the shit out of" ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq, killing thousands of civilians in a campaign launched by former President Barack Obama in 2014. Trump prematurely declared victory over ISIS in 2018.
Since then, the Biden and Trump administrations have bombed Syria, where around 1,000 US troops remain.
During his second term, Trump has ordered attacks on Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The president—who says he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—has also deployed warships and thousands of troops for a possible war on Venezuela.
"Most anti-war president ever, also a winner of the FIFA Peace Prize, threatened to invade Venezuela for oil earlier this week and has now launched strikes in Syria," political commentator David Pakman said on X in response to Friday's attacks.
Some observers noted that the strikes on Syria took place on the same day that the Trump administration released some of the files related to the late convicted sex criminal and longtime former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mitt "47%" Romney's Post-Career Call to Tax the Rich Met With Kudos and Criticism
"When Romney had real power," noted journalist David Sirota, "he fortified the rigged tax system that he's only now criticizing from the sidelines."
Dec 19, 2025
In a leaked fundraiser footage from the 2012 US presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney infamously claimed that 47% of Americans are people "who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it." On Friday, the former US senator from Utah published a New York Times opinion piece titled, "Tax the Rich, Like Me."
"In 2012, political ads suggested that some of my policy proposals, if enacted, would amount to pushing grandma off a cliff. Actually, my proposals were intended to prevent that very thing from happening," Romney began the article, which was met with a range of reactions. "Today, all of us, including our grandmas, truly are headed for a cliff: If, as projected, the Social Security Trust Fund runs out in the 2034 fiscal year, benefits will be cut by about 23%."
"Typically, Democrats insist on higher taxes, and Republicans insist on lower spending. But given the magnitude of our national debt as well as the proximity of the cliff, both are necessary," he argued. "On the spending-cut front... Social Security and Medicare benefits for future retirees should be means-tested—need-based, that is to say—and the starting age for entitlement payments should be linked to American life expectancy."
"And on the tax front, it's time for rich people like me to pay more," wrote Romney, whose estimated net worth last year, when he announced his January 2025 retirement from the Senate, was $235 million. "I long opposed increasing the income level on which FICA employment taxes are applied (this year, the cap is $176,100). No longer; the consequences of the cliff have changed my mind."
"The largest source of additional tax revenues is also probably the most compelling for fairness and social stability. Some call it closing tax code loopholes, but the term 'loopholes' grossly understates their scale. 'Caverns' or 'caves' would be more fitting," he continued, calling for rewriting capital gains tax treatment rules for "mega-estates over $100 million."
"Sealing the real estate caverns would also raise more revenue," Romney noted. "There are more loopholes and caverns to be explored and sealed for the very wealthy, including state and local tax deductions, the tax rate on carried interest, and charity limits on the largest estates at death."
Some welcomed or even praised Romney's piece. Iowa state Rep. JD Scholten (D-1), a progressive who has previously run for both chambers of Congress, declared on social media: "Tax the rich! Welcome to the coalition, Mitt!"
US House Committee on the Budget Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), who is part of the New Democrat Coalition, said: "I welcome this op-ed by Mitt Romney and encourage people to read it. As the next chair of the House Budget Committee, increasing revenue by closing loopholes exploited by the wealthiest Americans will be a top priority."
Progressive Saikat Chakrabarti, who is reportedly worth at least $167 million and is one of the candidates running to replace retiring former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), responded: "Even Mitt Romney now agrees that we need to tax the wealthiest. I call for a wealth tax on our billionaires and centimillionaires."
Michael Linden, a senior policy fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, said: "Kudos to Mitt Romney for changing his mind and calling for higher taxes on the rich. I'm not going to nitpick his op-ed (though there are a few things I disagree with), because the gist of it is right: We need real tax reform to make the rich pay more."
Others pointed to Romney's record, including the impactful 47% remarks. The Lever's David Sirota wondered, "Why is it that powerful people typically wait until they have no power to take the right position and effectively admit they were wrong when they had more power to do something about it?"
According to Sirota:
The obvious news of the op-ed is that we've reached a point in which even American politics' very own Gordon Gekko—a private equity mogul-turned-Republican politician—is now admitting the tax system has been rigged for his fellow oligarchs.
And, hey, that's good. I believe in the politics of addition. I believe in welcoming converts to good causes in the spirit of "better late than never." I believe there should be space for people to change their views for the better. And I appreciate Romney offering at least some pro forma explanation about what allegedly changed his thinking (sidenote: I say "allegedly" because it's not like Romney only just now learned that the tax system was rigged—he was literally a co-founder of Bain Capital!).
"And yet, these kinds of reversals (without explicit apologies, of course) often come off as both long overdue but also vaguely inauthentic, or at least not as courageous and principled as they seem," Sirota continued, stressing that "when Romney had real power, he fortified the rigged tax system that he's only now criticizing from the sidelines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular