SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With just over a month until Republicans officially take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, a committee chair on Monday warned outgoing Democratic leadership against reviving the "dirty deal" on permitting reform that was defeated in September.
"Manchin's legislation is a harbinger for the permanent silencing of environmental justice communities in the permitting process."
House Natural Resources Committee Chair Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) sent a brief note to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) along with a letter--first delivered in September--showing that dozens of Democrats oppose the permitting legislation spearheaded by right-wing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
In a closed-door deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) Manchin agreed to support the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)--signed by President Joe Biden in August--in exchange for Democrats pushing through a permitting reform bill.
While Schumer planned to include Manchin's fossil fuel-friendly Energy Independence and Security Act in a September stopgap funding package, the legislation was pulled out at the last minute because it lacked the votes to pass--leading climate and frontline activists to declare that "people power has won the day."
Since then, Manchin has said that he is "working" on getting his controversial bill included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2023, which Grijalva noted in his Monday message to Pelosi and Hoyer--who are both leaving party leadership in the wake of this month's midterm elections, when the GOP won a narrow majority in the House.
Grijalva wrote:
As plans are finalized to advance the National Defense Authorization Act and government funding legislation in the coming weeks, I write to respectfully highlight the request in the enclosed letter to exclude harmful permitting provisions from must-pass legislation this year. Once again, I greatly appreciate your comments that House leadership never agreed to include permitting legislation in any specific legislative vehicle, including must-pass government funding legislation, and thank you for your committed and ongoing leadership.
In a statement Monday, Grijalva said that "given its unpopularity the first time around, I'm all but certain that another dirty deal would be dead on arrival, but I'm not taking any chances."
"Democrats are closing out this Congress with historic wins across the board, including climate action and environmental justice," he added. "Let's not pollute that legacy with harmful legislative riders that nobody wants."
E&E News recently reported that "lawmakers consider the NDAA and upcoming end-of-year omnibus spending legislation as the two most realistic options for getting the permitting reform legislation done this Congress."
As Grijalva warned against efforts to advance the dirty deal on Monday, the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition--of which he is a member--released a policy brief titled Permitting Reform for the Clean Energy Future.
"IRA provided the incentives and financing needed to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy at the pace necessary to meet the crisis we face," the document states. "With those investments now in hand, the next task ahead of us is ensuring that federal permitting laws that were written for the fossil fuel era work for the new clean energy age that we are now entering."
The brief--which focuses on electric transmission and increased community engagement--also stresses that "building out the requisite clean energy infrastructure as quickly and as equitably as possible can only be achieved if disadvantaged communities are properly engaged in the permitting process, rather than ignored and disproportionately burdened, as has happened all too often in the past."
Although Manchin has claimed during debates about his bill that improving permitting for electric transmission lines is a key priority of his, The American Prospect's executive editor, David Dayen, highlighted last week that as head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he is refusing to hold a nomination hearing for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) chair Richard Glick.
As Dayen explained:
Glick's term expired in June, and without confirmation by the end of the year, he would have to step down from FERC, leaving the agency deadlocked between Democrats and Republicans.
That could stall out the work FERC is doing on accelerating the electricity transmission build-out, which is generally seen as among the biggest challenges to the green transition. If more transmission lines cannot be built to move renewable energy from where it is produced to where power is needed, much of the clean energy benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act will be lost, and hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gases that could be avoided will be emitted per year.
"The situation calls into question whether Manchin cares all that much about bolstering domestic energy production, or if he is more myopically interested in getting particular fossil fuel projects in West Virginia approved and built, over local objections," Dayen added. "At any rate, it's hard to say he's a sincere believer in improving transmission build-out, when he's stalling its biggest champion in the government."
Meanwhile, as some congressional Republican lawmakers reportedly appear open to working with Manchin on permitting reform, climate campaigners and frontline communities continue to organize against his proposal.
Following Biden's mid-November appearance at COP27, the United Nations climate summit that concluded in Egypt this past weekend, more than 100 environmental and allied groups sent the president a letter expressing "deep concern" with his support for Machin's bill.
"Sen. Manchin's legislation is a harbinger for the permanent silencing of environmental justice communities in the permitting process, while also eviscerating the rights to due process in a court of law should they deem it necessary to protect their communities from harm," they wrote.
\u201cWe joined 70+ EJ groups and 60 allied orgs to show our commitment to equity and justice by sending a letter to President Biden expressing concern about his support of dangerous permitting ideas, like the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022. https://t.co/3fEleYCFcR\u201d— EWG (@EWG) 1668522960
"Instead, we urge your administration to support the Environmental Justice for All Act (H.R. 2021/S. 872)," the letter continues, praising a bill introduced by Grijalva and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
The letter explains that the Environmental Justice for All Act not only "is a comprehensive bill to reduce environmental inequities that includes provisions to protect and strengthen public participation and tribal consultation," but also "includes provisions to ensure the consideration of cumulative impacts in the permitting process as well as consideration of alternatives."
Juan Jhong-Chung of the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, a signatory to the letter, said last week that "no matter our race or our zip code, every family deserves clean air, clear water, and healthy neighborhoods where we can thrive for generations. But Sen. Manchin and the fossil fuel industry are threatening our future by promoting dangerous, polluting projects in Congress."
"Any policies that fast-track or expand fossil fuel infrastructure and false solutions like carbon capture and hydrogen are incompatible with the principles of environmental justice," Jhong-Chung continued. "From the straits of Mackinac to Detroit, our communities are united in the fight against environmental racism and the climate crisis."
"We ask President Biden and his administration to reassert their commitment to his Justice40 Initiative," the campaigner added, urging him to reject all "'permitting reform' efforts that threaten the lives and well-being of Black, Indigenous, people of color, and low-wealth communities in Michigan and around the country."
Advocacy groups on Thursday renewed calls for Congress to ban members and their families from trading stock amid reporting that Democratic leaders in the U.S. House--despite intense public pressure--are unlikely to bring a vote on the issue before the November midterm election.
"It it is time to take the next step and ban stock trading activity altogether by members of Congress and their spouses."
"As members of Congress craft laws that directly impact the lives of Americans, voters have a right to know whether their representatives are acting in the interest of the public, or in ways that serve their own personal interest," said Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and former chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), in a statement.
"Congress passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act into law 10 years ago," he noted, "but the STOCK Act did not decrease the appearance of corruption that arises when members of Congress engage in suspicious stock trades."
The New York Times earlier this month published an investigation revealing that 97 members of Congress "bought or sold stock, bonds, or other financial assets that intersected with their congressional work or reported similar transactions by their spouse or a dependent child," a revelation that bolstered calls for reforms to ethics rules on the matter.
"Members of Congress have routine access to confidential inside information of public policies that directly and substantially affect the economy--and the stock markets," Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen, highlighted Thursday. "Yet these same lawmakers buy and sell stocks at whim, often after confidential briefings on the likely spikes and downturns of the economy from information unavailable to the public."
Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert said that "the disclosure system of the STOCK Act itself should have prevented members of Congress from insider trading."
"In fact, it resulted in a dramatic reduction of stock trading activity by members of Congress," Gilbert continued. "But it is time to take the next step and ban stock trading activity altogether by members of Congress and their spouses."
House Democrats' latest proposal to do so is the Combatting Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act (H.R. 8990)--which was officially introduced Wednesday and spearheaded by House Administration Committee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
\u201cIf you want to see a strong Congressional stock ban, sign the petition and tell Pelosi and Schumer to bring one to the floor https://t.co/bFxTNW6ZUQ\u201d— Citizens for Ethics (@Citizens for Ethics) 1664467857
"Pelosi has gotten criticism over stock trading by her husband, investor Paul Pelosi, although there's been no allegation of improper or unethical behavior," Punchbowl News reported Thursday, adding that "the Lofgren bill has come under heavy criticism on and off Capitol Hill."
However, CLC, Public Citizen, other organizations, and the vast majority of Americans want lawmakers to act on the issue.
"The Combatting Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act, designed with the shortcomings of the STOCK Act in mind, will work to repair that trust by banning members of Congress from trading stock while in office and prohibiting such activity by their spouses, dependent children, and senior staff," Potter said. "The law establishes significant penalties to promote compliance, an area where the STOCK Act fell woefully short. To comply with the new law, officials may transfer their investments to a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest."
"Although this bill has room for improvement concerning the scope of covered officials and potential loopholes, it answers voters' calls for reform and I urge every member of the House to vote in favor of the Combatting Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act," he added.
As Potter also pointed out, "Public polling confirms that most Americans support banning lawmakers from trading stocks, and it is therefore crucial that the House passes this legislation."
One such poll from Stand Up America and Data for Progress, conducted within the past week, shows that 77% of all U.S. voters--including 80% of Democrats and 75% of both Independents and Republicans--somewhat or strongly support a congressional stock trading ban.
Majorities of the Democrats, Independents, and Republicans surveyed also indicated that they would be somewhat or much more likely to vote for congressional candidates this November "if they agree members of Congress should not be allowed to trade stocks."
In a Wednesday statement, Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge stressed that "our representatives should be focused on public service, not personal profit."
"That's why an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that it's time to end stock trading by sitting members of Congress," he said. "Existing ethics laws do not go far enough to prevent members of Congress from using the information they have access to for personal gain. No more excuses. No more delays. It's time for action."
Despite such pressure from voters and pro-democracy groups, Punchbowl reported that "sources inside the House Democratic leadership said there was 'very little chance' this bill would be acted upon before the House adjourns for the election" on Friday.
The outlet noted that "one senior aide suggested 'Pelosi never really wanted a vote on this anyway' when describing how the speaker handled this issue."
\u201cFrom colleague Cecelia Duffy. Both Hoyer & Clyburn says there are no plans to address proposed stock trading ban for mrbs of Congress. Hoyer says Dems are still discussing the CR to avoid a gov't shutdown Saturday morning\u201d— Chad Pergram (@Chad Pergram) 1664457078
Late Thursday morning, CNN similarly reported that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said "probably no vote this week," meaning that House members--expected to head for their districts this weekend--likely won't have to make a decision on the bill until after the election.
"I haven't read it, it's a complicated issue, as you can imagine, as a new rule for members they have to follow, and their families as I understand, so I think it deserves careful study to make sure if we do something, we do it right," Hoyer added.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, signaled his opposition to the bill in meetings with colleagues--which critics called "shameful."
The Senate is also not expected to vote on the issue in the weeks ahead. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who led the upper chamber's version, said earlier this month that he is "looking forward to getting this across the finish line, but it's not going to happen before the election."
Progressives responded with indignation Tuesday after U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, stated his opposition to popular legislation that aims to restrict widespread stock trading by members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children, senior government officials, and federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court.
House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-Md.) reportedly indicated during meetings with colleagues that he intends to vote against a bill that would reform the loophole-ridden STOCK Act when it is brought to the floor, which could happen as soon as this week.
"Shameful," progressive champion Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and co-chair of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted in response to the news.
\u201cShameful.\u201d— Nina Turner (@Nina Turner) 1664298196
As Punchbowl News reported Tuesday:
Lawmakers, judges, and all other government officials covered by the ban will have to choose between divesting their investment portfolios or putting their assets in a qualified blind trust. Members of the judicial branch will have to file more detailed financial disclosures.
The House is supposed to vote on the Democratic measure this week. But the text hasn't been released yet. And we're told there are serious concerns within leadership ranks about the proposal.
The House leadership doesn't currently have the votes to pass the bill given the number of rank-and-file Democrats who are "actively opposed," according to one source--especially in the face of what looks like solid GOP opposition. A lot could change between now and later this week, but that's where things stand at this moment.
So there's a question of whether this bill even comes to the floor. Several senior Democratic aides told us they're skeptical the legislation will be voted upon during a three-day workweek right at the end of the fiscal year.
Hoyer's office told the outlet's managing editor Heather Caygle that "Leader Hoyer absolutely agrees insider trading must continue to be illegal and substantially penalized; he would like to see increased penalties for members of Congress who violate these laws including an ethics citation and potential expulsion from Congress for such violations."
"He has also not seen final legislation, and will reserve his official decision until that time," Hoyer's office added.
Related Content
While the House Rules Committee is expected to review the bill when it meets to consider the continuing resolution to extend government funding and prevent a shutdown, time is running short. Lawmakers are set to leave Capitol Hill on Friday until November 14, which means this week marks the last opportunity to vote on the measure before the fast-approaching midterm elections.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)--who only recently dropped her opposition to the bill that would likely rein in her husband's suspiciously timed buying and selling of corporate shares--and other Democrats have "said several times recently that the House would vote on legislation to tighten trading rules by the end of September," Punchbowl News noted. "Republicans will surely lambaste Democrats if they adjourned for the election without voting on the measure."
As journalist Alex Sammon pointed out on social media, "Democratic House leadership [is] shooting down a wildly popular messaging bill right before the midterms."
The legislation can be considered a messaging bill because, as Common Dreams reported two weeks ago, the Senate already announced that it is postponing a vote on its version of the stock trading ban until after the November 8 elections.
"Across the entire federal government, there have been significant stories regarding financial conflicts of interest in relation to stock trading and ownership," House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) wrote last week in a letter to colleagues. "Collectively, these stories undermine the American people's faith and trust in the integrity of public officials and our federal government."