Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

News

Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act

Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.

Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Trump’s nomination of fossil fuel executive Chris Wright as Energy Secretary inspired this Democratic bill.


The bill

The BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act would bar fossil fuel industry executives or lobbyists from certain politically-appointed administration positions for 10 years after leaving that private sector job.

The legislation would bar them from serving in 19 specific positions that deal with energy or the environment in some form – including Secretaries of Energy, State, Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation, plus Administrators of NASA and the EPA.

It would also bar them from serving in any politically-appointed positions (including at levels below the actual department head) for nine entire departments or agencies.

The acronym BIG OIL in the title stands for Banning In Government Oil Industry Lobbyists.

The Senate bill was introduced on January 21 by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

Context

President Trump’s Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, was the founder and CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy. Wright seems poised to pursue energy policies favoring the oil, coal, and natural gas industries, which Democrats largely oppose on environmental grounds.

Wright was confirmed by the Senate in February by 59-38, with Republicans approving him unanimously and Democrats largely opposing him by 8-38. The eight Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents who crossed party lines: Michael Bennet (CO), Ruben Gallego (AZ), Maggie Hassan (NH), Martin Heinrich (NM), John Hickenlooper (CO), Angus King (ME), Ben Ray Luján (NM), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH).

Trump’s first term also featured fossil fuel executives serving in top positions, such as ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State in 2017-18.

What supporters say

The bill’s supporters argue that top federal policymakers should be free of undue financial or occupational influence, particularly given recent natural disasters.

“Especially in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires and more frequent and dangerous disasters fueled by climate change, we can't afford to have a fossil fuel CEO like Chris Wright help the industry capture our federal agencies further for oil profits,” Sen. Markey said in a press release. “We must have government agencies helmed by responsible, qualified executives without blatant conflicts of interest.”

Or as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it during the confirmation hearing for Trump’s EPA nominee Lee Zeldin, after a phone audibly rang: “That was the fossil fuel industry.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that that a fossil fuel executive may actually be the most qualified person, given how expensive and unpopular they contend that Democrats’ environmental policies are.

“If we really want an all-of-the-above energy policy for our nation, we need people like Chris Wright, who understand all aspects of energy and have the knowledge and capability needed to drive the latest, greatest technology and truly make the U.S. energy-dominant,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “I can’t think of anyone better able to do just that, based on his training, education, accomplishments, and experience.”

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted one fellow Democratic cosponsor: Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). It now awaits an unlikely vote in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, controlled by Republicans.

Sen. Markey previously introduced the bill in 2019, but it never received a committee vote. Republicans also controlled the chamber at the time.

No House companion version appears to have been introduced yet.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.


SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less