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

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
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less