Mediaboss Marketing

The green energy revolution has led Democrats to embrace calls for more mining creating a potential flashpoint between those seeking climate action and others fighting for environmental justice.

President Biden turned yesterday to a Cold War-era law to marshal Defense Department resources toward supporting new mining activities in the United States, including through assisting with costly studies and industrial processing activities all to obtain more minerals needed to make electric vehicle batteries. The order singled out five commodities as a priority: lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and manganese.

Bidens order arrived after a request from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the latter a long-standing champion of critical minerals policy who is running in a contested election this fall.

As the White House was rolling out its directive, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a largely pro-mining hearing that could serve as a blueprint for a potential deal on energy and critical minerals.

The hearing featured three experts on the mining industry and two representatives from mining companies: Julie Padilla of the Twin Metals copper-nickel mine in northern Minnesota and Scott Melbye, CEO of Uranium Energy Corp. and the head of the Uranium Producers of America, an industry association.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said during the hearing that hardrock mining and minerals will play a pivotal role in the energy transition. Mineral technologies moving hand in hand, evolving together, Hickenlooper said, is how civilization has always progressed.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said it is essential to produce more minerals at home and reduce our countrys dependence on foreign-produced minerals, Wyden, who recently introduced a bill that would subsidize some mining activities, said reducing that dependence on other countries is as much a national security issue as it [is] an environmental one (E&E Daily, March 9).

And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) called for the government to streamline our permitting process, and declared that mining in Nevada will one day make her state a nexus for our clean energy and our critical mineral future.

Its not clear what exactly a legislative deal would look like, and little was mentioned of a deal during the hearing. However, in a show of interest for policymaking on minerals and energy, Manchin announced he would hold another hearing on the issue next week.

Democrats have tried to paint an optimistic picture in the months since Manchin killed off their marquee climate and social spending bill, the Build Back Better Act. Manchin himself has indicated that he largely supports the roughly $300 billion in clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits contained in the bill, which passed the House last year (E&E Daily, March 23).

Asked by E&E News what the legislative future looks like for critical minerals policy, Manchin underscored his enthusiasm for the issue.

We can meet the demand that we have in America, Manchin said in an interview yesterday. Thats what this is all about, and right now were way behind the curve.

Could a compromise that combines clean energy tax credits and critical minerals legislation receive 50 votes in the Senate? Manchin told E&E News, Well have to wait and see on that.

In another signal of the machinations at play, Biden yesterday tied his Defense Production Act critical minerals order to his greenhouse gas emissions goals (E&E News PM, March 31).

We need to choose long-term security over energy and climate vulnerability, Biden said during an event at the White House. We need to double down on our commitment to clean energy and tackling the climate crisis with our partners and allies around the world.

Other Democrats said yesterday that they see room for a deal on critical minerals and clean energy, given Manchins enthusiasm. Wyden, for instance, used yesterdays hearing to gin up support for the suite of clean energy tax credits he helped tuck into Build Back Better.

Murkowski, the former Energy and Natural Resources chair and longtime Manchin collaborator, also said she sees potential for a more conventional bipartisan energy package, with Russias invasion of Ukraine spurring a flurry of proposals from both parties.

He and I are talking about what the world of possibilities is, Murkowski told reporters yesterday.

Were talking about what more we can do in the energy space because I think theres a recognition that the country is looking differently at our energy resources, Murkowski added. And, in fairness, the world is looking at the resources that America has and is wondering what this policy might look like.

Experts largely acknowledge that in order to quickly transition away from fossil fuels, the world will need to dig up more metal out of the ground to build new energy and transportation systems.

The United States largely relies on foreign sources, primarily China, for its supplies of these minerals, posing what security hawks say is a risk to national economic stability as the nation transitions away from using oil and gas.

Experts, however, say a boom in mines producing metals essential for making batteries like lithium and nickel would almost certainly encroach upon ways of life for many Indigenous people. By one estimate, most nickel, copper, lithium and cobalt reserves are within 35 miles of a Native American reservation.

Morgan Bazilian, director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, told E&E News that typically U.S. lawmakers disregard the views of Indigenous peoples, regardless of what political party they belong to.

Historically its been the case, because the tribes get nothing. Theyre treated very poorly in general. Thats obviously very long-standing in the history of the United States, Bazilian said.

The order stated that the Defense Department would ensure that all mining-related activities would adhere to existing requirements for government-to-government consultation with Native American tribes.

The same day as the order, the Interior Department published a notice in the Federal Register outlining plans to hold hearings and take public comments about changing current mining laws and regulations, including ways to improve Indigenous consultation.

But all this was cold comfort for environmentalists and Indigenous activists opposed to more mining.

There is no federal requirement for the government to actually consult with Indigenous communities only recommendations. Next week, the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a markup on legislation that would enshrine such a requirement in law, but its unclear whether the bill can pass in a Congress with thin margins for legislative action.

Knowing that Bidens order could ripple across tribal lands, Raquel Dominguez, a policy associate at the nonprofit Earthworks, said that as a person of color, reading news of Bidens order made her want to cry.

I am shaking right now, because I am so worked up over this, Dominguez told E&E News. If it makes me this emotional, just reading about it and working on it at a policy level, think about how it actually affects the people who are dealing with this.

E&E News also yesterday received a list of statements from Indigenous people living in Nevada close to lithium mines currently in development. All condemned the presidents action.

This is a second invasion, said Day Hinkey, a member of the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone tribe and an organizer with the People of Red Mountain. Hinkey and others living in northern Nevada are fighting the Thacker Pass lithium mine, the largest U.S. lithium project currently under development (E&E News PM, Feb. 25).

I believe this is gonna be the second coming of environmental destruction. The first were in now is the climate crisis from the fossil fuel industry, and I believe this next one will be lithium mining, Hinkey said.

Environmental justice concerns for the Indigenous came up at the ENR hearing, as well as a long-running fight over the 1872 General Mining Act.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said reforming the law and instituting royalties for reclamation will be crucial.

Theres going to be an enormous amount of pressure from Western communities that are still suffering from the water quality impacts of that to say, Yeah, you can talk about more mining, absolutely. But the cost of that is going to be to finally fix the 1872 Mining Act,' Heinrich said in an interview this week.

Heinrich nonetheless said he sees opportunities for a deal with Manchin, calling the potential extraction of rare earths from acid mine drainage an area of common ground.

Democrats typically concerned about the impacts of mining on Native peoples said they hope the Biden administration will act with care and caution as it pumps up the mining industry.

I think they have credibility and trust in how they do this, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said. Obviously, we will make sure that its done right, but that goes more to how its done than whether it needs to be done.

House Natural Resources Chair Ral Grijalva (D-Ariz.), one of Capitol Hills top voices on environmental justice issues, took a similar line, saying that the Biden White House recognizes the fundamental flaws in the rules governing mining on public lands and is committed to putting much-needed safeguards in place.

Im also optimistic that President Biden and Interior Secretary Haaland will move this decision forward with the same commitment to consulting affected tribes and local communities they have demonstrated throughout this administration, Grijalva said in a statement.

But, he added, theres no situation in which Im going to feel good about giving even more subsidies to the mining industry.

Continued here:
Democrats go big on mining. Will there be a backlash? - E&E News

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

WASHINGTON U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a moderate Democrat from Laredo, broke with his party to vote against a landmark marijuana legalization bill on Friday that passed in the House. Only one other Democrat voted against it.

Cuellar, who is currently in a fierce runoff for his 10th term against progressive attorney Jessica Cisneros, has long infuriated progressive Democrats with his conservative positions on many social issues. The Laredo politician opposes abortion and was the lone Democrat to vote against federal abortion rights legislation last fall.

Cuellars spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The bill named the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act removes marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances and eliminates criminal penalties for people who possess, manufacture and distribute the drug. It also prohibits the denial of federal benefits and protections to people with marijuana-related conduct or offenses.

The bill would also establish a process to expunge from peoples records non-violent cannabis crimes. Many Democrats especially progressives have long argued those arrests disproportionately affect people of color and low-income communities.

The 220-204 vote included all Texas representatives besides Cuellar voting along party lines. One other Democrat, U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, also voted against the bill. Three Republicans out of 209 voted with Democrats to pass the bill.

The legislation has bleak odds to become law. It now heads to the evenly-divided Senate and would need significant Republican support to receive the 60 votes necessary to pass. A similar bill passed the Democratic-controlled House in Dec. 2020 but stalled in the upper chamber.

Cuellar is headed into a late-May runoff election with Cisneros after he just missed the majority threshold necessary to win his March primary outright. Outside the Democratic primary, Republicans are on the offensive in South Texas and are hoping to flip several blue seats including Cuellars in the November election.

"It is shameful that, in 2022, Henry Cuellar is still siding with Republicans to criminalize marijuana," Cisneros said in an emailed statement. "As an immigration attorney, I've seen firsthand how the War on Drugs and our criminal system disproportionately punishes Black and brown people in America. Ive seen how criminalization has led to torn families, deportations, and loss of jobs and housing."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who on Thursday spoke in support of the bill at her weekly press conference, said she still supports Cuellar during a visit to Austin in late March.

The congressman is also embroiled in an ongoing FBI investigation after the agency raided his house in January.

We cant wait to welcome you in person and online to the 2022 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol from Sept. 22-24. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Read the original post:
Texas' Henry Cuellar one of two Democrats to vote against landmark marijuana legalization bill - The Texas Tribune

Its one of the X factors that could, in theory, alter the contours of this years midterm elections: What does the Jan. 6 committee have in its pocket?

The bipartisan House investigation of the assault on the U.S. Capitol is entering a critical stage, as the panels vice chair, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, put it this week and it is kicking up a lot of dust along the way.

On Monday, the committee voted to recommend that two onetime aides to former President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino, be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas. Also Monday, a federal judge wrote that it was more likely than not that Trump had broken the law by trying to disrupt a joint session of Congress and conspiring to defraud the United States.

Investigators have identified a nearly eight-hour gap in Trumps call logs from Jan. 6 and are discussing whether to demand the former presidents mobile phone records. Theyre also looking into whether a Trump tweet from December 2020, in which he invited his supporters to swarm Washington on Jan. 6, constituted incitement. Lawmakers on the panel are constantly weighing the value of trying to gather additional information against the danger that the former president and his allies will bog them down in time-consuming litigation.

Were playing beat-the-clock here against Trumps inner coterie, Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, told reporters this week.

The Justice Departments own inquiries are proceeding in parallel, and a grand jury has convened in Washington to investigate the planning of the pre-riot rallies. But that work is shrouded in mystery, and pressure is growing on Attorney General Merrick Garland to produce results. Federal law enforcement officials have arrested more than 775 people suspected of involvement in the Capitol riot, but they have yet to charge any member of Trumps inner circle with a crime.

As a political matter, Democrats hope the committees work will highlight what they say is the extremism of House Republicans, anchoring them to Trump. And though voters are currently preoccupied with inflation and the war in Ukraine, Democrats expect that a series of upcoming public hearings and reports about Jan. 6 will put Republicans anti-democratic behavior on display for the American people to judge.

Its going to be an enormous exclamation point on the fact that House Republicans are dangerous, said Simon Rosenberg, the president of NDN, a center-left think tank.

Republican Party leaders counter that the panel is seeking to criminalize legitimate political discourse, and have censured its two Republican members for their involvement in the Jan. 6 inquiry. This week, a lobbyist close to Representative Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, took the extraordinary step of hosting a fund-raising event for Cheneys primary opponent, and more than 50 House Republicans attended the gathering.

But, ultimately, the Jan. 6 committee will be judged by whether Americans view its findings as authoritative, fair and comprehensible, said Garrett Graff, the author of a new history of the Watergate scandal. Recalling the disappointment many Democrats felt upon the unveiling of Robert Muellers spare, legalistic account of the dealings between Trumps 2016 campaign and Russia, Graff said it was important for lawmakers to grab the publics attention with a compelling narrative of the Jan. 6 events.

Congress can assign moral blame and moral responsibility in a way that Mueller couldnt and Garland cant, Graff said. I think its possible that the Jan. 6 committee can surprise us.

To try to make some sense of it all, we spoke with Luke Broadwater, a congressional reporter for The Times who has been covering the investigation for months. Our conversation, edited lightly for length and clarity:

Theres been a constant dribble of news about the House investigation. Where would you say the inquiry stands? Is it in the final stages?

I would say its in the third quarter, to use a sports metaphor. The committee has interviewed 800 witnesses, which is a ton, but there are probably at least 100 more people theyd like to talk to and some witnesses they want to re-interview.

And the people they havent met with include some of the most important: Mike Pence, Trumps personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani and Ivanka Trump.

The committee is still shooting for public hearings in May, though I would not be surprised if those get pushed back again.

You wrote this week about the hourslong gap in the records of Trumps phone calls on the day of Jan. 6. Why are investigators so interested in that?

The committee is highly interested in Trumps activities the day of the Capitol riot, especially what he was doing for the 187 minutes during which he delayed making any statement to call off the violence. The committee has argued that his lack of action makes him culpable for the violence and sheds light into his mind-set.

But the call logs are blank for the duration of the riot, so that presents a challenge for investigators as they try to determine exactly whom Trump was talking to during that pivotal time.

This week, the panel heard from Jared Kushner, the former presidents son-in-law. Whats the holdup with the others you mentioned: Pence, Giuliani and Ivanka Trump?

Each case is different, but each witness has been engaged in negotiations with the committee. Two of Pences top aides have already testified, causing his team to argue, according to what Im told, that they have supplied the committee with plenty of testimony that alleviates the need for the former vice president to appear.

Giuliani has made clear that he does not intend to provide information against Trump, but he is considering providing information about his dealings with members of Congress, according to a person familiar with the negotiations. Ivanka Trump is also negotiating. Each of these is a sensitive dance, in which the committee wants to get information out of the witness without threatening him or her in a way that could lead to a contempt of Congress charge but no information.

Our colleagues wrote that Attorney General Merrick Garland is under growing political pressure to move more aggressively with the Justice Departments criminal inquiry. Is that a complaint you hear from House members, too?

Yes, constantly particularly with regard to the criminal contempt of Congress referral against Mark Meadows, Trumps final chief of staff. Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, has encouraged Garland to move with alacrity against Meadows. And Representative Elaine Luria, Democrat of Virginia, made this statement this week: Attorney General Garland, do your job so that we can do ours.

That said, there are signs the Justice Department investigation has entered a new phase. A grand jury in Washington has recently issued subpoenas (one of which we were able to review) that seek information about people classified as V.I.P. attendees at Trumps Jan. 6 rally and about members of the executive and legislative branches who were involved in the planning or execution of any attempt to delay the certification of the 2020 election.

Justice Department widens inquiry. Federal prosecutors are said to have substantially widened their Jan. 6 investigationto examine the possible culpability of a broad range of pro-Trump figures involved in efforts to overturn the election. The investigation was initially focused on the rioters who had entered the Capitol.

Investigating Trump's actions. Evidence gathered by the Justice Department and House committee show how former President Donald J. Trumps Be there, willbe wild! tweetincited far-right militants ahead of Jan. 6, while call logsreveal how personally involved Mr. Trump was in his attempt to stay in office before and during the attack.

Judge says Trump likely committed crimes. In a court filing in a civil case, the Jan. 6 House committee laid out the crimes it believed Mr. Trump might have committed. The federal judge assigned to the case ruled that Mr. Trump most likely committed feloniesin trying to overturn the 2020 election.

Virginia Thomass text messages. In the weeks before the Capitol riot, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent several textsimploring Mark Meadows, President Trumps chief of staff, to take steps to overturn the election.The Jan. 6 House committee is likely to seek an interview with Ms. Thomas, said those familiar with the matter.

You mentioned that the panel might hold public hearings as soon as May. What might those hearings look like, and what is the panel trying to accomplish?

The committee is cognizant that many voters have retrenched into partisan camps about Jan. 6. So it is trying to break through that barrier, to the extent thats possible. I would expect hearings at peak TV viewing time, perhaps even prime time, that try to clearly lay out the case of how Trump and his allies sought to overturn the 2020 election.

I would expect that the public will hear from experts who can shoot down claims of widespread electoral fraud and from officials who can testify about their firsthand experiences as Trump or his allies tried to pressure them to go along with the plan.

On Politics regularly features work by Times photographers. Heres what Jason Andrew told us about capturing the image above:

Being a photographer on Capitol Hill can, at times, feel like youre a hamster running in a wheel, photographing the same frames over and over again. Yet its this visual monotony that I love.

It forces me to be creative to look outside the box while moving away from the scrum of photographers who jockey for the right position, sometimes appearing to crawl on top of one another, only to take the same frame as their colleagues. I find that the best frames are usually made when Im away from the pack.

On Tuesday, Representative Don Young of Alaska, a Republican who died two weeks ago, was lying in state to honor his decades of service in Congress. As the House Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police officers prepared for Youngs coffin to arrive, the officers stood still, in a style similar to the Capitols neo-Classical architecture.

When they all bowed their heads, I moved to the left of the other photographers so the people in my frame would appear in line with the columns, in their own layers, creating a visual separation from the people next to them. The photo is static and yet, for me, very interesting. Its one I could not have captured had I remained in front of the steps.

Thanks for reading. Well see you on Monday.

Blake & Leah

Is there anything you think were missing? Anything you want to see more of? Wed love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

See original here:
Democratic Hopes and Anxiety Rise Over the Jan. 6 Panel - The New York Times

Speaker Carl Heastie, who leads the New York State Assembly, seems to have a definite view concerning bail reform that appears to differ from that of the governor, Kathy Hochul.

A little background: the Democrats got their behinds kicked in the last election over the issue.

You will recall that the liberal contingent in the Democratic-led New York State legislature quite correctly passed legislation in an effort to equalize the way in which the bail system in the state treated suspects after arrest. Those who had resources could fork out the big bucks needed to get released from custody, while those without deep pockets had to languish in the pokey because they didnt have the money necessary to get out.

This became an issue in the last election when the Democrats who sponsored the so-called bail reform bill found out that they had lost some middle-class voters who thought that people released on bail were likely to go on and commit more crimes.

That led to some problems for the liberal Democrats and alienated some of the middle-class voters. In other words, the concept of bail reform was certainly correct in that it was philosophically right, but it led to political problems for the Democrats.

It shouldnt surprise anyone that the message was received by the battered Democrats who are now showing some signs of division. On one side are the liberals in the state legislature. They are correct in their assertions that the poor are more likely to have to stay in jail due to their inability to post bail. Meanwhile, the rich and middle-class voters want to be protected and have reacted strongly against idea of bail reform.

Never mind the statistical analysis that suggests that those released are not committing crimes at the level the critics of bail reform are suggesting. But hey, political reality is what people believe, correctly, or not.

This is where it gets interesting.

Governor Hochul, who is no fool, gets the message and starts to suggest that the baby should get split. If I am reading her words correctly, she thinks that dangerous folks should be kept in jail while the powerful Speaker, Carl Heastie, takes the politically and factually correct position that it isnt right for poor people to stay in custody just because they cant afford bail.

Obviously, Heastie has to listen to what the liberal Democrats in his conference are telling him while, like it or not, Governor Hochul knows which way they more conservative wind is blowing. It is clear that she sees the political danger here. If the Democrats continue to lose seats, their huge majority in both houses may be threatened and her own election prospects will be diminished by her endorsing this bail reform.

Since there is honor among politicians, I am sure that both Heastie and Hochul understand and honor each others positions. Let there be no mistake: the Heastie position is correct, so-called bail reform is a worthy idea. It is just one more piece of proof that the political game is loaded in favor of those with money. As a person of color, Heastie knows that and understands what injustice is all about.

So what will happen?

Obviously, the governor has no cards to play since she cant make the legislature do what they dont want to do. The Republicans and conservatives have found a powerful card to play here. They are winning elections based on this split and are unlikely to change positions now. They think that have discovered political gold and will play the bail reform card to the hilt. There may be an agreement between the Speaker and the Governor to allow for the difference of opinion.

The Speaker is right, and the governor knows what to do to win an upcoming election.

Alan Chartock is professor emeritus at the State University of New York, publisher of the Legislative Gazette and president and CEO of the WAMC Northeast Public Radio Network. Readers can email him at alan@wamc.org.

Read more:
Alan Chartocks The Capitol Connection: Democrats must find bail reform compromise - The Saratogian

For the first time ever, nonaffiliated voters in Oregon outnumber Democrats, having long ago outdistanced Republicans.

That data comes from March voter registration figures posted by the Oregon Secretary of States Office.

March Voter Registration

Nonaffiliated voters have exploded in number since the Oregons Motor Voter law went into effect in January 2016. In the month prior, December 2015, there were 825,282 registered Democrats, 642,552 Republicans, 527,302 nonaffiliated voters, and just 2,169,258 voters total.

So in the past six years, Oregon has added nearly 800,000 new voters, almost 500,000 of whom are not registered with any party.

Ed Doyle, president of a group called Oregon Open Primaries, says the takeaway is that the May partisan primaries, which are taxpayer funded, should be open to all voters, not just Democrats and Republicans, and to all candidates. (Non-affiliated and smaller party voters can still vote in non-partisan races in May.)

It is unconscionable that over 34% of the electorate is barred from voting in publicly funded primary elections, Doyle said in a statement. It is high time Oregon modernizes its primary system to allow all registered voters to vote and all qualified candidates to compete.

Doyles group hopes to put an open primary measure on the November general election ballot. Two previous attempts to open Oregons primaries failed in past decades. Most recently, Measure 90 got trounced 68% to 32% in 2014.

Proponents say that in addition to allowing greater voter participation, open primaries should moderate the extremism for which partisan primaries are known. More than 20 states have at least some open primaries.

Two of Oregons neighbors, California and Washington, hold top-two primaries in which all candidates for an office appear on the ballot and the two top vote getters, regardless of party, move to the general election.

Read the original:
Nonaffiliated Oregon Voters Now Outnumber Democrats and Republicans for the First Time - Willamette Week