Mediaboss Marketing

Lawmakers, oil drillers and conservation advocates are arming for battle over the future of the federal fossil fuel program ahead of a public forum about overhauling drilling later today.

The federal government controls access to millions of acres of public lands and minerals, including valuable crude oil and natural gas.

But President Biden has promised to reform the oil program as part of a pan-government approach to addressing climate change and placing the country on a path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury.

The virtual forum today will provide the Interior Department which manages the federal mineral estate feedback for a report the agency has promised to release later this year that may reveal the Biden administration's specific policy changes for oil and gas development on public lands and waters.

GOP lawmakers supportive of the oil industry have promised to rein in the administration where they can, and they were earlier this week taking well-timed stances against the direction of Biden's energy agenda ahead of today's meeting.

Republican Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming penned a letter this week demanding an explanation from new Interior Secretary Deb Haaland for how the forum and report will affect decisionmaking on public lands as defined by several federal laws.

The pair said Interior appeared to have "intentionally limited the right for the public to participate," noting that they were not invited to present and neither were state elected officials.

Barrasso, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Lummis also took aim at Interior's recent statements defending reform efforts that put oil and gas in the crosshairs for climate reforms, accusing the agency of overselling the ability to cut global emissions by restricting federal oil and gas development.

In addition, they chastised the president for the moratorium he has established on new oil and gas leasing that they say "threatens critical sources of funding for our states including funding for public education, roads and bridges, and conservation measures."

The Wyoming senators are not alone in their frustrations. Today, freshman Rep. Yvette Herrell of New Mexico, who has emerged as one of Congress' most vocal Republican opponents of Biden's energy agenda, will host colleagues in her district for a roundtable discussion on oil and gas production with "industry stakeholders," according to a press advisory.

Herrell will also participate in a press conference outside the Artesia Chamber of Commerce alongside GOP Reps. Pete Stauber of Minnesota, Claudia Tenney of New York and Ronny Jackson of Texas. Stauber is the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

It's not clear whether Herrell's event was timed to coincide with the Interior public forum or is just a coincidence, but the media availability will likely serve as an opportunity for the lawmakers and their allies to weigh in.

Finally, Gulf state Republican congressmen this week introduced legislation, H.R. 2131, that would amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy and Security Act of 2006 to provide compensation to states with revenues that are reduced by the Biden leasing moratorium.

Supporters include Reps. Jerry Carl of Alabama; Troy Nehls and Randy Weber of Texas; Trent Kelly, Steven Palazzo and Michael Guest of Mississippi; and Garret Graves and Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Scalise is also the No. 2 House Republican in his capacity as the minority whip.

On the other side of the debate, Democratic lawmakers have released their own bevy of reform bills in recent weeks that would up royalty rates on federal lands and increase bonding required to drill, among several other changes. But civilian reform advocates have been assembling, too, ahead of the Interior forum.

And the Center for Western Priorities, the National Wildlife Federation, Public Land Solutions and Friends of the Earth have all released studies in recent days to underscore the need for modernization of the oil and gas program, and many have attempted to counter the oil and gas industry's claim of economic harm from the leasing pause.

The Trump administration conducted a "fevered, fiscally irresponsible leasing binge" that left the U.S. "drowning in cheap oil," Dave Jenkins, from Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, said in a call with reporters yesterday.

Autumn Hanna, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said during that call that while the Trump administration's pro-oil practices highlighted issues with the status quo, the need for modernization also predated the so-called energy dominance era.

She argued that taxpayers are being underpaid for public resources and expressed support for the Biden administration's leasing pause.

"The first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging," she said. "Now is a perfect time to step back."

The Biden administration, which has stocked its Interior Department with several climate-conscious policy wonks and former public land advocates, appears to feel the same.

Laura Daniel Davis, deputy assistant secretary on land and minerals, has said modernizing the oil and gas program will put it on more sound "fiscal and climate footing."

She said when announcing the forum: "The federal oil and gas program is not serving the American public well. It's time to take a close look at how to best manage our nation's natural resources with current and future generations in mind."

Interior has reported that roughly 77% of the offshore oil and gas leases that industry currently holds are unused or undrilled.

At the same time, the federal agency says that industry holds more than 7,000 approved permits to drill new wells that are currently unused onshore and offshore combined.

In this context, industry, too, is trying to control the public narrative about oil and gas reform. It argues that mineral-dependent communities, and states that receive significant portions of their revenue from mineral extraction, could be hard hit by restrictive oil and gas politics, pointing in particular to schools and local services in particular that currently depend on oil and gas money.

The Interior-sponsored forum today will be followed by an event hosted by the Gulf Economic Survival Team, an industry and pro-business group in Louisiana.

This event will highlight the stories of local businesses in the Gulf that say they would be affected by Biden's oil policies.

"The oil and natural gas industry shares in the Biden administration's goals for a better economy, cleaner environment and a commitment to progress toward climate goals," Lori LeBlanc, GEST executive director, said in a statement earlier this month. "The best way to manage our nation's natural resources is to recognize that offshore energy development generates thousands of jobs and millions in funding for coastal restoration and hurricane protection projects throughout the Gulf Coast."

Read this article:
OIL AND GAS: Republicans turn up heat on Haaland ahead of forum - E&E News

(CNN)

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell says hes spoken with President Joe Biden just once since he took office.

We just talked about Burma an issue that Ive had a long-time interest in, McConnell told CNN of their February conversation, though he previously said they also spoke about the budget process and Covid relief during that call.

But the White House has a different account.

He speaks with him regularly, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday, declining to elaborate other than to mention a long friendship between the two men who served for more than two decades together in the Senate.

When pressed for more details, Psaki demurred, saying, I dont have any more calls, I dont think, to read out for you, which we will not make a case of doing.

To top Republicans on Capitol Hill, the discrepancy underlines the argument theyve been making: That despite his promise to unify Washington, the new President has abandoned his campaign pledge to court the other side. And even as they unify in opposition to his agenda, while plotting to take back Congress in the midterms next year, Republicans argue the lack of outreach feeds into their case that the new President is beholden to the most liberal elements of his party and has little interest in finding consensus with the GOP.

The story is what happened to the Joe Biden of old, said South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, whom Biden called a personal disappointment in December. The two havent spoken since he took office.

While Biden has been in touch with key Republican swing votes in the Senate (Susan Collins of Maine), had a cordial call with the most senior GOP senator in recent weeks (Chuck Grassley of Iowa), and also been in touch on China issues with one of his sharpest GOP critics (John Cornyn of Texas), his outreach to party leaders has been scant, according to GOP senators and aides.

The new President hasnt spoken with House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy since Inauguration Day. He has yet to speak to the Houses No. 2 Republican, Steve Scalise, since he became President, nor has he reached out to the Senates GOP whip, John Thune.

Yet Biden also hasnt spoken to a Senate Republican who could be open to deal-cutting on legislation dealing with gun violence: Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Nope, Toomey, whose bipartisan plan to expand background checks on firearm sales has been stalled for eight years, said when asked if he had heard from Biden on the issue.

Has he heard from Biden at all since January 20?

No, Toomey said.

Before taking office, Biden often boasted about his ability to work across the aisle, even in a deeply-divided Washington. He pointedly told skeptics during the transition: Watch me. Watch me.

But since then, in the wake of Republicans standing in lockstep against his agenda, a new definition of bipartisanship has emerged. Privately, Biden told Senate Democrats in a virtual meeting this week that bipartisanship is defined by what voters say, not what McConnell thinks, according to a person familiar with his remarks. And his aides have echoed a similar sentiment.

He doesnt believe that bipartisanship is defined by zip code here, Psaki said Wednesday at the White House briefing. He believes its on how we can deliver relief to the American people.

Collins says she has suggested that Biden meet once a week with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and McConnell, as was the case when top party leaders regularly met with then-President George W. Bush when the chamber was in session during his time in office. That has not been the case so far.

I would love to see that re-initiated, Collins said.

Democrats argue that more Republicans need to show some willingness to cooperate, while noting that many Republicans even refused to recognize the legitimacy of Bidens victory for months.

White House officials says they have been forced to limit larger meetings due to the pandemic, but they also note there have been regular bipartisan meetings in addition to outreach with senior aides, including one recently on infrastructure. In his first meeting with lawmakers, Biden invited a group of 10 GOP senators to discuss Covid-19 relief, although he later moved ahead with a $1.9 trillion relief plan backed by just Democrats after rejecting the Republican approach as inadequate.

Democrats say that the President and his top aides have been in regular communication with lawmakers on both sides, and argue the approach is vastly different than that of Donald Trump, who as President spoke to mainly the most loyal of Republicans and didnt speak with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the final 15 months of his term.

The very first group that he invited to the White House was 10 Republicans, said Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat who occupies the Senate seat Biden held for 36 years.

Yet some Republicans who have reached out to the White House say theyve heard nothing back whether its McCarthys ask for a meeting on immigration or Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, on energy policy.

The promise to be bipartisan has been probably one of the emptiest political promises I have ever seen in my lifetime, Cramer said.

But while many Republicans havent heard from the President, some have gotten his attention.

Biden has picked up the phone to speak with some Republicans, including Grassley, the most senior Senate Republican, who told CNN he and Biden had a friendly conversation that lasted about two minutes a few weeks back. Grassley told him they could work together to reduce prescription drug prices.

Asked what prompted the call, Grassley said of his former Senate colleague: I did something he liked.

Grassley added: Hes got abysmal policies but you cant help but like the guy.

Collins, a key centrist Republican who worked with Biden for many years when he was in the Senate, said she has had several good conversations with Biden since he became President.

My personal conversations with the President have been both productive, gracious, welcoming, she said, while acknowledging some of her early interactions with some of Bidens top staff were frustrating, although she believes those issues are behind them now after she had a constructive conversation with Bidens chief of staff Ron Klain last week.

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman has attended two meetings with Biden one on the Covid relief bill and a second to discuss legislation pushing back on China.

I wish they would be more interested in working with us on a bipartisan basis. If you think about it. What have we done on a bipartisan basis? Really nothing, said Portman who noted that hes voted for most of Bidens nominees, something he considers a bipartisan act. Im talking to the White House trying to encourage them to do more.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, was at the White Houses infrastructure meeting, in addition to the one about Covid-relief. She said shes satisfied with the White House outreach, but when asked if she were satisfied the President and his team were listening to her suggestions, she let out a laugh.

Thats a different question, Capito said.

Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, echoed that Bidens outreach has been good on China issues and concerns about vulnerable supply chains. He attended one good meeting on that issue at the White House that Biden attended. Cornyn said theres been good follow through from the White House on that too.

He said he suspects the people around Biden are worried former President Barack Obama tried to do too much outreach to Republicans and it limited their ability to get their agenda passed.

Thats the only thing that weve seen bipartisan outreach, he said. In a 50-50 Senate, it is true they can jam some things, but I think they are going to be leaving a lot of things on the table that they might otherwise be able to do.

White House officials would not discuss the number of interactions Biden has had with Republicans of late.

Were obviously not going to read out all those calls, and I expect that will continue, Psaki said of the outreach.

But after McConnell said in a Fox News interview Wednesday that he has not spoken with Biden since he was sworn in, the GOP leader later clarified to CNN he only spoke with Biden on the issue of Burma.

Later in the day when asked about Psakis claim of his regular discussions with the President, McConnell walked into the chamber and didnt answer.

CNNs Jeff Zeleny and Lauren Fox contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Biden reaches out to some Republicans on Capitol Hill -- but not party leaders - CNN

President Biden campaigned on a proposal for a massive infrastructure plan to transform the economy and on the idea that he could work with Republicans. Trying to bring the infrastructure plan into reality forces a key decision on bipartisanship. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

President Biden campaigned on a proposal for a massive infrastructure plan to transform the economy and on the idea that he could work with Republicans. Trying to bring the infrastructure plan into reality forces a key decision on bipartisanship.

President Biden is continuing his victory lap this week after passing the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, which addressed the most immediate crises Biden has faced coming into office: a pandemic still spreading and an economy still millions of jobs short of where it was a year ago.

But if the relief bill was designed to put out the fire, Biden's next goal is to rebuild the house, with an infrastructure bill fulfilling the president's campaign promise to "build back better."

"The Build Back Better bill is the legacy bill," said Bill Galston, former domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House. "It's the bill that will define the meaning of the Biden presidency."

White House aides are reportedly compiling a $3 trillion plan that would include a wide range of priorities, including social programs and tax changes, though press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday that nothing was decided: "President Biden and his team are considering a range of potential options for how to invest in working families and reform our tax code so it rewards work, not wealth."

This is going to be an infrastructure bill that goes far beyond roads and bridges. It's designed to be a major investment in manufacturing and the technologies of the future, including 5G, a green electric grid, universal broadband Internet access, semiconductor production and carbon-free transportation.

Galston says it's a bill that could transform the country: "A country that has not invested in itself for a very long time. A country that is on the verge of losing its technological and economic superiority to the rising power at the other side of the Pacific."

That means China. Outcompeting Beijing is something that both parties agree on, and it's at the heart of Biden's sales pitch for the Build Back Better agenda.

"If we don't get moving, they are going to eat our lunch," Biden said at a bipartisan meeting of senators in the Oval Office last month, the day after he spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

But Biden has a number of decisions to make about how to get that plan moving, such as how and whether to pay for what will be a multitrillion-dollar investment, what pieces of the plan should be introduced first and whether it's possible to get Republican votes, something Biden failed to do on the pandemic relief bill.

"The big question is whether the strategy for passing the COVID-19 bill is a template or whether it's an exception," Galston said.

To pass the COVID-19 relief bill, the White House came up with its plan a $1.9 trillion package. Then the Republicans came back with a much smaller offer at $681 billion. There were a few bipartisan discussions, but the gap was too big to bridge, so in the end the bill passed with no Republican support at all.

To pass Build Back Better, the White House is trying a different approach, inviting Republicans in on the ground floor to craft the legislation. There have already been bipartisan meetings at the White House and in the Senate. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has instructed her Democratic committee chairs to work with their Republican counterparts to develop infrastructure legislation.

That would be kind of old-fashioned, but there's no one more enamored of old-fashioned bipartisan buy-in than Joe Biden. That was clear after one of those bipartisan infrastructure meetings at the White House last month.

"It's the best meeting I think we've had so far," the president said. "It was like the old days people are actually on the same page," he added.

President Biden and Vice President Harris meet with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss infrastructure on Feb. 11 Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption

President Biden and Vice President Harris meet with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss infrastructure on Feb. 11

The latest thinking among Democrats is that there are pieces of an infrastructure agenda that could be broken off and passed as smaller individual bills with GOP votes, including things like universal broadband and anything that confronts China through investments in manufacturing or intellectual property protection.

But Republicans are skeptical after Biden decided to go it alone with Democratic votes only on the coronavirus relief bill.

"The notion is we could get together there because Republicans and Democrats both believe our infrastructure needs help. It's crumbling. It will help the economy if done right," said Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman on Fox News. "My concern is once again they're going to ignore the Republicans as they did this time around."

Democrats hear that and think Republicans will do what they did to President Obama refuse to compromise, then attack the president for failing to get them to compromise. Republicans do not have a lot of political incentives to compromise with Biden, and it's possible that the relationship between the two parties on Capitol Hill is just too broken for bipartisanship. Especially after Jan. 6, when a majority of Republicans voted to overturn the 2020 election, neither side thinks the other is acting in good faith.

In the White House, bipartisanship is seen as something to strive for it's part of Biden's political DNA. But in the end, as long as voters see that Biden tried hard to work across the aisle, achieving bipartisan success is not seen as a political necessity.

"The only thing that bipartisanship really buys you is some protection against the inevitable screw-ups," said Elaine Kamarck, a former Clinton White House aide and author of Why Presidents Fail. "The process of implementation, particularly on big big projects like this, there are hiccups in it. Obviously, if it's bipartisan you weather those hiccups better than you do if you've only passed it with one party. In the end, it doesn't really matter that much as long as it gets implemented."

In other words, the process isn't as important to voters as the product. Whether it's vaccines, school openings or infrastructure jobs, the idea is that voters just want Biden to deliver.

But that might be a misread of the politics, according to Galston, who thinks getting Republican votes is a political necessity for Biden because of his promises in the campaign: "That he could work harder than his predecessors did to restore the ability of the two parties, not only to talk to each other civilly, but also to work together."

Galston thinks that promise really mattered to swing voters in the suburbs who made the difference between victory and defeat for Biden. In other words, those voters took the president's promise of bipartisanship seriously and literally.

Biden was asked about his prediction that Republicans would see the light after the election during an interview with ABC News last week.

"They haven't had that epiphany you said you were going to see in the campaign," said anchor George Stephanopoulos.

"No, no, well I've only been here six weeks, pal, OK? Gimme a break," Biden said before going on to talk about how popular the relief bill was with ordinary Republicans, if not GOP members of Congress.

Then Biden revealed how important those voters are to him, eventually landing on a declaration: "I won those Republican voters in suburbia."

The president won't be on the ballot in 2022, but his agenda will be. Democrats need to do better with those Republican voters in suburbia if they are to hang on to their tiny majorities in both houses of Congress. How Biden goes about passing his next big proposal may determine whether his party wins them or not.

See original here:
Biden Infrastructure Plan To Test His Bipartisan Promises - NPR

House Science, Space and Technology Committee Ranking Member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., is reintroducing legislation proposing the U.S. double its investments in research funding across several Federal agencies and create a national science and technology strategy.

The Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act (SALSTA) carries the same name as similar legislation that Rep. Lucas introduced in the last Congress, but the current bill reflects a greater need for intellectual property protection and critical materials supply chain security. The current bill would also double funding for basic research over 10 years.

Doubling our investment in basic and early-stage research is unquestionably whats needed for a clean economy that stays ahead of foreign competition, Lucas said in a statement. SALSTA creates a national strategy for American research and development that focuses on advanced technologies and clean energy solutions.

In addition to doubling the funding for research over 10 years, the proposed legislation would do the following:

We need to protect U.S. research from theft while also maintaining the transparent and cooperative environment that generates scientific discoveries, Lucas said.

Lucas is joined by 15 other House Republicans on the legislation.

More:
House Republicans Introduce Bill to Double Science and Tech Funding - MeriTalk

In their first appearance before Congress since the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, the chief executives of Facebook, Googleand Twitter faced frustrated lawmakers in a hearing on the role of social media in the spread of disinformation and extremism.

Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee spent much of the Thursday hearing attempting to push Google and Alphabets Sundar Pichai, Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, and Twitters Jack Dorsey into answering yes or no questions around whether the platforms had any responsibility in the attack on the Capitol, whether the individual CEOs believe the COVID-19 vaccines work, and why platforms still allow harmful hashtags associating Asian people with the coronavirus.

The CEOs endeavored for a diplomatic posture by shrouding their views under the cover of nuance. Partway through her questioning, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., likened the inability to answer the yes or no questions to the filibuster.

We dont do filibuster in the House, she said.

While what to do about disinformation is not a simple binary, the conversation between lawmakers and Big Tech continues to appear as a triangle-shaped stalemate, with Big Tech, Republicansand Democrats at each point. Dorsey dryly summed up the impasse during his opening remarks.

Some of you will say were doing too much in removing free speech rights. Some of you will say were not doing enough and then end up causing more harm, Dorsey said. Both are reasonable and worth exploring.

Despite the willingness of the CEOs to elaborate on the actions they have taken, such as setting up fact-checking programs, promoting reliable COVID-19 information, and taking down content that violates company policies, they were less forthcoming when asked about specific areas where those efforts have failed to do enough to address the problem of misinformation.

The hearing came less than a week after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an assessment that found domestic violent extremists exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in-person actions, and disseminate materials that contribute to radicalization and mobilization to violence.

Left unacknowledged is how the lobbying power of these tech companies influences the debate. The non-profit consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen published a report Wednesday showing that Facebook is now the top individual corporate lobbying spender. The same report found 94% of lawmakers with jurisdiction over large tech firms received financial contributions from political action committees or lobbyists associated with those companies.

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee received nearly $620,000, while Republicans on the committee received more than $420,000, from big tech PACs or lobbyists, according to the report.

Importantly, the mere fact of a corporate contribution does not automatically compromise a legislator, the Public Citizen report reads. Some legislators and committees who have received Big Tech PAC and lobbyist funds have conducted the most thorough investigations and hearings on Big Tech in decades, and have introduced the boldest legislation to stifle the corporations unfettered growth to date. At the same time, there is no doubt companies direct their campaign funds in order to gain access and influence.

Vectors for lawmaker questions varied and included the recent mass shooting outside of Atlanta that killed eightpeople, six of whom were Asian American, in addition to other issues such as the COVID-19 vaccine, bullying and sex trafficking. But the primary policy issue at hand is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A policy reviled by former President Donald Trump and some Democrats, the 26-word provision protects free speech online by providing liability protection for platforms that host or re-publish the speech of others, according to an explanation from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Zuckerberg in his prepared testimony proposed several changes to Section 230. Rather than granting platforms immunity, Section 230 should require demonstrations that platforms have systems in place for identifying and removing unlawful content, Zuckerberg said. But those platforms should still not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades detection.

According to civil society organizations such as EFF and Fight for the Future, Zuckerbergs proposal is problematic on several points.

Of courseFacebook wants to see changes to Section 230, Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, said during a livestream ahead of the hearing. Because they know it will simply serve to solidify their monopoly power and crush competition from smaller and more decentralized platforms.

Instead, Greer said, lawmakers should pass federal data privacy legislation and enforce antitrust laws, particularly those that target practices like the nontransparent manipulation of algorithms. Zuckerberg said during the hearing he believes Congress should establish national privacy legislation.

In a post on its website, EFF called Zuckerbergs proposal an explicit plea to create a legal regime that only Facebook, and perhaps a few other dominant online services, could meet. Ultimately, the proposal would lead to increased censorship while still failing to address problems with online misinformation because of the narrow definition of what content is actually illegal, according to EFF.

During the hearing, Zuckerberg clarified that he doesnt want the Section 230 reforms he is proposing to impact startups and small companies right away.

I want to be clear that the recommendations that I'm making for Section 230 I would only have applied to larger platforms, Zuckerberg told Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah. I think it's really critical that a small platform, you know the next student in a dorm room or garage needs to have a relatively low as possible regulatory burden in order to be able to innovate and then get to the scale where they can afford to put those kinds of systems in place.

Dorsey said the real issue is algorithms. He called for more algorithmic choice in his testimony. Fixing issues with algorithms and the need to give individual users more power over them would be a tough change, Dorsey said, but its the most impactful.

More:
Democrats and Republicans United in Big Tech Frustration - Nextgov