Mediaboss Marketing

MATTHEW DALY and KEVIN FREKING

AP,

1:07 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) The Republican-led House has voted to overturn a regulation from President Barack Obamas tenure that requires companies to disclose payments made to the U.S. and foreign governments relating to mining and drilling.

The House is using an arcane tool that allows a simple majority of both GOP-led chambers to invalidate regulations issued in the final months of Obamas presidency.

The vote for repeal was 255-187.

The rule was intended to promote transparency so that citizens in some of the worlds most impoverished countries can hold their governments accountable for the wealth generated through mining and drilling.

But Republicans countered that the regulation requires U.S. companies to hand over key details of how they bid and compete while many foreign competitors are under no obligation to do the same.

Catch up with The Boston Globe for free.

Get The Globe's free newsletter, Today's Headlines, every morning.

Thanks for signing up!

Read more:
Congressional Republicans move to dismantle Obama rules - Boston.com

Arizona Republicans are tired of being covered by one of the most liberal courts of appeals in the nation, and now they want a court they hope will more accurately reflect the conservative attitudes of the Mountain West.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) has introduced legislation to create a new federal court of appeals to cover district courts in Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Nevada. The new 12th Circuit would carve up the 9th Circuit, the busiest of the 11 circuit courts in the nation.

Another proposal, from Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), would add Washington and Oregon to the 12th Circuit, along with the Mountain West states.

The court has also blocked several Arizona state laws, including measures to require English-only education, an immigration enforcement ban and restrictions on abortions. In 2016, the 9th Circuit blocked an Arizona ban on ballot harvesting, which limited outside groups from collecting absentee ballots and submitting them to state elections boards.

The 9th Circuit covers about 40 percent of the U.S. population. Its mammoth, Biggs said in an interview. California basically is the big dog in that circuit, and they certainly have more judges, which are reflective of Californias values and not necessarily the values of noncoastal states.

Sen. Jeff FlakeJeff FlakeWestern Republicans seek new federal appeals court Republican leadership: The new silent majority Republicans who oppose, support Trump refugee order MORE (R-Ariz.) and then-Rep. Matt SalmonMatt SalmonWestern Republicans seek new federal appeals court Arts groups gear up for fight over NEA What gun groups want from Trump MORE (R-Ariz.), Biggss predecessor, proposed a measure in the last Congress to split up the 9th Circuit as well. Flake is considering a similar measure this year. Arizonas governor, Doug Ducey (R), has asked congressional leaders to carve his state out of the existing circuit scheme.

The 9th Circuit is by far the most overburdened court in the country, with a turnaround time that averages 14 months. Its pending cases are more than double the caseload of the next busiest court, Ducey said in his State of the State address last week. Arizona, and other states in the 9th Circuit, deserve better.

Biggs and his staff are working with House Judiciary Committee staff to schedule a hearing on the bill. Committee Chairman Bob GoodlatteBob GoodlatteWestern Republicans seek new federal appeals court GOP chairman defends staff who helped draft Trump travel order Ryan: Trump travel ban confusion 'regrettable' MORE (R-Va.) has not said whether he would back a measure to add a new circuit court.

Thirteen of the 44 judges in the 9th Circuit are based in states that would move under the jurisdiction of the new 12th Circuit under Biggss proposal, including Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, based in Billings, Mont., who was first appointed to the bench by President Carter.

Biggss legislation would allow judges in states that would be covered by the 12th Circuit to decide which circuit they wanted to serve going forward. Only three of those 13 judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

Biggs said there are no firm plans for where the 12th Circuit would be based, though Phoenix would be the largest city by far in states his legislation covers.

Link:
Western Republicans seek new federal appeals court - The Hill

House Republicans plan to introduce a bill Wednesday that would institute right-to-work policies in the entire country if it became law, delivering a severe blow to the labor movement.

Right-to-work laws give workers the option to stop supporting unions whilestill enjoying the benefits of representation. Theres nothing new about such proposals being made in Washington whats different now is the political climate, which should alarm labor unions and their allies.

Republicans who back such laws control both chambers of Congress and the White House for the first time in years. Meanwhile, more and more states under GOP control continue to pass their own right-to-work measures, increasingly making them the norm rather than the exception.

Republicans and business groups would still face a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. But they have all the momentum on this issue, and theres no reason to think that will change anytime soon.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a sponsor of the legislation, said as much in a note to reporters Tuesday.

Similar legislation has been introduced in the past, but we believe that this year, the legislation could garner more support than ever before, Leacy Burke wrote.

Under U.S. labor law, a union must represent all the employees in a workplace it has unionized, even those who may not want to be in a union. Unions argue that its only fair for all workers to contribute money to help cover the costs of bargaining.

But right-to-work laws make such arrangements illegal, allowing workers to opt out of paying fees to a union that will have to represent them anyway. Unions call the phenomenon free riding. Supporters of right-to-work laws argue that no worker should be required to support a union, regardless of whether it bargains on his behalf.

Republican lawmakers and business groups have had startling success with right-to-work legislation in the last few years. Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kentucky have all gone right-to-work since 2012; in Kentucky, it was essentially the first order of business last month when the GOP assumed full control of the statehouse for the first time in nearly a century.

Twenty-seven states are now right-to-work, and Missouri and New Hampshire could soon follow suit. Union-dense, Democratic-leaning states on the coasts are highly unlikely to pass their own right-to-work laws, but a federal statute could take care of that for them. The passage of national a right-to-work bill would make it the law of the land in all states, regardless of their own statutes.

A Democratic filibuster is currently the only sure firewall against a federal right-to-work law. Although President Donald Trump has tried to play nice with certain unions, he voiced support for such policies while on the campaign trail.

I love the right to work, he said last February. It is better for the people. You are not paying the big fees to the unions.

Even if Democrats can beat back such proposals in Congress, right-to-work may spread anyway thanks to the Supreme Court. Unions narrowly dodged a bullet last year when the case known as Friedrichs died with a split decision following Justice Antonin Scalias death. A conservative majority could have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of public school teachers in California who argued that workers in public-sector unions should not be required to pay any union fees.

A ruling against unions would effectively make the entire public sector right-to-work throughout the country, regardless of state laws. Although they did not success with Friedrichs, right-to-work backers plan to try again once a solid conservative majority is in place on the Supreme Court.

Trump put forth a conservativenominee, Neil Gorsuch, on Tuesday.

Original post:
Republicans Want To Pass A National Right-To-Work Law - Huffington Post

Since Obama put some of the laws in place during the end of his term, the rule will let Congress strike them down without much fuss, and President Trump isn't likely to veto those actions. "During a presidential transition when we're transferring from one party to another party, that's the only time when it really makes a difference," energy lawyer Scott Segal told the Washington Post last year.

The most contentious is a bill to repeal the National Park Service's 9B rule updates, a move that paves the way for weaker oil and gas exploration regulations on pristine public land. "If the Park Service's drilling rules are repealed, national parks across the country would be subjected to poorly regulated oil and gas drilling, threatening parks' air, water and wildlife," said National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) head Nicholas Lund.

Forty parks in the US have split-estate ownership, where the federal government owns the land but cedes below-surface mineral rights to private companies. The rules require detailed planning, but Congress wants to strip out recent protection updates from President Obama and make it harder for future governments to reintroduce them.

Ever since Republican President Teddy Roosevelt spurred their expansion more than 100 years ago, there has been a broad consensus across political lines to protect parks. However, the so-called anti-parks caucus has recently angled to unlock more public land for drilling and development.

In a statement, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar said that President Obama "has exceeded the intent of the Antiquities Act more than any other president in the history of this country" by designating 24 new monuments and locking up 4 million acres of land. However, a recent Center for American Progress poll showed that 71 percent of Americans are opposed to oil and gas drilling in parks. It also notes that parks, monuments, forests and wilderness areas generate $646 billion in consumer spending, more than the mining, oil and gas drilling and logging industries combined.

The House will also vote today to eliminate laws that protect streams from coal mining developments. The aim of the rules, developed over years by the Department of the Interior, was to prevent coal waste from contaminating water sources around mountaintop mines. However, Republicans say the law goes too far and makes coal projects economically unfeasible. "Tomorrow, we're turning the page on Obama's war on coal," said Virginia Republican Rep. Evan Jenkins.

The proposed Republican rule, environmental groups claim, would eliminate much of the oversight related to coal mining operations. "The attacks on this rule are shortsighted and an insult to the tens of thousands of citizens who spoke up for strong stream protections," says Appalachian Voices' Thom Kay.

On Friday, Republicans also hope to chop an Obama administration law that would force oil refiners to get a better handle on methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. It was designed to prevent disasters like the Aliso Canyon methane leak (below), which dumped 107,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere. Since methane is a potent greenhouse gas, the leak was equivalent to the CO2 emissions from half a million cars.

Another law on the block is a 2011 regulation requiring automakers to achieve an average 54.5MPG fuel-economy rating, a rule that would force them to build more electric cars. Given their age, those rules will be more difficult to undo, as the EPA would need to put a replacement law in place. However, the Trump administration reportedly plans to attack it by going around the EPA and through the Department of Transportation.

We're not surprised at what they're doing, but maybe a little surprised at how fast and furious it's all happening. But we were bracing for it and we're ready.

Opposition groups have accused Republicans of kowtowing to the industry, ignoring multiple stakeholder groups that helped the last administration craft the rules. On its website, the Sierra Club criticized proposed Trump EPA chief Scott Pruitt, saying he "led the fight against climate action and the Clean Power Plan, doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry."

Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans, including Republicans and Trump supporters, support renewable energy over coal and oppose the rollbacks by Congress. That will no doubt mean more public protests against the rules, and environmental groups say they're also ready for a fight. However, the Republican-controlled House is killing multiple protection laws nearly simultaneously, making it difficult for environmentalists, the public and the industry to react quickly enough.

"We're not surprised at what they're doing, but maybe a little surprised at how fast and furious it's all happening," Sierra Club Legal Director Pat Gallagher told PBS News Hour. "But we were bracing for it and we're ready."

See the rest here:
Republicans poised to roll back environmental protections - Engadget

Republicans on Capitol Hill are on edge over what they view as Stephen Bannons growing influence inside President Trumps White House.

The White House counselors elevation to being a permanent member of the National Security Council has deepened the debate, as has the furor surrounding Trumps controversial executive order on immigration.

Bannon has reportedly formed an alliance with White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, who is also Trumps son-in-law. That would give him enormous power in the White House given Kushners perceived influence with Trump.

On the refugee order, Bannon is seen as having worked closely with White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, a former aide to Sen. Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsFranken slams Cruz for trying to impugn his record The Hill's 12:30 Report Dem rips Trump's 'lip service' during Black History Month MORE (R-Ala.) known for his hard-line position on immigration.

Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed soon as Trumps attorney general, is also seen as a Bannon ally. And Bannon has brought other people to the White House from Breitbart News, giving him more influence.

We clearly see what Bannon is doing. Theres no secret in it. Hes increasing his people inside and aligning with Kushner, said one former GOP leadership aide. And the person to look at is really Kushner, because at the end of the day, hes the person Trump trusts most. And together, those two guys seem like they want to knock everyone else over.

Many Republicans fear that Bannons ascendance is coming at the expense of Trumps chief of staff, Reince Priebus, the former Republican National Committee chairman who is a home-state friend of Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanHouse begins to map out infrastructure strategy Homeland Security chairman suggests changes possible to Trump refugee order Republican leadership: The new silent majority MORE (R-Wis.) and has longstanding ties with many lawmakers.

In a joint statement announcing the hiring of Bannon and Priebus last November, Trump said the two would work together as equal partners. But Republicans on Capitol Hill say they are seeing scant evidence of that.

If Priebus is seen as a Washington insider, Bannon is the ultimate outsider.

Before joining Trump, he oversaw Breitbart News, which repeatedly published stories criticizing Ryan and other GOP lawmakers for a lack of conservative fortitude. Many lawmakers saw those attacks as unfair, and this history is weighed into their views of what is happening now at the White House.

The lack of vetting on Trumps immigrant and refugee order which bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the United States for 90 days, freezes the nations refugee program for 120 days and indefinitely pauses the acceptance of Syrian refugees left many Republicans on Capitol Hill fuming. House GOP leaders have acknowledged they only learned of the order when it was being rolled out, even though staff on the House Judiciary Committee reportedly provided input to the White House.

Theyre not doing the basic blocking and tackling, and that makes it more difficult for congressional leaders to defend it, one former GOP leadership aide said.

The decision to make Bannon a permanent member of Trumps National Security Council was a shock. Past White House political advisers such as Karl Rove and David Axelrod didnt make that leap.

[Bannon] wouldnt be anywhere near my National Security Council if I were president, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) told The Hill.

While Trump added Bannon, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will only attend committee meetings when the discussions pertain specifically to their areas of expertise.

Why would you remove the [director] and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Sen. Susan CollinsSusan CollinsThe growing case against Scott Pruitt's nomination to lead EPA White House has '100 percent confidence' in DeVos confirmation Freedom Caucus meets with senators on ObamaCare replacement MORE (R-Maine) said to The Hill. I dont think thats a good decision, and I hope the president will reconsider. The removal of two people whose advice is essential when these critical policy decisions are made that bothers me.

Allies of Trump on Capitol Hill are eager to defend Bannon.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), who initially supported Sen. Marco RubioMarco RubioSenate confirms Tillerson as secretary of State Trump's regulatory rollback a relief to small business Bannons power puts Republicans on edge MORE (R-Fla.) for president, told The Hill that it makes sense for Trump to have his chief strategist sit in on important national security meetings.

And any executive orders that Bannon may have had a hand in should have been expected, Rooney said, because Trump promised it all during his campaign.

The furor over Bannons rise is just because its him and hes controversial, Rooney said.

Others, like House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who campaigned with Trump several times during the 2016 race, are excited about Bannons rise because they think it puts Washington on notice.

He is a brilliant strategic thinker who understands how to get the most out of a team, Meadows told The Hill. Bannon, Kushner, Miller and [Kellyanne] Conway have built a winning combination, and they are not afraid to act as long as they believe that they have the best interest of the country at the core of their mission.

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a key Trump ally on Capitol Hill and a policy adviser to the campaign, said reports of Bannons rise are overplayed. Bannon has always been one of Trumps most trusted confidants, Cramer said, and Americans elected Trump knowing that.

I think hes always had a lot of influence, and maybe its just becoming more obvious, Cramer said. While he seems to be a controversial figure to some, I dont find it all that egregious personally.

There is always enormous interest in who holds power in a White House, and thats no exception for Trumps team.

The presidents history in setting up rival centers of power in his businesses has only raised interest in how he will manage his White House team as has the sense that whoever talks to Trump last might have an edge.

Theres always been a nice balance for every Trump, there was a [Vice President] Pence; for every Bannon, there was a Priebus, said one current GOP aide. Now, the important question is who will be the first among the equals, because whoever that is will determine whether this is an administration that Republicans think they can work with.

Scott Wong contributed.

See the rest here:
Bannon's power puts Republicans on edge - The Hill