July, 02 2024, 09:47am EDT
President Biden Proposes Rule to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat
After over a decade of advocacy by Public Citizen, new OSHA proposed rule set to protect frontline workers from dangers of extreme heat
At an event at the DC Emergency Operations Center, President Biden today announced the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has formally proposed the nation’s first-ever federal safety standard addressing excessive heat in the workplace. The proposed final rule will be published in the Federal Register for public comment and hearings, the final step before the rule is put into effect.
Public Citizen first petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for a mandatory standard to protect workers from injury and death resulting from extreme heat exposure in September 2011.
In response, Juley Fulcher, worker health and safety advocate with Public Citizen, issued the following statement:
“President Biden’s decision to protect workers with a comprehensive federal workplace heat standard is a monumental victory for those who toil in the summer heat. If enacted, the simple measures to protect workers—water breaks, a cool spot to recover, and rest—will provide key protection from illness, injury and death.
“Several states have put workplace heat protections in place and elected officials in Florida and Texas have taken action to strip workers of heat-related protections. The punitive cruelty of denying workers access to water and protection from heat by elected officials has been monstrous. White House approval of the OSHA proposed rule demonstrates the commitment of President Biden and the Department of Labor to protecting workers from deadly heat hazards. A nationwide protection standard is essential to ensure workers are protected and provided with the necessary and humane protections to work safely in the summer heat.
“President Biden’s action is a crucial step – but it is only another step – in an outrageously lengthy process demanded by anti-regulatory laws forced through Congress by corporate interests. It comes more than a dozen years after Public Citizen first petitioned for a heat protection rule and more than half a century after the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health first flagged the issue.
“If all goes to plan, workers will finally have protective rules in two more years. That’s a national disgrace and a display of contempt for America’s workers and especially immigrant workers who bear a disproportionate burden of excessive heat.
“That said, this is a moment to celebrate and President Biden and his administration deserve huge credit for prioritizing this vital measure and pushing it forward toward completion.”
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Bernie Sanders: Right-Wing Supreme Court 'Out of Control' and Must Be Stopped
"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform."
Jul 02, 2024
In the aftermath of the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court's potentially deadly rampage against federal regulators, its ruling in support of the criminalization of homelessness, and its decision to grant former President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, Sen. Bernie Sanders said late Monday that nation's highest judicial body is "out of control" and must be reined in before it can inflict even more damage.
"Over the years, among other disastrous rulings, this right-wing court has given us Citizens United, which created a corrupt, billionaire-dominated political system," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "It overturned Roe v. Wade, removing women's constitutional right to control their own bodies. Last week, the court chose to criminalize poverty by banning homeless encampments in public spaces—forcing more poor people into the cycle of debt and poverty."
"With the Chevron case," the senator continued, "they have made it far more difficult for the government to address the enormous crises we face in terms of climate change, public health, workers' rights, and many other areas. And, today, the court ruled in favor of broad presidential immunity, making it easier for Trump and other politicians to break the law without accountability."
"A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We'll need much more than that."
Such far-reaching and devastating decisions, Sanders argued, highlight the extent to which unelected Supreme Court justices—with the backing of
right-wing billionaires and corporations bent on sweeping away all regulatory constraints—have arrogated policymaking authority to themselves with disastrous consequences for U.S. society and the world.
"If these conservative justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office," said Sanders. "At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform. A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We'll need much more than that."
The Supreme Court is out of control.
If these conservative right-wing, corporate-sponsored justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office. pic.twitter.com/jrm3ZdSti8
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 1, 2024
Sanders did not make specific reform recommendations beyond an ethics code in his statement Monday, but he has previously suggested rotating judges off the Supreme Court—which would effectively end lifetime appointments.
The Vermont senator's progressive colleagues floated a range of possible actions following the high court's presidential immunity ruling on Monday, including adding seats to the Supreme Court and impeaching individual justices.
"Today's decision, along with the court's decision to overturn Chevron, is an assault on the separation of powers under the Constitution," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in response to the court's ruling in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
"An extremist Supreme Court stacked by Donald Trump has snatched power away from an elected Congress and handed lawmaking power over to a few far-right unelected judges," Warren added. "This Supreme Court is undermining the foundations of our democracy; Congress must restore balance by adding more justices to the court."
The Supreme Court's recent flurry of rulings has already thrown
existing cases into chaos and opened the floodgates to new corporate-backed lawsuits against longstanding federal regulations.
The Washington Postreported Sunday that "mere hours after the Supreme Court sharply curbed the power of federal agencies" by scrapping the Chevron doctrine, "conservatives and corporate lobbyists began plotting how to harness the favorable ruling in a redoubled quest to whittle down climate, finance, health, labor, and technology regulations in Washington."
"The National Association of Manufacturers, a lobbying group whose board of directors includes top executives from Dow, Caterpillar, ExxonMobil, and Johnson & Johnson, specifically called attention to what it described as regulatory overreach at the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and the Environmental Protection Agency," the Post noted.
The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest corporate lobbying organization, and the American Petroleum Institute were also among the big business groups applauding the fall of Chevron, fueling calls for Congress to codify the doctrine into federal law.
The American Prospect's Hassan Ali Kanu wrote Tuesday that the high court's latest term has "demonstrated how lacking our system is in terms of safeguards that can prevent or correct the Supreme Court when it oversteps its authority or engages in unjustified exercises of power."
"President Joe Biden's commission to explore Supreme Court reform produced a number of viable and sensible options," Kanu continued. "Congress could curtail or end judicial review, the power the court aggregated to itself to exclusively interpret the Constitution."
"Even more modest proposals could further democratize the Court and judiciary, like prohibiting them from declining to apply laws passed by Congress unless they have at least a supermajority vote; or implementing sortition, random assignment, and rotation into the process of appointing or assigning judges to the Supreme Court," he added. "At this point, when a six-member majority is literally declaring a former president who appointed three of them to be functionally above the law, against all prevailing opinion, scholarship, analysis, and experience, the case for court reform couldn't be clearer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absurd and Nakedly Partisan': Trump-Appointed Judge Blocks Biden LNG Pause
"Trump judges are hellbent on torching environmental safeguards, the climate, and our democracy," said an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Jul 02, 2024
A Trump-appointed judge on Monday blocked the Biden administration's pause on approvals of new liquefied natural gas export permits, the latest move by the nation's conservative-dominated judiciary to stop the federal government from taking action against the worsening climate emergency.
Judge James D. Cain Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana sided with more than a dozen Republican-led states that sued over the pause earlier this year, claiming it would harm their economies.
Cain wrote in his ruling that the pause, which temporarily halted the approval process for facilities exporting LNG to countries without a free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S., was "perhaps the epiphany [sic] of ideocracy." The judge falsely characterized the pause as a "ban."
A Department of Energy (DOE) spokesperson said the agency "disagrees" with Cain's decision and "continues to review the court's order and evaluate next steps."
Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, called Cain's ruling an "absurd and nakedly partisan decision untethered from reality."
"There is no 'LNG Export Ban' for the court to overturn," Henn wrote on social media. "DOE has simply paused new licenses while conducting a review of LNG's impacts."
This is an absurd and nakedly partisan decision untethered from reality.
There is no “LNG Export Ban” for the court to overturn. DOE has simply paused new licenses while conducting a review of LNG’s impacts. https://t.co/4TQFjYal4M
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) July 1, 2024
The Congressional Research Service notes that under the Natural Gas Act, LNG exports to non-FTA countries "are presumed to be in the public interest, unless, after opportunity for a hearing, the DOE finds that the authorization would not be consistent with the public interest." Environmental groups have implored the Energy Department to develop a public-interest test that thoroughly weighs the climate impacts of LNG exports.
The Washington Postreported late Monday that Cain's ruling "means the Energy Department must resume its consideration of permit applications for new LNG export projects." The administration's pause put at least 14 pending gas export projects on hold, according to Earthjustice.
Craig Segall, the vice president of Evergreen Action, argued Monday that Cain's "deeply misguided" ruling "should have no impact on the Department of Energy's statutory authority over what must be included in a public-interest determination." Segall added that "pause or no pause, the science is clear: No sound analysis that accounts for the climate and environmental harm inflicted by LNG exports could possibly determine that these deadly facilities are in the public interest."
"It's no surprise that a Trump judge would bend the law to hand the oil industry a win," said Segall. "Corporate polluters have gone judge shopping to find a Trump-appointed ideologue to accept their short-sighted, profit-driven view that would advance their fossil fuel agenda without regard for their impact on communities, climate, or domestic energy prices. The Biden administration should appeal this baseless ruling immediately and ultimately make clear it stands with the public interest, not Big Oil."
"Halting the massive and dangerous expansion of these exports is the right thing to do for Gulf Coast communities, wildlife, and all of us who hope to keep living on a sustainable planet."
Climate advocates have argued that the United States' status as the world's largest LNG exporter is harmful to both consumers and the planet, pushing up domestic energy costs while threatening to lock in decades of potent emissions as fossil fuel-driven extreme weather intensifies and scientists warn the world is barreling toward devastation.
"Coupled with last week's court rulings, rolling back the LNG pause shows that Trump judges are hellbent on torching environmental safeguards, the climate, and our democracy," Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement Monday. "This ruling means the Energy Department should deny any more LNG exports and facilities. Halting the massive and dangerous expansion of these exports is the right thing to do for Gulf Coast communities, wildlife, and all of us who hope to keep living on a sustainable planet."
Cain's decision to block the Biden administration's LNG export pause came after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down several rulings that could imperil federal agencies' ability to limit planet-warming pollution.
“Coupled with last week’s court rulings, rolling back the LNG pause shows that Trump judges are hellbent on torching environmental safeguards, the climate, and our democracy," said Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "This ruling means the Energy Department should deny any more LNG exports and facilities. Halting the massive and dangerous expansion of these exports is the right thing to do for Gulf Coast communities, wildlife, and all of us who hope to keep living on a sustainable planet."
Cain's ruling also came days after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—an agency increasingly embraced by Republicans and the fossil fuel industry—approved Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass 2 (CP2) LNG terminal, which if completed would become the nation's largest fracked gas export terminal and increase daily U.S. gas exports by roughly 20%.
"A rubber stamp from FERC is business-as-usual for fossil fuel projects," Lukas Ross, climate and energy justice deputy director at Friends of the Earth,
said in a statement last week. "Thankfully CP2 has a long way to go and we intend to fight it every step of the way. No amount of lobbying will make this project anything other than a climate and environmental justice nightmare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Planned Parenthood Warns House GOP Appropriations Bills Attack Global Health
The "slate of dangerous and unpopular provisions" includes "eliminating the Title X family planning program and reinstating the Trump-era expanded global gag rule."
Jul 01, 2024
As the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives uses the appropriations process to promote the GOP agenda ahead of the November elections, Planned Parenthood Action Fund on Monday highlighted how the spending bills attack health within and beyond the United States.
"Once again, anti-abortion rights politicians in Congress are manipulating the federal appropriations process to push for a recycled slate of dangerous and unpopular provisions to block access to sexual and reproductive healthcare across the country and around the world," states the new PPFA memo.
The PPFA document details anti-health policies in spending legislation for fiscal year 2025 that House Republicans have advanced recently, which include provisions "eliminating the Title X family planning program and reinstating the Trump-era expanded global gag rule."
The global gag rule bars U.S. government funding for foreign groups that provide information, referrals, or services for abortion care, or advocate for decriminalization or increasing access. It was initially implemented by former Republican President Ronald Reagan as the Mexico City policy, then reinstated and expanded by former President Donald Trump.
"In all, anti-abortion rights politicians continue to act in defiance of the vast majority of their constituents who believe that the government has no right to control people's personal healthcare decisions with attacks on abortion, birth control, and gender-affirming care."
Despite Trump's ongoing legal battles, he is the presumptive Republican nominee to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November. Biden rescinded his predecessor's gag rule shortly after taking office in 2021. Reproductive freedom has been a key issue in not only that contest but races at all levels of U.S. politics this cycle, as GOP policymakers and candidates have set their sights on abortion care, birth control, and in vitro fertilization.
The gag rule was included in the appropriations bill for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, which the House on Friday passed 212-200. The only Democrat who voted in favor was Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington—who supports reproductive rights and has shared her own abortion story.
That bill would also "cap funding for international family planning and reproductive health programs at $461 million, a nearly 25% cut," and end funding for United Nations entities including the U.N. Population Fund, as the PPFA memo notes. It would also "restrict information about and access to gender-affirming care," and "maintain the Helms Amendment in addition to restrictions on abortion coverage for Peace Corps volunteers."
Speaking out against the legislation last week, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, said that "much like last year, the fiscal year 2025 state and foreign operations bill resurrects the doomed isolationism of the early 20th century."
"For the sake of our national security, women's health globally, and our response to the climate crisis, Republicans must abandon this reckless and partisan path and join Democrats at the table to govern," declared DeLauro, who raised the alarm about House GOP appropriations proposals throughout June.
Taking aim at the labor, health and human services, and education legislation last week, she said that "in keeping with the majority's other partisan bills, this bill is chock full of dozens of poison pill riders, including multiple provisions that attack women's freedom and block abortion and reproductive healthcare services."
Specifically, as the PPFA memo points out, it would interfere with postgraduate training in abortion care, impose the Hyde and Weldon amendments, restrict access to gender-affirming care, block Biden administration executive orders intended to boost abortion care access in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and eliminate funding for Title X family planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs while pouring money into abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives.
It would also "defund" Planned Parenthood, preventing people in communities across the United States—particularly in rural and medically underserved areas—from accessing services including sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and birth control, as the memo outlines.
The recently introduced commerce, justice, and science bill would block most federal prisoners from attaining abortion coverage and prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from suing state or local governments over anti-choice laws, according to the memo. The financial services and general government legislation would reverse a District of Columbia law protecting workers from being fired for their reproductive healthcare choices, bar D.C. from using local funds to cover abortion care, and ban Federal Employee Health Benefits Program coverage of most abortions.
"In all, anti-abortion rights politicians continue to act in defiance of the vast majority of their constituents who believe that the government has no right to control people's personal healthcare decisions with attacks on abortion, birth control, and gender-affirming care," the publication states.
The document also targets provisions in multiple recently passed spending bills focused on homeland security, the Pentagon, and veterans—including attacks on abortion and gender-affirming care for current and former service members and their families as well as anyone in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
"Anti-abortion rights lawmakers recently included similar measures in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—an annual must-pass bill," the memo highlights.
"Everyone deserves access to abortion and gender-affirming care, including service members and their families. But these lawmakers would rather play games with our fundamental rights in their attempt to control our bodies, lives, and futures."
After the mid-June NDAA vote, PPFA president Alexis McGill Johnson said that "it's like Groundhog Day. Anti-abortion rights House members use must-pass bills as a vehicle to force through their deeply unpopular and dangerous agenda—again and again and again. Everyone deserves access to abortion and gender-affirming care, including service members and their families. But these lawmakers would rather play games with our fundamental rights in their attempt to control our bodies, lives, and futures."
The NDAA and spending bills aren't expected to pass the Senate—which is narrowly controlled by Democrats—in their current forms, but they send a message about what Republicans would prioritize if they fully reclaimed Congress and the White House.
"The majority's policy riders do not belong in appropriations bills, and like last year, we will defeat them," DeLauro said last month. "But it is disappointing that we are going through this charade again, just months after Republicans and Democrats voted for the 2024 appropriations bills."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular