SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
jerry nadler
Democrats Introduce Federal Bill to Make Climate Polluters Pay
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Sen. Chris Van Hollen said.
Sep 12, 2024
United States Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Jerry Nadler on Thursday announced the introduction of legislation that would require Big Oil firms to pay into a damages fund used to address the climate crisis.
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which Van Hollen first proposed in 2021, would levy charges on the largest companies that extract and refine fossil fuels in the U.S., based on a Superfund model. It would create a $1 trillion fund to "address harm and damages caused," with a significant proportion of the money spent on environmental justice in affected communities, Van Hollen said.
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Van Hollen said at a press conference.
Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, indicated that the proposal was groundbreaking.
"We're thrilled to be supporting the first ever federal bill that would make polluters pay for climate damages!" Henn wrote on social media.
BIG NEWS: We're thrilled to be supporting the *first ever* federal bill that would #MakePollutersPay for climate damages!!
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund act would raise *$1 TRILLION* from Big Oil to help families & communities deal with climate impacts. https://t.co/wX6lMOTexh
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) September 12, 2024
The new bill targets only the "heaviest hitters," as Van Hollen put it: companies responsible for at least 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the period between 2000 and 2022. The levies they face would be directly proportional to the amount of oil, gas, and coal extracted or refined, as determined by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition to Van Hollen and Nadler (D-N.Y.), the bicameral legislation was also introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). It has five co-sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and more than a dozen co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Many state legislatures have considered "polluters pay" climate bills in recent years, and Vermont passed one in May. Van Hollen said a federal bill "would be a big, big step forward."
The bill has the backing of many dozens of environmental organizations around the country, several of which had representatives at Thursday's press conference.
"The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for decades," Sara Chieffo, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, said at the event. "It's time they face the consequences of their deception and are held responsible for their actions that are destroying both lives and a livable, safe climate."
Phil Radford, Sierra Club's chief strategy officer, added that "for way too long, these companies have poisoned communities, spilled oil, polluted our air, caused all sorts of health problems, and gotten away with it."
"Today is an incredible moment where we are saying: No more," he said.
Advocates indicated that at least 40% of the funds would go toward environmental justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Supreme Court Case Looms, 164 US Lawmakers Defend Trans Youth
"Decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians," said Rep. Mark Pocan.
Sep 03, 2024
As LGBTQ+ rights advocates prepare for oral arguments in a U.S. Supreme Court case about bans on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, 164 members of Congress on Tuesday urged the justices to strike down Tennessee's 2023 law.
Tennessee is one of over two dozen states that has recently banned some or all of such care for trans minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project. In response to challenges from advocacy groups and the Biden administration, the right-wing high court agreed to take the case in June.
Arguments in United States v. Skrmetti are expected in the fall. The justices will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1—which bans surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone treatment for trans youth—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Congressional Democrats' new "friend of the court" brief argues that the court "should be highly skeptical of legislation banning safe and effective therapies that comport with the standard of care," and "should carefully examine the deeply troubling role that animosity towards transgender people has played in state legislation."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists."
The amicus brief is led by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Congressional Equality Caucus Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
"For years, far-right Republicans have been leading constant, relentless, and escalating attacks on transgender Americans," Markey said in a statement. "Their age-old, discriminatory playbook now threatens access to lifesaving, gender-affirming care for more than 100,000 transgender and nonbinary children living in states with these bans if the Supreme Court upholds laws like Tennessee's at the heart of Skrmetti that are fueled by ignorance and hate."
"It takes a special type of cruelty to target children for who they are," he continued. "I am proud to stand with my colleagues against dangerous, transphobic attacks and to reaffirm that our nation's commitment should be to equality and justice for all."
Pocan emphasized that "decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists," he added. "We strongly urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law and strike down Tennessee's harmful ban."
The brief is co-signed by another 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives, eight other Democratic senators, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the party. It is also supported by the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
"Thank you to the many members of Congress for standing with transgender and nonbinary youth across our country in asking the Supreme Court to find bans on lifesaving gender-affirming care to be unconstitutional," said HRC vice president of government affairs David Stacy.
"The government should not be able to interfere in decisions that are best made between families and doctors, particularly when that care is necessary and best practice," Stacy stressed. "These bans are dangerous, animated purely by anti-transgender bias, and have forced families to make heartbreaking decisions to support their children."
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Charges in Biden Classified Documents Case, Unlike Trump
"If Trump had cooperated with the Department of Justice—instead of lying to investigators, again and again—he might have avoided at least some of the 91 criminal charges currently pending against him," said Rep. Jerry Nadler.
Feb 08, 2024
Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded that "no criminal charges are warranted" after investigating U.S. President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents from before he took office in 2021, according to a report released Thursday.
"We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president," Hur stressed in the report, made public over a year after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him to lead the probe into materials found at Biden's Delaware residence and the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington, D.C.
Before Biden was elected president, he served as vice president and a U.S. senator from Delaware. The special counsel noted that "materials recovered in this case spanned Mr. Biden's career in national public life... He used these materials to write memoirs published in 2007 and 2017, to document his legacy, and to cite as evidence that he was a man of presidential timber."
Hur explained that although investigators found evidence that the president "willfully retained and disclosed" classified materials—including documents about Afghanistan and notebooks with his handwritten entries about U.S. national security and foreign policy—after his vice presidency, "the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," the Republican special counsel wrote of the 81-year-old president.
Politicoreported that "Biden's attorneys also wrote directly to Hur and his team before the report's publication to complain about the focus on the president's memory lapses. As documented in the report, they called the focus 'gratuitous' and urged Hur to revise his summarizations, saying it was beyond his 'expertise and remit.'"
Hur's report comes as the Democratic president seeks reelection in November. The GOP front-runner, former President Donald Trump, is facing 91 charges across four criminal cases. The two federal cases, overseen by Garland-appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith, focus on the Republican's interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified materials.
Trump quickly seized on Hur's report. In a campaign email with the subject line, "Biden not charged for classified docs in his garage!" the Republican wrote: "He's mishandled classified docs... And now, his crimes are being SWEPT UNDER THE RUG!"
The ex-president declined to acknowledge that he is named in the report, which states:
With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.
Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.
Addressing the report in remarks to Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, Biden said that "this was an exhaustive investigation going back literally more than 40 years" and Hur "acknowledged that I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays," even sitting for hours of interviews while handling an international crisis.
"I was especially pleased to see the special counsel make clear the stark differences between this case and Donald Trump," Biden added. "Bottom line is, the special counsel in my case decided against moving forward with any charges and this matter is now closed. I'll continue to do what I've always done: stay focused on my job like you do."
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that "MAGA Republicans will no doubt now call to investigate the investigators—it's their favorite move—but the Hur report effectively ends the discussion. President Biden cooperated fully with the special counsel and redacted no portion of the special counsel's report."
"Unlike Trump, President Biden has nothing to hide," Nadler added. "And the contrast here is striking. If Trump had cooperated with the Department of Justice—instead of lying to investigators, again and again—he might have avoided at least some of the 91 criminal charges currently pending against him."
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) also emphasized in a lengthy statement that Biden "fully cooperated" with his probe and did not exert privilege over any of the report while "Trump willfully and unlawfully held onto hundreds of presidential and classified records."
In addition to four criminal cases, Trump faces legal efforts to kick him off this year's ballots by voters and experts who argue that he is constitutionally barred from holding office after engaging in insurrection on January 6, 2021. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court—which includes three Trump appointees—heard arguments for a case focusing on Colorado's primary ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular