JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Biden Ups The Ante on Car Fuel Standards

Brief #121 – Environment Policy
By Katelyn Lewis

President Joe Biden’s team is working on a vehicle emissions rule that will not only restore aggressive vehicle mileage standards set under then-President Barack Obama, but also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and significantly increase electric vehicle drivers in the U.S. by the end of the decade.

read more

New Vaccine Mandates Being Rolled Out

Brief # 119 – Health and Gender
By Siam Bhimji

A few months ago, Methodist Hospital in Texas mandated the covid vaccine for all its healthcare workers. About 150 healthcare workers including nurses refused citing a variety of non-medical reasons. Methodist fired them all; the workers filed a lawsuit and the case went to the Texas Federal court where a judge ruled that in private practice, the employees have to follow the rules of the employer. If they do not agree, they are welcome to find a job elsewhere. 

read more

Israel Update

Brief # 124 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald

Early June saw the Israeli Parliament oust the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and replace him with a new coalition government and new Prime Minister. The new coalition government consists of nine differing political parties that were brought together in a loose alliance due to their shared displeasure of former PM Netanyahu.

read more

ENSURING FAIR ELECTIONS HELPS ENSURE DEMOCRACY

U.S. RESIST NEWS EDITORIAL
By Ron Israel

The United States of America was intended by our founders to be a democratic republic. Our Declaration of Independence enshrines our commitment to the core values of equality, freedom, and self-government. As Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg address, we are a government “of the people, for the people, and by the people.”

read more

Big Tech Antitrust Efforts Take a Step Forward

Brief #56 – Technology
By Scout Burchill

The world of antitrust and Big Tech regulation has been brimming with developments lately, and all signs point to a transformational shift underway in Washington. Last month, in a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve Lina Khan’s nomination to the Federal Trade Commission.

read more

Hospital Billing Transparency is Coming Soon

Brief #118 – Health and Gender Policy
By S. Bhimji

Walk into any car dealership and the base price of the car is posted in large numbers on the windshield. Go to a hairdresser and before you even sit down you will be told the price of a haircut. But get your gallbladder taken out and you have no idea what the price is until you are ready to be discharged from the hospital. 

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Is Broadband Internet Access for All Possible? Ask the Biden Administration

Is Broadband Internet Access for All Possible? Ask the Biden Administration

Brief #43 – Technology

Is Broadband Internet Access for All Possible? Ask the Biden Administration

By Charles A. Rubin

 April 20,2021 

Policy Summary

The Biden administration infrastructure bill will prioritize broadband expansion as a top goal. The plan earmarks $100 billion to bring affordable internet to all Americans by 2029.

The plan’s goals are to reach 100% high-speed broadband coverage across the US by prioritizing broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and cooperatives. The emphasis of this plan is to not make this endeavor the province of big tech for which the Biden administration has a healthy mistrust. The scope is on a scale as such projects as rural electrification during the administration of FDR. Is it enough?

Analysis

According to Microsoft, who did a study of the broadband gap in 2020, 157.3 million people in the US do not access the internet at broadband speeds and, according to BroadbandNow, who has advocated for universal broadband access since 2015, at least 42 million people do not have internet access at all.

The implication of this technology shortcoming has become more stark as the COVID 19 pandemic has dragged on into its 2nd year.  Millions of people today aren’t just being left behind, they’re being left out of everyday life. While many have the luxury of working from home, using telehealth services or attending classes remotely, huge swaths of the country are forced to drive long distances to pick up schoolwork or camp out in public library parking lots to access Wi-Fi.

The digital divide is a multifaceted problem. Closing the gap requires attention to both availability and affordability: subsidizing construction of networks in places where the business case does not support investment and providing assistance to low-income families that have access to broadband networks but cannot afford the monthly service and equipment needed to get online.

This is where the Biden plan is transformational. While big tech is likely to reap some benefit in terms of equipment sales and services, the main thrust of the plan is providing local governments, not-for-profits and cooperatives the tools to build networks to serve their communities. This is a long overdue recognition that connectivity is not a luxury but an essential service that all citizens are entitled to.

There is also a danger of relying on the public sector too heavily. Information technology is a rapidly changing field and the technologies to provide services and equipment to unserved and underserved areas are ever-evolving. The Biden plan needs to incorporate the flexibility to adopt new equipment and modalities as they become available, accurately define what connectivity speeds are acceptable and be cognizant of when those requirements shift.

It is an admirable goal to get everyone connected but we need to be aware that the definition of connectivity could change and agility is as important as coverage. Ten years ago, DSL was a relatively cheap and acceptable way to access the internet. Today, a family trying to school, work and carry on household functions would be crippled by using DSL. The oublic access strategy  that emerges needs to have the ability to adopt, whatever is coming next, built in.

Engagement Resources

  1. Microsoft has extensively studied the broadband gap in the United States
  2. BroadbandNow analyzes government data and helps consumers find internet connectivity alternatives
  3. org is an nonprofit organization dedicated to helping all kids thrive in a world of media and technology
Reunited; Science and Government… And It feels so good. 

Reunited; Science and Government… And It feels so good. 

Brief # 112 Environment Policy

Reunited; Science and Government… And It feels so good. 

Written by: Shannon Q. Elliott

 April 20, 2021

Biden and Harris walked into a cyclone of environmental ludicrousness as they entered The White House. The previous four years disavowed regulatory science, and neglected to create policies which would support public health and the environment. The policies enacted during the Trump era are now being reevaluated via Executive Order (EO) “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Under the EO, federal agencies will vet existing environmental policies, vowing to hold polluters accountable, and discuss innovative ways in which to restore and confront environmental crisis.

Policy

As a result of President Biden’s EO; several Trump era environmental policies have been rescinded by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The mission of the CEQ is to work within the Executive Office to improve and protect  American public health as well as the environment. The CEQ will work alongside entities such as (but not limited to) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Forest Service, United States Department of Energy, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking immediate steps to set forth consistent and relevant law which prioritizes national health and environmental justice. In the meantime, Trump rollbacks will continue to remain active until each agency agrees on how to move forward with appropriate actions to sequester greenhouse gases.

One of the most significant pieces of legislation undergoing CEQ and EPA review, is The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Enacted in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to “act as trustees of the environment for succeeding generations.” EPA.gov puts it simply “This policy requires the federal government to use all practicale means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.”

The language of NEPA was reworked under Trump in 2020 favoring the oil and gas industries. Void of public morality, Trump declared war on the scientific community when he tailored the 50-year-old legislation to ease permitting processes for large corporations and their multimillion-dollar infrastructure projects. Trump insisted that the environmental “red tape” was unnecessary and the hurdles put in place to conserve natural resources stifled jobs and economic growth.

Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the linkage between modern science and the declining health of the environment, soured the relationship between scientific scholars and the federal government. It became evident that the now ex-President had no intentions of incorporating intellectual studies that would protect our decaying country. Tensions escalated, and practical safeguards were ignored. At the peak of the Trump presidency, emissions soared to their highest number since 2014, totaling 5.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide dispersed into the atmosphere.

Analysis 

The White House website states that “President Biden will take swift action to tackle the climate emergency. The Biden Administration will ensure we meet the demands of science, while empowering American workers and businesses to lead a clean energy revolution.”

We must have an administration in place that respects the opinions of those who have dedicated their lives studying environmental impacts. They will be the ones to most accurately depict how to move forward combating environmental damage attributed to climate change, rising greenhouse emissions and other “acts of god” which are a direct result of environmental negligence.

Biden is hopeful that the changes mandated in the E.O. will repair the relationship with the scientific community. He is asking them to take a leadership role in the ratification of environmental policies, which will play a vital role in present and future policy reconstruction. Failure to mend frayed relationships between government and science could have devastating consequences for future public policy making.

The Executive Order ““Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.”  can be found Here

Learn More:

Friedman, L. (2021, March). EPA to review attacks on science under Trump. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/24/nation/epa-review-attacks-science-under-trump/

Gardner, T. (2021). Trump’s EPA finalizes last minute limits on science used in rulemaking. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-science/trumps-epa-finalizes-last-minute-limits-on-science-used-in-rulemaking-idUSKBN29A0BY

Hahn, J. (2020, July). Trump’s NEPA Rollback Favors More Pollution and Less Community Input. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/trumps-nepa-rollback-favors-more-pollution-and-less-community-input

National Environmental Law Center https://nelconline.org/

Project NEPA  https://protectnepa.org/

The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/

Biden and the Conflict in Ukraine

Biden and the Conflict in Ukraine

Foreign Policy

Brief #108 

Biden and the Conflict in Ukraine

By Will Solomon

April 15,2021 

Summary:

The last several weeks have seen a significant escalation of tensions in Eastern Ukraine, a focal point of confrontation between the United States/NATO, and Russia. It has been reported that Russia has amassed troops on the Ukrainian border, with some estimates suggesting as many as 40,000 are currently stationed there. Russia has publicly claimed their troop movements are due to NATO provocations. Much of Eastern Ukraine, a predominately Russian-speaking region, has been effectively controlled by Russian-backed separatists since 2014.

In response, the European Union, United States, and NATO have assured Ukraine of support. Ukraine is not a NATO member, but the US has supplied weapons to the country, and NATO has been involved with training of Ukrainian military units.

Because Eastern Ukraine has become a focal point for antagonism between Russia and the West, the conflict conveys both immense symbolic importance, and potentially, were it to escalate, the alarming prospect of more severe military confrontation.

 

Analysis:

The situation in Ukraine is complex and difficult to understand without knowledge of the long and complex history of the region. The history extends a long way, but of particular relevance was a deal apparently broached in 1990, during German reunification negotiations, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. This agreement was fairly quickly abrogated by NATO, as numerous former Warsaw Pact countries were brought into the organization. While Ukraine is not presently a NATO member, membership has been a prospect for over a decade. Popular support for joining has evidently grown in recent years, and many segments of Ukrainian leadership clearly desire membership.

Historically and presently, major geopolitical rivalries have acknowledged spheres of influence and the maintenance of delicate balances of power. Ukraine has a particularly close historical relationship with Russia, and so the prospect of further NATO encroachment on the Russian border is understandably seen as a threat to the Putin regime. This is not to suggest Russian movement in Ukraine is justified, but to recognize the conflict exists within a complex set of international relationships, and that NATO and the US have some role in creating the current situation. (Notably, for these and other reasons, at the start of the present conflict in 2014, President Obama chose not to supply Ukraine directly with lethal weapons, so as not to exacerbate the conflict in that way—a policy rescinded by the Trump administration).

It might also be acknowledged that the development (and Western fostering) of Ukrainian nationalism, in opposition to Russia, has some ugly and volatile undercurrents. One has been the rise of an anti-Russian far right in Ukraine, symbolized by groups like the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. While hardly indicative of all opposition to Russia within Ukraine, such hardliners are increasingly legitimized by aggressive Western military support.

While many observers oppose Putin’s tactics, the fact remains that military confrontation between Russia and NATO could quickly spiral into catastrophe, and that  the induction of Ukraine into NATO—are going to fuel a budding US/Russia confrontation. Again, despite American and Western opinions of Putin, Russia maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, in a world in which nuclear regulatory agreements are increasingly coming apart, and nuclear modernization and even re-armament are proceeding dangerously.

Biden has generally taken a hard line towards Russia, both through his campaign and early presidency. Just last month, he controversially referred to Putin as a “killer” in an interview, prompting the Russians to recall their ambassador. This said, recent reports suggest Biden has made some diplomatic overture to Putin in the hopes of holding a summit on issues of joint interest: “The Kremlin said in its account of the call that Biden told Putin he wanted to normalize relations and to cooperate on arms control, Iran’s nuclear program, Afghanistan and climate change.” If true, this diplomatic rapprochement will presumably involve discussions around Ukraine, and will hopefully be a first step towards de-escalation in the region.

Engagement Resources:

https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing.”

https://www.democracynow.org — “Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues.”

https://thebulletin.org — “At our core, the Bulletin is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a bimonthly magazine. But we are much more. The Bulletin’s website, iconic Doomsday Clock, and regular events help advance actionable ideas at a time when technology is outpacing our ability to control it. The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these topics is a driving belief that because humans created them,

The Future of the Republican Party, Part 1

The Future of the Republican Party, Part 1

Brief # 17 Elections and Politics

The Future of the Republican Party, Part 1

by William Bourque

April 14, 2021

On January 20th, 2021, a large part of the country collectively sighed  relief.  After  days of tumult and chaos, President Trump had finally left office, and for what felt like the first time in months, we could see a light at the end of the tunnel.  However, we were quickly reminded that just because President Trump was out of office didn’t mean that his influence and rhetoric would disappear.  However, throughout the past several months it has been made abundantly clear that the “Trumpism” is here to stay, at least for now.  With that in mind we will begin an in-depth series on our predictions for the future of the Republican Party, whether that includes former President Trump or not.

Even before President Trump left office, we knew he would leave a lasting impact on the future of this nation.  The January 6th insurrection was a shock to the system of every American, and it wasn’t hard to see that Trump was the root of all the hate that was spewed that day.  However, it is notable to look at the reaction of many Republican Senators and Congresspeople after the insurrection. For most of them their  first words weren’t to denounce the President, but rather to misdirect the attention to the left and, for folks like Josh Hawley, to continue to insist that the election was “stolen.”

With the Senate and House having a Democratic majority and Democrats controlling the house, Republicans have been scrambling to assert themselves in  Congress with little success.  Their former President hasn’t had much to say.   Trump has made only a few public appearances since he left office, and in these appearances he hasn’t provided much new material, mostly just chatter about “Sleepy” President Biden and the “radical left.”

The Trump wing of the party has begun to lose a significant amount of credibility, with many coming under-fire for their support of the former President.  Those like Josh Hawley, whose remarks after the insurrection drew heavy scrutiny, have stuck with their schtick of idolizing far right Trumpian policy and beliefs.  Some more experienced members of the party, like minority leader Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, have moved themselves away from Trump and his antics, with McConnell even actively promoting vaccination, which didn’t set right with Trump.  Other, newer faces of the party, like representatives Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, have taken to the way of Trump.

Boebert notably posted a video of herself carrying a pistol in and around the Capitol building, citing DC’s anti-conceal and  carry laws as a violation of her second amendment rights.  Eventually, Boebert did receive a permit to carry a weapon in the District of Columbia.  Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia, has also been a controversial “Trump Republican”, who has been nothing but trouble for her compatriots on the other side of the aisle.  In fact, Taylor Greene has been a subject of conversations regarding expulsion from Congress, something that has only happened to 5 members, as recently as 2002.

The party seems to be splitting into a deep division, much like during the 2016 election cycle when the mainstream members of the party were divided in their support of Trump.  The next several months will be critical in the development and formation of their platform that will ultimately frame who the party chooses to run for president.  The division of Trumpian Republicans and those who are willing to work with President Biden will be a good measuring stick of where Republicans stand currently.  We will be continuing this series on the future of the Republican party as we see how current issues begin to unfold.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Can Help Fight Restrictive Voter Suppression Bills

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Can Help Fight Restrictive Voter Suppression Bills

Policy Summary: In 2013 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case. The case was brought seeking to have Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 declared unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act had been enacted to address racial discrimination in voting that had been a longstanding feature in a number of states, particularly in the Deep South.

Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act contained a “coverage formula” which was used to determine which states and political subdivisions would be subject to other provisions in the Act. The formula singled out states that had a long history of racial discrimination in voting. If states had a “test or device” that restricted voting and did not meet statistical parameters regarding the number of voters registered compared to the number of residents eligible to vote in a county then a state became subject to additional obligations under Section 5. Under Section 5, a state had to “pre-clear” with the Federal Government any changes that they wanted to make to their election law. The purpose was to allow the Federal Government a chance to look over the proposed change and make sure that the change was not racially discriminatory in any way. However, a number of states found the federal oversight an overreach of election administration matters that they believed belonged to the states alone. Plaintiffs in Shelby County, Alabama sued but lost in federal district court and on their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. After appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Court declared Section 4(b) unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the coverage formula in use applied to facts that existed forty years ago and were not applicable to the present day. Since 4(b) was declared unconstitutional, enforcing the “pre-clearance” process contained in Section 5 became impossible. The result was that states were now free to enact new election laws without having to get approval from the Federal Government.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was first introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R.4 in the 116th Congress (2019 – 2021). No further action was taken on the bill. The bill has not been introduced in the current Congress although a number of Representatives have indicated the bill will be introduced soon and are now scheduling upcoming hearings for the bill when it eventually gets introduced. The bill will likely face an uphill battle in the Senate where most Republicans are opposed to the bill. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: While H.R.1 – the For The People Act – seeks to implement much needed reforms to a number of election laws issues (automatic voter registration, absentee ballots, election administration) the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act goes in a different direction and seeks to revive a voter protection procedure that had been rendered obsolete since 2013. The Supreme Court decision in the Shelby County case did not declare the “preclearance” process under Section 5 unconstitutional. What it did was render the coverage formula contained in Section 4(b) unconstitutional. The coverage formula was the necessary first step that got the preclearance process underway. In the aftermath of the Shelby County case states were now free to implement any election change, which is what happened. Many of the new election changes after 2013 were restrictive in nature. Voter ID laws were quickly passed (Texas, North Carolina) which likely would have run into opposition from the federal government had the preclearance process been utilized. Poll closures, voter purges and a reduction in early voting days and hours also followed. What became clear was that states could now, and did, enact election changes which made it more difficult to vote with some measures disproportionately affecting minority communities.

What the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act proposes to do is bring back a proven review process to halt or, at a minimum, scrutinize bills that may have a negative effect on minority communities. The years post – Shelby have shown that the stain of racial discrimination in the service of voter suppression is still present in a number of states. The John Lewis Act responds to the deficiencies that the Supreme Court listed in its Shelby decision. The coverage formula initially enacted deemed a state or political subdivision eligible for preclearance if there was a “test or device,” such as a literacy test, and turnout of registered voters was below 50% of those eligible to vote.  The Court stated that the coverage formula from forty years ago does not speak to current conditions. The John Lewis Act proposes a new formula where instead of a statistic of a number of eligible voters voting a state would now be subject to Section 5 preclearance based on the number of voting rights violations. A state would have to comply with preclearance procedures if the state has had 15 or more voting violations in the prior twenty – five years or 10 or more voting violations of which one was committed by the state itself. Additionally, any political subdivision (local counties) that has had three or more in the prior twenty – five years would also be required to submit to Section 5 preclearance procedures. States that do not exceed the number of violations during this set time period can then apply to a federal district court for a declaratory judgment stating that the state or political subdivision no longer needs to comply with Section 5 preclearance procedures. By knowing what they can avoid in terms of the number of voting rights violations, states can be more cautious in enacting bills that might be counted against them.

This is an important bill, maybe even more than the For The People Act, because it would currently help stem the tide of numerous restrictive voting laws that we have seen the last couple of years. And, it will help stabilize election law in the U.S. by providing guidance on what election laws in the future are permitted and what are not. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

Brennan Center for Justice – info on how the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will help strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Indivisible – non – profit group’s infopage on the need for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.

Amazon Workers Vote Against Union in Alabama

Amazon Workers Vote Against Union in Alabama

Brief # 12 Social Justice

Brief Title: Amazon Workers Vote Against Union in Alabama

Author: Lily Lady Cook

April 12, 2021

Summary: In the United States, Amazon operates 110 fulfillment centers, and has increased its employees in the past year to around 1.2 million workers worldwide. Those employed in Amazon’s fulfillment centers have become highly visible during the pandemic, as the nation becomes more aware of our essential workers and the mechanisms of the global supply chain.

Since Amazon’s inception in 1994, there have been multiple attempts at collective organizing; workers in Staten Island, Chicago, Virginia, and now Alabama have attempted but ultimately failed to unionize. In this latest instance, warehouse workers began a union voting process in Bessemer, Alabama, in coordination with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU). The results were announced earlier this month, and indicated a resounding victory for Amazon. Of the 5,800 workers, 3,215 cast ballots. 1,798 of those voted against a union and 738 in favor. In order for the union to proceed, at least 30 percent of voters would have had to indicate support; in this case, a mere 13 percent of workers were in favor.

Representatives from the RWDSU said it would ask federal officials to investigate the election on the grounds of coercion, alleging that Amazon instilled a fear of reprisals and an environment hostile to unionization. If the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) deems these claims valid, another vote can be held, but the chances of this are widely considered to be marginal.

Analysis: Amazon’s main rebuttal against unionization has been that its starting wage of $15 an hour is well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, and the company offers health care to all employees. In a statement on the election in Bessemer, the company said “[we] welcome the opportunity to sit down and share ideas with any policymaker” who wants to pass laws to federalize these same conditions. These and other reasons make it easy to understand why a warehouse worker at Amazon—with a steady job during a period of high unemployment—would vote against a union. Amazon does in fact offer a higher wage and job security than other employers, especially in economically disadvantaged areas.

Further, the RWDSU’s approach left a lot to be desired. A worker at an Amazon facility in Baltimore told the World Socialist Web Site that he felt the RWDSU’s campaign was a “publicity stunt” that “was not being motivated from the ground up.” Whether or not the RWDSU was primarily motivated by publicity, their failure to call for concrete demands during the voting period indicates that its concern with material change for workers was inexcusably absent in this campaign.

In its appeal, the biggest piece of evidence the RWDSU has against Amazon is the installation of a mailbox on warehouse property that violated NLRB orders. Workers could have incorrectly believed that Amazon would be involved in the counting of votes, thereby skewing their decision-making. In addition, it has been reported that Amazon told people false information about the voting deadlines, and held mandatory ‘union education meetings’ that pushed anti-union messaging.

One of the main unresolved questions with regards to the voting outcome is: what percent of those who voted against the union did so out of genuine fear of reprisals, and what percent simply considered the union as against their best interests?

With Biden in the White House, this is arguably the most pro-labor administration in generations (or at least, presents itself as such—Biden’s actual voting record is far less beneficial for the working class). The Biden administration released a video in March that backed workers’ right to organize without interference from their employers. This was a definitive statement in favor of labor, yet Biden stopped short of calling out Amazon by name; he stated that workers in “Alabama and all across America” were voting about union organization. Why not boldly name the company in Alabama he was so clearly referring to?

Perhaps in the absence of incendiary, direct speeches, Americans can look with hope towards pro-labor bills on the legislative docket. For one, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act is getting more attention in the wake of the Bessemer results. This proposal is included in Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan, but must be passed in the Senate to proceed. The purpose of the act is to increase labor protections by a number of measures. Some of these include allowing secondary strikes, preventing the type of mandatory meetings Amazon held to dissuade union organizing, and giving more enforcement mechanisms to the NLRB to fine employers in the case of labor violations. Moreover, it would allow individual workers to sue for back pay and damages, even allowing for direct penalization of corporate directors.

The passage of this act would require complete Democratic support and support from at least ten Republicans to pass. With the populist appeal of labor unions on the rise, enough pressure on politicians could have a decisive influence to implement the kind of ground-up results that the RWDSU failed to achieve.

Engagement Resources:

  • Call your senator to support passage of the PRO Act: This form will connect you to your senator. Ask them to vote “yes” on the PRO Act.
  • Donate the the Jobs with Justice Education Fund: This is a grassroots advocacy group that champions the rights of workers through national campaigns that include funding economic justice programs for Black workers, and alleviating the impact of coronavirus on agricultural workers.
  • Join your workplace union! Since the 1970s, union membership has declined and inequality has risen. Increased union activity can help reverse the tide.
  • Email Jeff Bezos: his email address is public. It’s unlikely he’ll respond to you directly or even read the email, but it’s worth a shot.
President Biden calls for Gun Reform in the U.S.

President Biden calls for Gun Reform in the U.S.

Brief # 11 Social Justice

President Biden calls for Gun Reform in the U.S.

By Erika Shannon

April 13, 2021

In the wake of several recent mass shootings, there is pressure on President Biden to reform gun laws here in the U.S. With mass shootings in Georgia, Colorado, Texas, and South Carolina recently, many are urging the President to do something before the violence continues to spiral out of control. While some are concerned that President Biden’s reforms will infringe on their Second Amendment rights, Biden alleges that is not the case. A major first step was the President’s nomination of David Chipman to lead the ATF, or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Chipman is a gun owner, a former ATF employee, and  staff member at Giffords, the gun reform organization founded by US Senator Mark Kelly.

On April 8th, Biden also signed three executive orders in efforts to reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals. Besides focusing on mass shootings, the President is also hoping to reduce the number of suicides and domestic violence incidents related to firearms.

The first executive order focused on “ghost guns,” which are homemade firearms assembled from parts bought online and do not have traceable serial numbers. The President’s point is that criminals are able to buy kits that allow them to assemble guns in a short period of time, and these guns are often untraceable. Since the kits are not being sold as assembled guns, they are able to bypass the system of background checks required to purchase a firearm in many states. These “ghost guns” can also allegedly be made from mostly plastic parts and 3D printers. If “ghost guns” are found at a crime scene, law enforcement will not be able to trace it due to lack of a serial number. President Biden is having the Department of Justice issue a proposed rule to help impede the sale and use of these types of firearms. While this will likely be met with opposition from Second Amendment activists, it is a good first step in getting unregistered and untraceable weapons off the streets.

The second executive order signed by President Biden had to do with stabilizing braces that can be attached to pistols. Stabilizing braces are accessories for firearms that allow the shooter to fire their weapon with one hand instead of two. While it may not seem like a big deal, it can aid those who wish to kill many people at one time; we saw this with the Boulder shooting suspect, who had a stabilizing brace attached to his Ruger AR-556 pistol. President Biden is hoping to reduce access to stabilizing braces because they have the capability to turn a pistol into a more lethal weapon. If a pistol is going to be able to operate like a rifle, the person purchasing it should be subject to the same hurdles as those who purchase rifles.

The third executive order regarding gun control involves “red flag” laws. Red flag laws allow law enforcement agencies, or family members, to petition state courts to issue an order to temporarily block people from purchasing firearms if they present a danger to themselves or others. Nineteen states already have red flag laws, and while some gun activists are concerned about the implications of a federal red flag law, that is not what President Biden has proposed with his recent executive order. Rather, he is going to have his administration draw up a model statute “red flag” law that states could adopt if they wish to. There is hope that with the existence of a model statute, it will be easier for states to pass red flag laws if they so choose.

While it is true that the recent actions taken by the President will not fix America’s problems with gun violence, there are still steps being taken in the right direction to foster positive change. Many on the right will see these as feeble attempts and allege that their rights are being violated, but Rome was not built in a day and President Biden has a long road ahead of him before we see any type of real change. These executive orders are not a violation of rights; they are an indication that there is change coming. President Biden is taking actions that he sees fit and letting the rest of his ideas hopefully fall into place over time.

There is a false narrative that the Biden Administration wants to take away peoples guns – this could not be farther from the truth. It is painfully obvious that the U.S. has a gun problem. Guns get into the wrong hands, and they will regardless of who is President. What matters are the actions taken by our leaders  to improve America’s gun violence situation.  Hopefully we will see more gun reform that respects American citizens’ Second Amendment rights while ensuring that firearms do not make it into the wrong hands. Something must be done, and it is time to give gun reform a chance.

ENGAGEMENT  RESOURCES

  • To see the fact sheet from the press conference related to the new executive orders, click here.
  • If you’re interested in how to promote gun safety and reduce gun violence, visit the Prevention Institute webpage on gun violence.
Southern Border Mass Migration at Highest Level in Decades

Southern Border Mass Migration at Highest Level in Decades

Brief #120 – Immigration

By Kathryn Baron

Southern Border Mass Migration at Highest Level in Decades

April 13,2021

Policy Summary

In March 2021, CBP apprehended at least 170,000 migrants at the US Southwest Border – the highest in 15 years and a 70% increase from February 2021. Nearly 19,000 unaccompanied children were taken into custody after crossing the border – including at port entries – quadrupling figures for the same month in 2020. Many are meeting relatives in the US and/or they are economic migrants looking for work.

Due to a change in legislation in Mexico, conditions for accepting Central American families expelled by the US have been further restricted. The US can no longer send most families with children under the age of 7 back across the border and must instead find lodging for the influx of migrants. Biden has deployed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to find additional shelter space for minors in a program  called “Operation Apollo.”

 

Analysis

Republicans in Congress have accused the Biden Administration of encouraging such an increase due to Biden’s pledge to hold more compassionate policies towards migrants than the Trump Administration. It is vital to understand the root causes of mass migration and apply country contexts in analysis and policymaking processes. The lack of economic opportunity within the Northern Triangle is the main driving force behind mass migration.

Many migrants remain undocumented but  become productive members of US communities and contribute greatly to the national economy. The US should find ways to  normalize the legal status of undocumented migrants who currently are underrepresented and undervalued politically. We will address this issue in our next U.S. RESIST NEWS Immigration Brief.

The US also should find ways to work  with countries in the Northern Triangle, e.g. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico.to  fight corruption, support justice reform, and  provide youth in these countries  with education, training and job opportunities. 

Engagement Resources

  • The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
  • The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
  • Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
  • Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Through the Department of Homeland Security’s website, this link provides additional information regarding the Obama era program.
Can Biden Push through His Healthcare Reforms?

Can Biden Push through His Healthcare Reforms?

Healthcare and Gender Policy

Brief #102

Can Biden Push through His Healthcare Reforms?

Rosalind Gottfried  

April 8, 2021  

Policy

Biden has outlined an ambitious reform of the Affordable Care Act though his ability to achieve all of his goals rests on the solidarity of the Democrats since he will not have any Republican support, and consensus is not appearing likely.  The element most at risk for failure is the issue of a public option, a proposal that was eliminated from the Bill in the Obama administration because it was too divisive.

One way to incorporate a public option is to expand Medicare to younger Americans, to age 55 or 60, and to extend care to dental and vision coverage.  This is the plan promoted by Senator Bernie Sanders.  Another proposal is in a bill by Democratic Senators Michael Bennet and Time Kaine which would expand Medicare to allow anyone to buy into it and pay a premium including small businesses. Neither of these proposals is likely to win the day.  Biden, if successful at all in incorporating a public option, will likely provide for buying insurance directly through the federal government in a system like the current insurance federal insurance exchange.  The benefit of this approach is that the government, by directly selling insurance, can set a lower price by appealing to a large segment of the insurance buying public.  In order to stay successful, private insurances would have to mirror that rate.  As a result, premiums would go down and more of the population would participate.  Biden also has increased the tax subsidy for purchasing insurance making the premiums lower.  Biden’s extension of the current enrollment period to May 15, 2021, coupled with subsidies under the American Rescue act, has resulted in over a half a million newly insured Americans to date.

Other major elements of Biden’s plan address chronically inflated healthcare costs and are also represented in other Democratic proposals.  These include:

  • Extending coverage in the 14 states not participating in Medicaid expansion, to cover 4.9 million more residents Biden wants to provide Medicaid for those making a bit more than the poverty level at the expense of the government. States could opt for this under Obama but 14 did not (all or almost all of these were red states.)
  • Ending surprise billing from out of network providers or unanticipated providers
  • Utilizing anti-trust authority to break up functional monopolies dominating the market In most places there are just a few insurance company options if you buy into the exchanges.
  • Providing for Medicare to negotiate drug prices
  • Allowing Americans to shop out of country for drugs
  • Limiting the pricing of new drugs which have no competition and limiting price increases for drugs and biotech to the rate of inflation
  • Ending tax breaks for drug advertising
  • Allowing undocumented persons to purchase insurance without a subsidy

Biden is likely to get much of this done with the support of the Democrats, but his public option is precarious and most commentators are not too hopeful.  Biden plans to reinstate the individual mandate imposing a tax penalty for anyone not obtaining health insurance.

Analysis

The public option has been a thorn in the side of healthcare reform.  It would have a tremendous impact on the insurance industry by setting a benchmark rate that other companies would have to compete with.  Unfortunately, the past is likely to be repeated in that the Obama bills the House passed contained a variety of public options and ultimately the Senate removed the option to maintain the support of the independent Senator Joe Lieberman and moderate Democrats.  The Democrats again appear divided on how to proceed with health care reform and the aspect of Biden’s proposal most in jeopardy appears, once again, to be the public option.  Biden does include a reduction of the cost of purchasing health insurance from 10% of personal income to 8.5%, which still presents a significant burden on lower and moderate family households.

Learn More

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/01/biden-considers-health-care-public-option-in-economic-recovery-plan.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/15/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-2021-special-health-insurance-enrollment-period-through-healthcare-gov/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1030086#blogHeader

https://apnews.com/article/more-than-half-million-gain-health-insurance-coverage-biden-a5064b7b39af703eac862c53516b3c84

Engagement Resources

https://www.healthcare.gov/

Official site to buy health insurance; open enrolment extended to May 15, 2021

I Heard it Through the Pipeline: An Update on Three Controversial Oil Pipeline Projects

I Heard it Through the Pipeline: An Update on Three Controversial Oil Pipeline Projects

Brief # 111 Environmental Policy

I Heard it Through the Pipeline: An Update on Three Controversial Oil Pipeline Projects 

By Jacob Morton April 12, 2021

From the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump made every effort to weaken the country’s environmental protections and accelerate profits for the fossil fuel industry. Trump’s single term was riddled with attempts to roll back, what he considered, cumbersome environmental regulations, some that had existed for decades. He appointed oil and coal lobbyists to the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Interior, who would champion the expansion of oil pipelines throughout our federal lands. The work to clean up his mess is far from over. Here is an update on three highly controversial oil pipeline projects made possible by the Trump administration: 

Keystone XL Pipeline

The Keystone XL Pipeline is an extension of the already existing Keystone Pipeline system owned and operated by the Canadian company TC Energy, which currently carries Alberta tar sands crude oil to various refineries in the central United States. The XL Pipeline extension is intended to extend from Alberta, Canada through the states of Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, to connect back with the original Keystone Pipeline system in Steel City on the Southern Nebraska border. The crude oil would then continue down to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The XL Pipeline extension would act as a shorter and more direct route from Canada to the Gulf Coast, adding a carrying capacity of about 330,000 barrels daily to the original system. The southern leg of the pipeline extension is already built, but the northern leg has seen several setbacks to its progress.

In 2008, TC Energy (then known as TransCanada) first applied for approval of the XL pipeline but was denied in 2009 by the State Department under President Barack Obama after a lengthy analysis (seven years) and public comment period which concluded that the extension “would fail to serve national interests.” On Donald Trump’s fourth day in office in 2016, the former president signed an executive order to reverse the Obama era decision and allow the pipeline project to move forward, calling for an expedited approval process. Months later, the Trump administration finalized approval of the necessary permits for the pipeline to cross the border into the U.S. The approval, however, was challenged in federal court by various groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN). The federal judge hearing the case in Montana found the issued permits to be illegal, ruling that the State Department “violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act in granting the permit request.”

Despite the court ruling, Trump took it upon himself to reissue the cross-border permits. His administration then attempted to issue various other permits necessary to the project which led to two more lawsuits from the NRDC and IEN challenging flawed environmental analyses. Local movements led by farmers, ranchers, tribal leaders, and conservation groups have managed to continue to stall the project’s progress for the past four years. Then, on President Joe Biden’s first day in office, as promised throughout his campaign, he signed an executive order officially revoking the 2019 cross-border permit issued by Trump, and effectively put an end to the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

Less than two months after issuing his executive order, attorneys general representing 21 states filed a lawsuit in Texas’ Southern District Federal Court, claiming the President’s decision “oversteps his constitutional authority.” The lawsuit claims that the President of the United States has “certain prerogatives” for taking action in foreign affairs, “But as far as domestic law is concerned, the President must work with and abide by the limits set by Congress — whether he likes them or not.” The attorneys general claim that under Article II of the Constitution, “the power to regulate international and interstate commerce resides with Congress—not the President.” Arguments in the lawsuit point to the lost tax revenues for “states, counties, local communities and school districts,” as well as the loss of “tens of thousands of potential construction jobs up and down the system.”

The claim that tens of thousands of potential jobs have been lost by the President’s executive order has been a popular argument, but both TC Energy and the State Department have said most of those jobs would be temporary. A 2014 State Department report “found that the project would require fewer than 2,000 two-year construction jobs and that the number of jobs would hover around 35 after construction.” Anthony Swift, director of the Canada project at NRDC says, “In a world where we are looking at an opportunity for a green infrastructure that would generate millions of jobs over the next decade, compared to that, this is really a distraction.”

Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, however, still disagrees with the President’s executive order and claims the decision is not grounded in science. Durbin argues that the project “has cleared countless legal and environmental hurdles,” and claims “Halting construction will also impede the safe and efficient transport of oil, and unfairly single out production from one of our closest and most important allies.”

Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, did address the President’s decision after the signing of the executive order, stating, “We are disappointed but acknowledge the President’s decision to fulfil his election campaign promise on Keystone XL.” Trudeau then went on to praise Biden, saying, ““Despite President Biden’s decision on the project, we would like to welcome other executive orders made today, including the decisions to rejoin the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, [and] to place a temporary moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

It is true that transporting oil via pipeline is generally safer than by other means, such as truck or rail, but tar sands oil is not like your typical crude oil. “Tar sands oil is thicker, more acidic, and more corrosive than lighter conventional crude,” increasing the likelihood of a leak. According to the NRDC, “between 2007 and 2010, pipelines moving tar sands oil in Midwestern states spilled three times more per mile than the U.S. national average for pipelines carrying conventional crude.” And records show TC Energy is not bucking the trend.

NRDC reports that “Since it first went into operation in 2010, TC Energy’s original Keystone Pipeline System has leaked more than a dozen times; one incident in North Dakota sent a 60-foot, 21,000-gallon geyser of tar sands oil spewing into the air.” Most recently, in October 2019, the Keystone pipeline spilled more than 378,000 gallons of tar sands oil in North Dakota. If completed, the pipeline would cross over “hundreds of rivers, streams, aquifers, and water bodies,” including Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, “which provides drinking water for millions, as well as 30 percent of America’s irrigation water.”

Farmers, ranchers, environmental groups, and tribal organizations have all expressed deep gratitude for the President’s order. Dale Marshall, national climate program manager for Canada’s Environmental Defense, says, “Killing the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all is a clear indication that climate action is a priority for the White House.” More than 90 leading scientists and economists, five unions, and world leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former president Jimmy Carter, and eight other Nobel laureates have written letters against the project. The U.S Department of Justice has not yet commented on the lawsuit.

Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline

The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement is a heavily contested oil pipeline project meant to replace the 337-mile U.S. portion of the Line 3 tar sands pipeline owned and operated by Canadian energy company, Enbridge. The new U.S line would have a slightly altered route, but for the most part, would run adjacent to the old line, extending from the Canadian border at the northeast corner of North Dakota, through Minnesota and on to Superior, Wisconsin. The project has faced numerous legal setbacks since its regulatory review process began in 2014. One occurred in June 2019, when an appeals court reversed a decision by Minnesota utility regulators who had approved the environmental impact statement for the pipeline replacement.

However, in July 2020, then President Donald Trump finalized a rollback of the decades old National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), weakening the requirements for federal review of many fossil fuel-based energy projects. The rules set forth by NEPA had remained intact for 50 years and required the government “to weigh environmental and community concerns before approving pipelines, highways, drilling permits, new factories or any major action on federal lands.” Many of Trump’s changes to the rule were meant to speed up the permitting of oil projects, including pipelines, on federal lands. One change limited the requirement to conduct a federal environmental review to only projects that have major federal funding. So, many privately funded energy projects, such as Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement, now only required limited government review if any. Many private oil projects could even conduct their own environmental impact assessments and not have to submit them for public comment.

After reapplying for the necessary permits, Enbridge gained approval from Minnesota’s independent Public Utilities Commission, citing a demonstrated demand to transport crude oil, and construction of the Line 3 replacement pipeline began in December 2020. Environmental activists and Indigenous rights groups continue to contest the project and have taken their cases to court, but so far two court rulings earlier this year have gone in Enbridge’s favor. Supporters of the pipeline replacement argue that the current Line 3 pipeline is over 50 years old and needs to be replaced to support the demand for oil transport. Leo Golden, the Vice President for Line 3 with Enbridge, says we need to take the oil that is currently being shipped by rail or truck, and get it into the pipeline. He says, “It’s best to get it back into a pipeline. Pipelines are the most efficient and safest way to move this product.”

Other supporters say they are grateful for even the temporary jobs the project brings. Josh Hegee, a pipeline business agent for the Local 49 pipeline, says, “This means a lot for the people in the area. A lot of these guys would be laid off right now. In three or four months they’re gonna put a big chunk of money in their pockets. This job could make a difference for people for years to come.” However, Opponents of the pipeline argue that “these jobs, and the overall economic activity, exist only in the short-term, and that the workforce does not solely benefit Minnesota workers.” Only about 33% of the workers are from Minnesota.

Indigenous activist and Northern Minnesota native, Tara Houska, says she understands the need for job creation in her home state, but not oil industry jobs. Houska says, “I would love to see investment from the state of Minnesota into these rural, beautiful places, the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Where’s the manufacturing jobs? Where’s the solar? Where’s the wind? Where are all these places and spaces that we could be creating, these really good long-term jobs?” The portion of the line that veers away from its original route crosses “over lands previously untouched,” and “goes through areas where tribes have long-standing treaty rights for fishing and hunting, in addition to harvesting wild rice.” Many feel a spill could be devastating. Houska says, “That wild rice is so sacred to our people. It’s at the heart of who we are. It is the center point of our culture, and our identity as a people.”

On March 23, 2021, The Minnesota Department of Commerce, along with the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, and several other Indigenous and environmental groups, argued before the Minnesota Court of Appeals that Enbridge failed to show long-term need for the Line 3 replacement project. Katherine Hinderlie, an attorney for the Minnesota Department of Commerce, says, “Enbridge demonstrated demand to transport crude oil, not demand for the crude oil itself.” Hinderlie argues that “The demanders of crude oil are refineries, and therefore the department believes you should look to refinery demand for crude oil,” adding, “Space on the pipeline is driven by oil producers’ desire to sell and ship as much oil as they can.”

Two of the three judges hearing the case have expressed similar concern regarding the demonstration of demand. Judge Lucinda E. Jesson admitted, “I really struggle with seeing where the forecast is for demand in 15 years. When I looked at these reports and the data, I expected to see not just high projections going to 2030 or pipeline capacity going to 2035, but actually… what’s the demand, and I don’t see any of that.” Judge Paul M. Reyes Jr. agreed that he felt Enbridge and the Public Utilities Commission failed to provide evidence of an actual demand for more oil, rather than simply a demand for transporting the oil. Reyes also questioned whether the Commission used “stale data” to evaluate the pipeline’s potential environmental impact, noting the evolution in climate change policy in recent years.

Protesters continue to organize and continue to be arrested. Opponents of the pipeline have pressured President Biden to revoke a federal water permit for the project, much like his executive order that shut down the Keystone XL pipeline. Enbridge says the case is different from Keystone XL; they are not installing a new line, just a replacement, and “that decision will have no effect on Line 3 because it is already operating.” The Minnesota Court of Appeals is expected to issue a decision by June 2021.

Byhalia Connection Pipeline

The Byhalia Connection Pipeline project is a crude oil pipeline project led by Plains All American Pipeline L.P. in partnership with Valero Energy Corporation. The pipeline approved late in the Trump administration, would carry crude oil nearly 49 miles from Memphis, Tennessee to a junction just over the border in Marshall County, Mississippi. This connection would extend the larger Diamond Pipeline that flows from Cushing, Oklahoma into Valero’s Memphis Refinery, onwards to connect with the Capline Pipeline running south from Central Illinois to the U.S. Gulf Coast. By making this connection from the Valero refinery in southwest Memphis to the junction in Mississippi, Plains and Valero would be able to increase the flow capacity of their Diamond Pipeline from 200,000 barrels to 420,000 barrels per day, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Opposition to the pipeline has grown since it was first proposed, fearing the increased capacity will only result in more air pollution from the refinery and increased risk of oil spills above the region’s major aquifer and drinking water supply. Southwest Memphis and Shelby County residents have noticed that over the years they have seen industry investment rise and community investment decline in the area. The nearly all-Black neighborhoods of southwest Memphis are encircled by an oil refinery, airport, steel mill and power plants. According to the most recent National Emissions Inventory, compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency, “Sites in southwest Memphis accounted for 94% of all Shelby County’s 6.6 million total tons” of “criteria air pollutants” over the past three years.

In addressing the safety concerns of a pipeline extension, Valero says, “As part of our Diamond joint venture, we have safely owned and operated pipelines in and around Memphis without incident.” Valero’s track record in Memphis, however, is not so clean. According to state and federal agency records, between 2010 and 2012, numerous incidents at Valero’s Memphis facilities have resulted in two separate worker deaths, “1,500-gallons of diesel released into the harbor by a barge operator, 440 pounds of bleach into the ground, 528 pounds of hydrogen cyanide in the air and [an explosion that released] 500 pounds of sulfur dioxide.”

In January 2020, Valero leaked 800 gallons of crude oil near the proposed junction site by the Mississippi border where the Byhalia connection would extend to. Valero is also “under a federal consent decree agreement as of a $2.9 million settlement with the EPA in December, for non-compliance with gas and diesel fuel sampling at some sites, including Memphis, and non-compliance with emissions reductions standards regarding its fuel products at other sites, including a terminal across the Mississippi River in West Memphis, Arkansas.”

On top of this poor record, Valero admitted in February that its insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover potential operating hazards. The company blamed unreasonable coverage rates. The Byhalia Connection Pipeline would run atop Memphis’ drinking water supply, The Memphis Sands Aquifer, which sits hundreds of feet below the surface and capped by a protective layer of clay. Scientists have already found at least 16 breaches in that clay cap, elevating the risk of potential contamination.

In seeking permanent easement status for the route of the pipeline, Byhalia has filed eminent domain claims for at least 67 parcels. Scottie Fitzgerald, lifelong resident of the area, owns two of those parcels, handed down to her by her mother who spent her last social security checks paying off the property taxes. Fitzgerald left her job to take care of her mother for four years before losing her to breast cancer, along with “About a whole neighborhood of people [who] ended up with breast cancer,” all of whom Fitzgerald claims lived within walking distance of each other in their town next to the Valero refinery and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Riverside Park.

Shelby County Mayor, Lee Harris, says he is opposed to the Byhalia Connection Pipeline, and some of those 67 properties are owned by the County, so a vote by County commissioners could create a barrier to the project. Fitzgerald and several other families are fighting the project in court with the help of a pro-bono lawyer, the Southern Environmental Law Center and a group called Memphis Community Against the Pipeline (MCAP). Representatives of Plains L.P. say they “have also begun to evaluate other routes if we cannot purchase these properties,” and that “These alternative routes will cross other properties owned by Shelby County residents or businesses.” Plains has signaled they are moving forward with the project and argue that with this pipeline extension, “We will be paying property taxes for seven miles of line, which will equate to millions in taxes over the decades the line will be in service.” Plains and Valero already pay only a quarter of the assessed taxes on the properties they own in Memphis due to a “payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement” granted to them by the Economic Development Growth Engine Board.

U.S. Representative Steve Cohen (D – TN) has requested that President Biden consider revoking the pipeline’s federal permit, but it is unclear whether that request is being considered. A spokesperson for the administration has said that “The administration’s policy involves approval on a case-by-case basis, … based on energy needs, the creation of union jobs, and Biden’s goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.” It was not specified whether those determinations include pipelines with existing federal approval. Plains and Valero claim the pipeline connection “will help strengthen the region’s economic vitality and America’s energy independence.” The Byhalia Connection’s web page states that the pipeline “is currently in the pre-construction and easement acquisition phase of the project. We’re targeting to start construction in 2021 and be in service approximately nine months later.”

Jason Pearson, a longtime pastor in the Westwood neighborhood of Memphis says now is the time for decisive action, “This is the watershed moment. Are you going to stand with poor and low-wealth people and help them to have clean air, help them to keep oil out of their soil? Or are you going to stand with someone who’s going to give the city money? Are we that desperate for financial prosperity that we’re willing to risk the health of our people?” Pearson’s daughter, Kimberly Pearson, a teacher at Central High School in Memphis, recently reminded those loyal to big business in the region, “You can’t drink money. You can’t inhale money. You need to get your priorities straight.” The movement to resist the pipeline is gaining more and more support, largely thanks to the Pearson family. Recent supporters include former Vice President Al Gore and activist/actors Danny Glover and Jane Fonda.

Engagement  Resources

Memphis Community Against the Pipeline (memphiscap.org)

  • Memphis Community Against the Pipeline is fighting the multi-billion-dollar crude oil Byhalia Pipeline. The company seeks to profit $7B in yearly revenue while risking the drinking water of the community and forcibly taking private land.

 

Honor The Earth (honorearth.org)

  • Honor The Earth began in 1993 with the mission to create awareness and support for Native environmental issues and to develop needed financial and political resources for the survival of sustainable Native communities. Honor The Earth has re-granted over two million dollars to over 200 Native American communities.

 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC.org)

  • Whether in California or Chicago, India or Canada, we help protect communities around the world. We combine the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and advocates with the power of more than three million members and online activists to confront our planet’s most pressing problems.

 

Learn More References

Beitsch, R. (2020, July 15). Trump finalizes rollback of bedrock environmental law NEPA. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/507536-trump-finalizes-rollback-of-bedrock-environmental-law-nepa?rl=1

Byhalia Pipeline LLC. (2020, December 18). Byhalia Connection. Retrieved March 27, 2021, from https://byhaliaconnection.com/about-project/

Cole, B. (2021, March 18). Joe Biden exceeded his authority in CANCELING Keystone XL PIPELINE Says lawsuit. Retrieved March 29, 2021, from https://www.newsweek.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-oil-joe-biden-climate-change-lawsuit-1577088

Cole, B. (2021, March 24). Mitch McConnell Decries ‘Left-Wing signaling’ On Keystone XL Amid Joe Biden Power Lawsuit. Retrieved March 29, 2021, from https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mitch-mcconnell-decries-left-wing-signaling-on-keystone-xl-amid-joe-biden-power-lawsuit/ar-BB1eV40N?ocid=uxbndlbing

Denchak, M. (2021, January 20). What is the Keystone XL Pipeline? Retrieved March 29, 2021, from https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline#controversy

Enbridge Inc. (2021). Line 3 replacement Project (U.S.). Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.enbridge.com/line3us

Funke, D. (2021, January 24). Fact-check: Is Biden ‘Destroying 11,000 Jobs’ by Revoking Keystone Pipeline? Retrieved March 29, 2021, from https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/nation-world/2021/01/24/fact-check-is-biden-destroying-11000-jobs-by-revoking-keystone-pipeline/323521007/

Gillies, R. (2021, January 20). Keystone XL pipeline halted as Biden revokes permit. Retrieved March 29, 2021, from https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/work-keystone-xl-pipeline-suspended-ahead-biden-action-75371464

Hughlett, M. (2021, March 23). Oil demand, future of Enbridge Line 3 argued before appeals court. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/oil-demand-future-enbridge-line-203200588.html

Ibrahim, M. (2021, March 23). Need for disputed line 3 oil Pipeline argued in Minnesota Court of Appeals. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.twincities.com/2021/03/23/need-for-disputed-line-3-oil-pipeline-argued-in-minnesota-court-of-appeals/

Macaraeg, S. (2021, March 03). Near Byhalia Pipeline planned connection Point, Valero leaked 800 gallons of crude oil in 2020. Retrieved March 27, 2021, from https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/local/2021/03/02/planned-byhalia-site-valero-leaked-800-gallons-crude-oil-2020/6885232002/

Macaraeg, S. (2021, March 25). Toxic air. Insufficient Monitors. Why Memphis Families fighting Byhalia pipeline have had enough. Retrieved March 27, 2021, from https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/03/25/black-families-square-off-big-oil-byhalia-pipeline-struggle/6965953002/

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2021, February 11). Enbridge line 3 pipeline replacement project. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/regulations/enbridge-line-3-pipeline-replacement-project

Money, J. (2021, March 19). States fight President Biden’s decision to revoke Keystone XL pipeline permit. Retrieved March 29, 2021, from https://www.oklahoman.com/story/business/2021/03/18/states-sue-biden-over-keystone-xl-pipeline-presidential-authority/4749443001/

Peterson, L. (2020, January 09). Trump aims major rollback of landmark U.S. environmental law. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.radio.com/wccoradio/articles/feature-article/trump-aims-major-rollback-of-landmark-us-environmental-law

Spewak, D. (2021, March 26). In northern Minnesota, the line 3 oil pipeline remains a lightning rod for debate. Retrieved March 30, 2021, from https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/in-northern-minnesota-the-line-3-oil-pipeline-remains-a-lightning-rod-for-debate/89-06e0f03b-94d6-473c-a96f-8943c58d7a56

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest