#Senator Susan Collins

[filosofablogger]

A Beacon of Light and Hope

A Beacon of Light and Hope

Yesterday was a red-letter day for human rights in the U.S. Senate.  The senate passed a bill, the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA), that, if it passes in the House of Representatives, will codify protection for same-sex marriage.  Now, that in itself is an accomplishment worthy of a big WHOO HOO!!!  But even more encouraging, the bill was passed by a margin of 62-37 with 12 Republicans voting in…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

According to multiple sources familiar with the Tuesday lunch meeting, McConnell warned GOP senators that they could face “incoming” from the “center-right” if they signed onto Hawley’s bill. He also read off a list of Senators who won their races amid heavy financial support from the Senate Leadership Fund, an outside group tied to the GOP leader that spends big on TV ads in battleground Senate races. On that list of senators: Hawley himself, according to sources familiar with the matter.

McConnell has long been a chief opponent of tighter campaign finance restrictions. But there’s also no love lost between McConnell and Hawley, who has long criticized the GOP leader and has repeatedly called for new leadership atop their conference. Just on Tuesday, Hawley told CNN that it was “mistake” for McConnell to be “standing with” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in their push to tie Ukraine aid to an Israel funding package.

Hawley’s new bill, called the Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act, is aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that loosened campaign finance laws – an effort that aligns the conservative Missouri Republican with many Democrats. Hawley’s bill would ban publicly traded corporations from making independent expenditures and political advertisements – and ban those publicly traded companies from giving money to super PACs.

In an interview, Hawley defended his bill and said that corporate influence should be limited in elections.

“I think that’s wrong,” Hawley told CNN. “I think it’s wrong as an original matter. I think it’s warping our politics, and I see no reason for conservatives to defend it. It’s wrong as a matter of the original meaning of the Constitution. It is bad for our elections. It’s bad for our voters. And I just think on principle, we ought to be concerned.”

According to a list of Senators obtained by CNN, McConnell singled out a number of lawmakers who benefited from his outside group over the last three cycles: Mike Braun of Indiana, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine, Steve Daines of Montana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Ted Budd of North Carolina, JD Vance of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

In 2018, Hawley benefited from more than $20 million from McConnell’s group.

McConnell’s office declined to comment.

[minnesotafollower]

Bipartisan Group of U.S. Senators Call for Reassessment of So-Called Havana Syndrome 

On April 12 a bipartisan group of eight U.S. Senators sent a letter to President Biden calling for a “renewed assessment . . . to identify the cause behind directed energy attacks” . . . and “review of the March 2023 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of AHHs.”[1] This letter said, “Most recently, some . . . [former intelligence officials, service members and diplomats] have told Congress…

[ivovynckier]

Come to think of it, Susan Collins, the Republican Senator from Maine, will be mightily disappointed on Tuesday. The woman has turned being disappointed in The Donald into a career.

[radiofreederry]

A smart political operator would appoint Susan Collins to something to free up her Senate seat for a Democrat but somehow I feel like she means Mitt Romney at Commerce or something

[kp777]

Republican senator Susan Collins says she will not vote for Trump

[mariacallous]

Congress is moving closer to putting US election technology under a stricter cybersecurity microscope.

Embedded inside this year’s Intelligence Authorization Act, which funds intelligence agencies like the CIA, is the Strengthening Election Cybersecurity to Uphold Respect for Elections through Independent Testing (SECURE IT) Act, which would require penetration testing of federally certified voting machines and ballot scanners, and create a pilot program exploring the feasibility of letting independent researchers probe all manner of election systems for flaws.

The SECURE IT Act—originally introduced by US senators Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican—could significantly improve the security of key election technology in an era when foreign adversaries remain intent on undermining US democracy.

“This legislation will empower our researchers to think the way our adversaries do, and expose hidden vulnerabilities by attempting to penetrate our systems with the same tools and methods used by bad actors,” says Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The new push for these programs highlights the fact that even as election security concerns have shifted to more visceral dangers such as death threats against county clerks, polling-place violence, and AI-fueled disinformation, lawmakers remain worried about the possibility of hackers infiltrating voting systems, which are considered critical infrastructure but are lightly regulated compared to other vital industries.

Russia’s interference in the 2016 election shined a spotlight on threats to voting machines, and despite major improvements, even modern machines can be flawed. Experts have consistently pushed for tighter federal standards and more independent security audits. The new bill attempts to address those concerns in two ways.

The first provision would codify the US Election Assistance Commission’s recent addition of penetration testing to its certification process. (The EAC recently overhauled its certification standards, which cover voting machines and ballot scanners and which many states require their vendors to meet.)

While previous testing simply verified whether machines contained particular defensive measures—such as antivirus software and data encryption—penetration testing will simulate real-world attacks meant to find and exploit the machines’ weaknesses, potentially yielding new information about serious software flaws.

“People have been calling for mandatory [penetration] testing for years for election equipment,” says Edgardo Cortés, a former Virginia elections commissioner and an adviser to the election security team at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

The bill’s second provision would require the EAC to experiment with a vulnerability disclosure program for election technology—including systems that are not subject to federal testing, such as voter registration databases and election results websites.

Vulnerability disclosure programs are essentially treasure hunts for civic-minded cyber experts. Vetted participants, operating under clear rules about which of the organizer’s computer systems are fair game, attempt to hack those systems by finding flaws in how they are designed or configured. They then report any flaws they discover to the organizer, sometimes for a reward.

By allowing a diverse group of experts to hunt for bugs in a wide range of election systems, the Warner–Collins bill could dramatically expand scrutiny of the machinery of US democracy.

The pilot program would be a high-profile test of the relationship between election vendors and researchers, who have spent decades clashing over how to examine and disclose flaws in voting systems. The bill attempts to assuage vendors’ concerns by requiring the EAC to vet prospective testers and by prohibiting testers from publicly disclosing any vulnerabilities they find for 180 days. (They would also have to immediately report vulnerabilities to the EAC and the Department of Homeland Security.)

Still, one provision could spark concern. The bill would require manufacturers to patch or otherwise mitigate serious reported vulnerabilities within 180 days of confirming them. The EAC—which must review all changes to certified voting software—would have 90 days to approve fixes; any fix not approved within that timetable would be “deemed to be certified,” though the commission could review it later.

A vendor might not be able to fix a problem, get that fix approved, and get all of its customers to deploy that fix before the nondisclosure period expires.

“Updates to equipment in the field can take many weeks, and modifying equipment close to an election date is a risky operation,” says Ben Adida, the executive director of the vendor VotingWorks.

Some vendors might also chafe at the bill’s legal protections for researchers. The legislation includes a “safe harbor” clause that exempts testing activities from the prohibitions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and bars vendors from suing researchers under those laws for accidental violations of the program’s terms.

There is also a funding question. The SECURE IT Act doesn’t authorize any new money for the EAC to run these programs.

“I hope Congress accounts for the necessary funding needed to support the increased responsibilities the EAC will take on,” says EAC chair Ben Hovland. “Investments in programs like this are critical to maintaining and strengthening the security of our elections.”

Meanwhile, the bill’s prospects are unclear. Even if it passes the Senate, there is no sign of similar momentum in the House.

[simply-ivanka]

Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Cornyn (R-TX), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Todd Young (R-IN)

VOTE THESE PIECES OF SHIT OUT OF CONGRESS.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Dennis Draughon, CBC

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 2, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 03, 2024

Almost six months have passed since President Joe Biden asked Congress to appropriate money for Ukraine in a national security supplemental bill. At first, House Republicans said they would not pass such a bill without border security. Then, when a bipartisan group of senators actually produced a border security provision for the national security bill, they killed it, under orders from former president Trump. 

In February the Senate passed the national security supplemental bill with aid for Ukraine without the border measures by a strong bipartisan vote of 70 to 29. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) cheered its passage, saying: “The national security bill passed by the Senate is of profound importance to America’s security.”

The measure would pass in the House by a bipartisan vote, but House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has refused to take it up, acting in concert with Trump. 

On March 24, on Washington Week, foreign affairs journalist Anne Applebaum said: “Trump has decided that he doesn’t want money to go to Ukraine… It's really an extraordinary moment; we have an out-of-power ex-president who is in effect dictating American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign dictator or with the interests of a foreign dictator in mind.” 

On Thursday, March 28, Beth Reinhard, Jon Swaine, and Aaron Schaffer of the Washington Post reported that Richard Grenell, an extremist who served as Trump’s acting director of national intelligence, has been traveling around the world to meet with far-right foreign leaders, “acting as a kind of shadow secretary of state, meeting with far-right leaders and movements, pledging Trump’s support and, at times, working against the current administration’s policies.”

Grenell, the authors say, is openly laying the groundwork for a president who will make common cause with authoritarian leaders and destroy partnerships with democratic allies. Trump has referred to Grenell as “my envoy,” and the Trump camp has suggested he is a frontrunner to become secretary of state if Trump is reelected in 2024. 

Applebaum was right: it is extraordinary that we have a former president who is now out of power running his own foreign policy. 

For most of U.S. history, there was an understanding that factionalism stopped at the water’s edge. Partisans might fight tooth and nail within the U.S., but they presented a united front to the rest of the world. That understanding was strong enough that it was not for nearly a half century that we had definitive proof that in 1968 Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon had launched a secret effort to thwart incumbent president Lyndon Baines Johnson’s peace initiative to end the Vietnam War; Nixon had tried very hard to hide it. 

But the era of hiding attempts to undermine foreign policy ended in 2015, when 47 Republican senators openly warned Iranian officials that they would destroy any agreement Iran made with then-president Barack Obama, a Democrat, over nuclear weapons as soon as a Republican regained the White House. At the time it sparked a firestorm, although the senators involved could argue that they, too, should be considered the voice of the government.

It was apparently a short step from the idea that it was acceptable to undermine foreign policy decisions made by a Democratic president to the idea that it was acceptable to work with foreign operatives to change foreign policy. In late 2016, Trump’s then national security advisor Michael Flynn talked to Russian foreign minister Sergey Kislyak about relieving Russia of U.S. sanctions. Now, eight years later, Trump is conducting his own foreign policy, and it runs dead against what the administration, the Pentagon, and a majority of senators and representatives think is best for the nation.  

Likely expecting help from foreign countries, Trump is weakening the nation internationally to gain power at home. In that, he is retracing the steps of George Logan, who in 1798 as a private citizen set off for France to urge French officials to court popular American opinion in order to help throw George Washington’s party out of power and put Thomas Jefferson’s party in. 

Congress recognized that inviting foreign countries to interfere on behalf of one candidate or another would turn the United States into a vassal state, and when Logan arrived back on U.S. shores, he discovered that Congress had passed a 1799 law we now know as the Logan Act, making his actions a crime. 

The law reads: “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Trump’s interference in our foreign policy is weakening Ukraine, which desperately needs equipment to fight off Russia’s invasion. It is also warning partners and allies that they cannot rely on the United States, thus serving Russian president Vladimir Putin’s goal of fracturing the alliance standing against Russian aggression.  

Today, Lara Seligman, Stuart Lau, and Paul McLeary of Politico reported that officials at the meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) foreign ministers in Brussels on Thursday are expected to discuss moving the Ukraine Defense Contact Group from U.S. to NATO control. The Ukraine Defense Contact Group is an organization of 56 nations brought together in the early days of the conflict by U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and then–Joint Chiefs chair General Mark Milley to coordinate supplying Ukraine. 

Members are concerned about maintaining aid to Ukraine in case of a second Trump presidency. 

Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon and NATO official, told the Politico reporters: “There’s a feeling among, not the whole group but a part of the NATO group, that thinks it is better to institutionalize the process just in case of a Trump re-election. And that’s something that the U.S. is going to have to get used to hearing, because that is a fear, and a legitimate one.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[1americanconservative]

These 28 GOP Senators voted for continued funding to Ukraine, even though we are $33 Trillion in debt, and face a Gov shutdown. Some real shockers in this group!

1. John Barrasso (WY)

2. John Boozman (AR)

3. Shelly Capito (WV)

4. Bill Cassidy (LA)

5. Susan Collins (ME)

6. John Cornyn (TX)

7. Tom Cotton (AR)

8. Kevin Cramer (ND)

9. Mike Crapo (ID)

10. Joni Ernst (IA)

11. Lindsey Graham (SC)

12. Chuck Grassley (IA)

13. John Hoeven (ND)

14. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R)

15. John Kennedy (LA)

16. James Lankford (OK)

17. Mitch McConnell (KY)

18. Jerry Moran (KS)

19. Markwayne Mullin (OK)

20. Lisa Murkowski (AK)

21. Mitt Romney (UT)

22. Mike Rounds (SD)

23. Marco Rubio (FL)

24. Dan Sullivan (AK)

25. John Thune (SD)

26. Thom Tillis (NC)

27. Roger Wicker (MS)

28. Todd Young (IN)

[saydams]

the usa senate passed the budget that banned all aid to UNRWA and Biden signed it.

the senators who voted for this budget (preventing usa from funding UNRWA) are under the readmore. if your senator is on this list, call (202) 224-3121 and demand they find another way of funding relief to palestine.

Tammy Baldwin Wis.

Richard Blumenthal Conn.

Cory Booker N.J.

John Boozman Ark.

Katie Britt Ala.

Sherrod Brown Ohio

Laphonza Butler Calif.

Maria Cantwell Wash.

S. Capito W.Va.

Benjamin L. Cardin Md.

Tom Carper Del.

Bob Casey Pa.

Bill Cassidy La.

Susan Collins Maine

Chris Coons Del.

John Cornyn Tex.

C. Cortez Masto Nev.

Tom Cotton Ark.

Kevin Cramer N.D.

Tammy Duckworth Ill.

Dick Durbin Ill.

Joni Ernst Iowa

John Fetterman Pa.

Deb Fischer Neb.

Kirsten Gillibrand N.Y.

Lindsey Graham S.C.

Chuck Grassley Iowa

M. Hassan N.H.

Martin Heinrich N.M.

John Hickenlooper Colo.

Mazie Hirono Hawaii

John Hoeven N.D.

Cindy Hyde-Smith Miss.

Tim Kaine Va.

Mark Kelly Ariz.

Angus King Maine

Amy Klobuchar Minn.

Ben Ray Luján N.M.

Joe Manchin III W.Va.

Edward J. Markey Mass.

Mitch McConnell Ky.

Robert Menendez N.J.

Jeff Merkley Ore.

Jerry Moran Kan.

Markwayne Mullin Okla.

Lisa Murkowski Alaska

Chris Murphy Conn.

Patty Murray Wash.

Jon Ossoff Ga.

Alex Padilla Calif.

Gary Peters Mich.

Jack Reed R.I.

Mitt Romney Utah

Jacky Rosen Nev.

Mike Rounds S.D.

Brian Schatz Hawaii

Charles E. Schumer N.Y.

Jeanne Shaheen N.H.

Kyrsten Sinema Ariz.

Tina Smith Minn.

Debbie Stabenow Mich.

Dan Sullivan Alaska

Jon Tester Mont.

John Thune S.D.

Thom Tillis N.C.

Chris Van Hollen Md.

Mark R. Warner Va.

Raphael G. Warnock Ga

Elizabeth Warren Mass.

Peter Welch Vt.

Sheldon Whitehouse R.I.

Roger Wicker Miss.

Ron Wyden Ore.

Todd Young Ind.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A bipartisan group of senators reintroduced a bill to codify abortion protections on Thursday following President Biden’s call on Congress to pass legislation ensuring abortion access in his State of the Union address.

Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) reintroduced the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, which would block states from enacting laws that would impose an “undue burden” on previability abortions and protect access to contraception.

The Senators previously introduced the bill in August, with Kaine calling it a “bipartisan compromise” to ensure reproductive freedom.

Throughout 2022, Democratic attempts to advance legislation that would enshrine access to abortions into federal law failed to advance in the evenly split Senate. Republicans in support of abortion access objected to what they felt were over-encompassing bills, while moderate Democrats Sinema, who recently changed her party affiliation, and Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) opposed abolishing the filibuster in order to pass the proposed laws.

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Biden urged Congress to “restore the right that was taken away in [the overturning of] Roe v. Wade.” He also made it clear that he would veto any federal abortion bans that reached his desk.

The House passed two bills last year aimed at protecting abortion access, the Women’s Health Protection Act and the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. No Republicans voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, but a handful of GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to vote for the latter bill, which protected the ability to travel out-of-state to obtain abortion services.

While Democrats have more votes in the Senate this time around, the bill is unlikely to pass the House, where Republicans control a 222-212 majority.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kaili Joy Gray at Daily Kos:

Sure, the Republican Party wants to convince voters they really aren’t that radical when it comes to reproductive rights. But voting against a bill to protect access to birth control isn’t the way to do it. On Wednesday, almost every Senate Republican voted to block the Right to Contraception Act—legislation that should be uncontroversial and unobjectionable. Only two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted to let the bill move forward. “The right to contraception is a fundamental right, central to a person’s privacy, health, wellbeing, dignity, liberty, equality, and ability to participate in the social and economic life of the Nation,” the bill states. So yes, you can see why Republicans—who don’t value any of those things—took issue with it. Of course, that’s not the justification they’re giving. “This is a show vote. It’s not serious,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said. “It’s a phony vote because contraception, to my knowledge, is not illegal. It’s not unavailable.” Sure, it’s not illegal or unavailable now. But that’s hardly the point. The point is that there are plenty of Republicans who’ve said it should be illegal or at least unavailable or at least highly restricted.

Every Senate Republican except for Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Susan Collins (ME) voted to attack birth control and contraception by not letting the Right To Contraception Act move from the cloture stage. The vote was 51-39, 9 short of breaking the filibuster.

[darkmaga-retard]

By Timothy Jankowski

One of the more disappointing things about American politics is how much time is often spent debating policies that have no actual chance of ever being enacted in this country.

Such is the case with the recently “proposed” federal abortion ban that has apparently sent a large number of pro-life Republicans into a tizzy after Donald Trump and J.D. Vance have said they would not sign such a bill were it to be put on the desk of the president, and has them claiming they will not vote for the GOP ticket as a result.

Let's, however, look at this from a realistic angle.

In order for any bill limiting abortion to pass through Congress, whether it be a total ban or something along the lines of a requirement that only people over the age of 18 years old would be eligible to get an abortion, it would require 60 votes in the Senate to survive a filibuster.

But because we can safely assume that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would also vote against any such measures, that increases the number of Senate votes needed to 62. Currently the Republicans have 49 Senators, meaning that they would need to flip 13 Senate seats to achieve that number, assuming Collins and Murkowski were the only Republican holdouts, something I would not bet money on.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

As United States Postal Service letter carriers face increasing violence and assaults on the job, the police officers who could protect them have been sidelined by the government, a new Raw Story investigation revealed.

With letter carrier robberies skyrocketing by 543 percent between 2019 and 2022, the issue has spurred a bipartisan group of Congress members to introduce legislation aimed at providing more secure mailbox equipment and better protecting letter carriers.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who introduced the Protect our Letter Carriers Act last week, said Raw Story's investigation should urge Congress to turn the bill into law.

“The concerns highlighted in this story only increase the urgency needed in Congress to pass the bipartisan Protect our Letter Carriers Act," Fitzpatrick said in a statement to Raw Story. "The United States Postal Service must have the resources to update its outdated arrow keys and harden mailboxes. We must also increase the prosecution and lengthen sentences of individuals arrested for assaulting and robbing letter carriers. I will do whatever is necessary to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this crucial piece of legislation.”

A 2020 statute reinterpretation by the Postal Service curtailed uniformed postal police officers' ability to patrol the streets where mail crimes typically occur, restricting them to working on postal property such as post offices and distribution centers. Meanwhile, the number of postal police officers overall has shrunk from a high of more than 2,600 in the 1970s to about 450 officers today.

In a phone interview with Raw Story, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) said mail theft is "rampant" in her district and is an issue she's heard about across the country from her colleagues. Postal police officers aren't currently "doing any good being confined to postal property," Norton said.

"The spike in mail crime only reinforces my notion that we need to have postal police go wherever the crime is," Norton said.

If postal police officers began patrolling the streets again, there would be "a better chance of restricting crimes for the Postal Service," said Norton, who is a co-sponsor of the House version of the Postal Police Reform Act alongside Reps. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Ken Calvert (R-CA) and Bill Pascrell (D-NJ).

Calvert himself lost nearly $10,000 in campaign cash last year because of mail theft, Raw Story first reported.

"I think the bill has a good chance of passing not only because of what we're experiencing in the district but because this issue is nationwide," Norton said.

There's a Senate version of the Postal Police Reform Act, as well, introduced by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Susan Collins (R-ME), along with 10 other co-sponsors, including Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD).

“Postal carriers routinely deliver lifelines to Marylanders and others across the country. They should not be left vulnerable to dangerous situations that leave them and mail recipients in potential danger – from theft and the lost items," Cardin told Raw Story in a statement. "This is a growing problem that Congress should address, preferably in partnership with the USPS.”

Read Raw Story's full investigation: Letter carriers face bullets and beatings while postal service sidelines police

[kp777]

By Olivia Rosane

Common Dreams

May 15, 2024

"It's past time our leaders take this simple step and stop funding activities that are completely at odds with protecting our climate," one advocate said.

More than 200 environmental and climate advocacy groups sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday demanding that lawmakers stop funding the extraction of fossil fuels on public lands and waters.

The letter argues that Congress' annual approval of taxpayer funds to subsidize oil and gas drilling and coal mining "undermine" the international agreement reached at the United Nations COP28 climate conference last year on the need for "transitioning away from fossil fuels."

"Congress has coddled the fossil fuel industry for decades, scarring millions of acres of public lands in the process," Ashley Nunes, public lands policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "It's past time our leaders take this simple step and stop funding activities that are completely at odds with protecting our climate."

"Every year that Congress keeps supporting status quo drilling on public lands and offshore waters is a missed opportunity that locks us into a hotter and more dangerous future."

The Center for Biological Diversity was one of 234 groups behind the letter, which was addressed to Senate Appropriations Chair Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Appropriations Vice Chair Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), House Appropriations Chair Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and House Appropriations Ranking Member Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). Specifically, the letter asks that the lawmakers "zero out funding for all fossil fuel extraction on public lands and offshore waters" in the Department of the Interior's budget for the coming fiscal year.

"Despite the urgency of the climate crisis, year after year, and regardless of the which political party retains control of Congress, Congress continues to direct the Department of the Interior to authorize fossil fuel extraction on our public lands and oceans," the letter states. "This zombie funding continues despite its harmful and lasting impacts to tribal nations, frontline communities, and other groups, as well as its harm to public health, public lands, the climate, and wildlife populations."

The FY 2024 budget, for example, directed more than $160 million toward fossil fuel management on public lands and waters. The amount earmarked for oil and gas management on public lands alone jumped by almost 90% from 2016 to 2023, from $59.7 million to $112.9 million.

Despite calling the climate crisis an "existential threat," U.S. President Joe Biden has approved almost 10,000 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in three years, a similar rate to his predecessors and more in his first two years than former President Donald Trump. Under Biden's watch, the U.S. became the leading producer of oil both in the world and in human history. The groups who signed the letter attributed this in part to Congress' "status quo funding" of fossil fuel programs on public lands.

The letter comes as humanity just sweltered through its hottest year on record, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels made a record jump, and a vast majority of top climate scientists recently surveyed said they predicted 2.5°C of warming by 2100, largely because of a lack of "political will" to phase out fossil fuels and embrace the renewable energy transition.

Indeed, the latest Production Gap analysis concludes that governments' plans through 2030 would produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels that would be compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.

"Climate scientists around the world are pleading for change, but Congress continues to let fossil fuel polluters run wild on our public lands," Nunes said. "Every year that Congress keeps supporting status quo drilling on public lands and offshore waters is a missed opportunity that locks us into a hotter and more dangerous future."

In particular, the green groups made the following recommendations for FY2025:

Ending Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funding for new oil and gas approvals;

Ending BLM funding for new coal leases and permits;

Ending Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) funding for all new oil and gas exploration, production, and drilling leases;

Ending the provision of the Inflation Reduction Act that requires Interior to put up at least 2 million acres of land and 60 million of water annually for oil and gas leasing before it can install any new wind and solar;

Putting $80 million toward BLM renewable energy programs; and

Putting $80 million toward BOEM renewable energy programs.

"Congress must end business as usual funding of fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters," the letter concludes. "If Congress fails to change course, it will simply be impossible to limit warming to below 1.5°C and ensure a livable planet for future generations."