In The News
National Journal: McConnell Pushes for Multiyear Highway Bill
Tuesday July 14, 2015
Fawn Johnson
Senate GOP leaders are homing in on a multiyear highway bill that could resolve the perennial problem of how to fund surface transportation until well past the next presidential election.
The measure would be paid for through a potpourri of revenue raisers that have been cobbled together throughout the Republican conference. Lawmakers say Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will make the call about which provisions make it in to the final bill, a decision that will determine how long the highway authority can be extended. Some estimates put it as long as four years.
McConnell "has got a list of things that I think represent a substantial effort," said John Thune, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate. "All of us are involved."
The majority leader presented the list of potential offsets to his caucus on Tuesday. Several Senate committees have been tasked with finding ways to squeeze money out of the current federal budget to pay for a long-term highway bill, but this was the first time that all of the options were placed on the table at one time. The reception to the list was friendly enough that McConnell said after the meeting he was "fairly optimistic" that the Senate could pass a highway bill before the end of the month.
McConnell has reserved floor time next week for the highway bill—and the week after, if needed. He is also conferring with prominent Senate Democrats on the list of offsets to ensure that they won't derail the measure once it is on the floor.
Democrat Barbara Boxer, who cosponsors the six-year policy portion of the highway bill, said she is carefully reviewing the GOP's list of possible offsets and has found no red flags for Democrats. "I'm encouraged by what I see," she said.
Democrats have been concerned that the Republicans would propose cutting entitlement programs like Medicare or Pell Grants in order to pay for the highway bill. Thune said that idea is off the table. Republicans clearly want a bill that Democrats can swallow.
The Senate's highway bill is coming together as House Republicans are pushing for a different solution. They are proposing a short-term extension of highway authority until Dec. 18. The stopgap would allow House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to craft a long-term international tax bill that, in theory, would also pay for a long-term highway bill.
Republicans in the Senate are turning up their noses to Ryan's plan. "I'm not very enthusiastic about it," said Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. "We've got a good list of pay-fors. There's no phony pay-fors involved. We hope we can solve this."
The short-term extension in the House costs about $8 billion, and Ryan has proposed a series of tax tweaks to come up with the cash. They include changes to mortgage-reporting requirements, estate inheritance reporting, and tax-return due dates. Some of those same tax-compliance provisions are in the list of Senate options as well, but Thune says lawmakers will need more than that to get in the ballpark of a two-year or four-year bill.
Huffington Post: Senate GOP Keeps Eye On Long-Term Highway Bill As Clock Winds Down
Tuesday July 14, 2015
Laura Barron-Lopez
WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday remained adamant that in the coming weeks, they will act on a long-term fix for the federal fund that pays for the nation’s transportation system.
Despite the looming July 31 deadline, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said there is support in both parties to reach a deal by the end of the month on a multiyear bill to pay for the Highway Trust Fund.
“There is bipartisan enthusiasm for a multiyear highway bill,” McConnell told reporters after meeting with his conference. “We have had some conversations inside our conference about a way to pay for that, and I’ve also had some conversations with prominent Democrats who are involved in this issue. We are hoping we will be able to come together … and I’m fairly optimistic we can do that.”
The race against the clock comes as Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx issued a dire warning to state officials. Without a funding solution, Foxx said, the agency responsible for dolling out funds to states will have to furlough employees, meaning states will not have access to “personnel who assist with all highway projects” or access to those who process and approve projects.
Pressed on whether Senate Republicans would be able to offer a multiyear plan in time that would get enough Democrats on board, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he thinks “it would be hard for Democrats not to be in favor” since they’ve made it clear they support a long-term solution.
Thune admitted, however, that no agreement had been reached between Republicans on how to pay for a multiyear bill. If the Senate were to push for a six-year bill that was put forward by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last month, they would have to come up with nearly $100 billion to make up for the ailing fund.
“We have to get an agreed-upon set of offsets. We made a lot of headway talking about that,” Thune said. “It’s fair to say, yes, we want something more than just a short-term extension.”
Republicans in the House are on a different trajectory, however, moving on a five-month extension that would carry the highway fund to the end of the year. Senate Republicans aren’t settling for that, and are betting the House will come to the table on a longer bill.
“We will work it out,” Thune said of differences with the House.
"I think it’s going to depend upon how much [money] we have, and we will decide how much we can get out of that in terms of years," he said, adding that he expects McConnell to put a highway bill on the Senate floor as soon as the upper chamber wraps up business on an education bill.
No matter how fast the Senate moves, though, it will be cutting it close. There are only 13 legislative days until the current funding bill expires, which is why there is talk among some senators and their staff members about simply passing a two-month bill.
A two-month extension will get funding to the end of the fiscal year, and won’t prolong action on a multiyear bill the way the House’s plan to pass to legislation that goes to the end of the year would.
An extension to the end of the fiscal year would get rid of the need for a five-month bill, and allow the Senate to move forward with a bold six-year or multiyear bill, a Senate aide told The Huffington Post.
“They hint they’ve got something in the works, but they’ve said that before,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.
The aide said this option is being quietly discussed in the Senate as a possible way to best move forward. It would keep with McConnell’s argument against House Republicans' five-month bill, and appeal to Democrats who might be accepting of such a short extension for the sake of seeing a multiyear solution across the finish line.
Farrell Quinlan
Two big questions are before Congress, and they both need answering soon. Which is more alarming: the breathtaking scope the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers want to expand their power over all waters of the United States (WOTUS), or the cavalier, law-be-damned way in which they crafted the authority to do so?
A bill co-sponsored by Arizona Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain, S. 1140, would remind the EPA of something it forgot to do in promulgating its new rule: Obey the law.
First, a little history is in order. The 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring began raising big concerns about the pollution in our nation’s rivers and lakes. On Dec. 2, 1970, by executive order, President Richard Nixon proposed creation of an Environmental Protection Agency.
Two years later, Congress passed The Clean Water Act, charging the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers with the responsibility of keeping the "navigable" waters of the nation safe from pollution. Key word, ‘navigable.’ To the EPA, it’s merely English for carte blanche.
In two prior appearances before the U.S. Supreme Court, Rapanos v. United States and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it was hoped parameters were erected on both agencies’ understanding of "navigable."
No such luck. A rule giving the EPA and the Corps new authority -- it’s only a slight exaggeration to say – over virtually every pond and ditch in the nation goes into effect Aug. 28.
"The Clean Water Act was written to govern interstate navigable waters," said attorney Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business. "No one doubts that the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes are covered by these rules. The problem is that the agencies [EPA and Army Corps of Engineers] want their regulations to spread far upstream to places where even a toy boat couldn’t float."
There is another problem with the EPA’s new rule: The illegality of its creation.
According to regulatory expert Dan Bosch of NFIB, "They simply decided that they didn’t even need to consider the effects on small business. That analysis is required by law. It’s not optional."
Indeed, the Office of Advocacy in the U.S. Small Business Administration even agreed, publicly calling out the EPA and Army Corps, in a rare inter-agency squabble under the same executive administration.
"The rule will have a direct and potentially costly impact on small businesses. The limited economic analysis which the agencies submitted with the rule provides ample evidence of a potentially significant economic impact. Advocacy advises the agencies to withdraw the rule," wrote Dr. Winslow Sargeant, Advocacy’s former chief counsel, last year.
Former Congressman Larry Combest of Texas, who has worked on agricultural issues for more than 40 years, perfectly encapsulated the problem with the EPA’s new rule, in an article in The Hill. "Farmers, ranchers, dairymen and others, on and off the farm, are in widespread panic with the finalization of this rule because not only does it allow EPA onto their land, but it throws the gate wide open to environmental group-led citizen lawsuits that promise to carry the rule’s reach beyond what even the EPA envisioned … This rule carries with it fines under the law to the tune of $37,000 per day, but comes with absolutely no clarity for farmers as to what side of the law they are now on."
Let’s hope it never comes to all this. Senators Flake and McCain are right to take the lead on forcing the EPA to abide by the law. S. 1140 currently has 41 co-sponsors. It should have all 100 senators, each one of whom – you would think -- has a vested interest in seeing the laws they create followed by everybody.
Dean Edson
The Nebraska Association of Resources Districts, has commended Governor Pete Ricketts for leading the effort in opposition to the new Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that will significantly expand federal regulatory authority by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) over Nebraska citizens.
While NARD supports efforts to protect water quality and quantity in Nebraska, and claims a proven track record of cooperation with local residents and other agencies to do so, the group believes the Final Rule will have the federal government more involved in the daily lives of Nebraskans and will not result in improved water quality.
Rather, it will only result, the NARD says, in significant cost increases and delays in economic and management activities for landowners, homeowners, agencies and businesses.
Based upon the NRDs’ experience, conservative estimates for 404 permit requirements under the current rule already take about 18 months to process and it is not uncommon for them to cost upwards of $100,000. We believe expanding the CORPS and the EPA’s permitting authority will only add to the existing delays and increase the cost to more individuals and businesses.
Further, under the rule there is no guarantee that after incurring the additional time delays and financial cost that individuals or businesses would be granted a federal permit to enhance and use their property.
The application of the rule is not “black and white” as portrayed by the EPA, the NARD says. The rule cites that the “100-year flood plain” and “ordinary high water mark” on rivers and tributaries will be relied upon to assert categorical jurisdiction. Although this sounds definite, these benchmarks are not defined for every river and tributary in Nebraska and are not delineated on any map.
The definitions for these terms grant the EPA and the CORPS wide latitude to expand their jurisdiction. It is safe to assume that thousands of individuals, businesses, farmers, ranchers and public works projects that were once exempt from the rule, will now be subject to federal oversight and permitting.
For anyone that had erosion on their land this year due to the heavy rains or flooding, before repairs can be done you will need to check with EPA and the CORPS to see if you need a permit to repair the damage to your land, as filling a hole with dirt, may impact a newly-defined water of the U.S. under the Final Rule.
Due to the sweeping breadth of the new definitions, everyone will need to evaluate whether a permit is necessary, or whether an exemption applies, which often involves hiring legal counsel and engineers to help with the process. If you think you don’t need a permit, and the EPA or CORPS determines later that you did, you will be subject to hefty fines and penalties for making the repairs to your land without the permit.
For those that end up in these situations, the “black and white” definitions portrayed by the federal agencies will probably feel more like “black and blue” regulations for those that get caught up in the heavy hand of the federal government.
Nebraska has a successful system in place through the local Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) to allow local citizens to help craft resource management plans that have a proven track record of protecting water and land resources for current and future uses. The Nebraska state agencies also provide sound, common sense regulations to protect natural resources.
Current federal laws require the agencies in a rule-making process to consider account for impacts to small businesses and existing actions that local and state government entities may already have in place to address regulatory concerns. This is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The agencies failed to engage in this process and take these under consideration. The US Supreme Court earlier this week just ruled against EPA for ignoring this provision in their new Air Quality Regulations.
“The federal laws are clear that land use and water regulation is reserved to the states to protect and regulate. This policy has been upheld several times by the federal courts. However, the rule ignores these long-standing policies and extends the heavy-hand of the federal government into the daily lives of Nebraska citizens,” said Edson.
Will Coggin
WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency recently found itself in hot water. The New York Times revealed the agency colluded with environmental groups in a campaign to manufacture public comments in favor of a new rule that expands its own power. The agency's actions and the shenanigans of its environmentalist supporters shed light on how a bad rule can flow through the regulatory process.
The Waters of the United States rule extends the reach of EPA to regulate ponds, ditches and even large puddles under the Clean Water Act. That's bad news for farmers, ranchers, small businesses or anyone else who wants to use land under CWA jurisdiction: It costs an average of $270,000 to get the special permit required to do so, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
The downsides are clear, and the EPA's judgment was murky even before the rule. Last year, the agency threatened to fine a Wyoming man $75,000 a day for building a pond on his own property without a permit.
Almost immediately after its proposal, the rule prompted a wide opposition urging the EPA to "ditch the rule," from small businesses, farmers and ranchers, energy producers and others.
The EPA needed support for its water grab. While the EPA failed to consult with those harmed by the WOTUS rule, documents obtained by The New York Times show the EPA worked with environmental groups including the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council to manufacture public comments in its favor.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy later testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing that 87 percent of the approximately 1 million public comments her agency received were supportive. By omitting mention of the efforts (or money spent) to solicit the comments, McCarthy attempted to make it look like there was a spontaneous groundswell of support for her rule.
And that wasn't the only subterfuge behind the EPA's power grab.
A number of left-wing groups camouflaged as sportsmen-friendly organizations, including the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Trout Unlimited, also were helping the EPA to foist the water rule onto an unsuspecting public.
In July 2014, TRCP called for "broad public involvement," setting the table for the EPA's campaign to gather public comment in support. This despite the fact that the organization's support had already been touted by the EPA in an effort to make it look like a broad coalition was in favor.
These groups claim to represent sportsmen's interests — giving the rule seemingly conservative support — but they are tangled in a web of money from left-wing foundations with anti-gun and anti-agriculture agendas. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers gets most of its donations from three environmental groups, according to tax records, while TRCP gets its money from a handful of Big Labor and Big Green groups. Trout Unlimited, meanwhile, has taken tens of millions from fringe environmental groups.
A bipartisan bill to send the rule back to the EPA's drawing board already has passed the House, and a similar measure introduced by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., has gained cosponsors from both sides of the aisle in the Senate. In response, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers labeled the congressional effort "un-American."
Meanwhile, attorneys general in three states have said that state challenges to the rule are likely.
And the EPA may have violated federal law that prohibits using appropriated funds for lobbying in creating the comments. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kans., called it "a political grassroots lobbying campaign with environmental groups to manipulate the process and disregard legitimate concerns from rural America."
The EPA's brazenness in ramming through a rule with camouflaged and concocted support is concerning, even for a town where there's no shortage of dirty tricks. Congress would be wise to wash away the water rule before it does lasting damage.
Bob Hallstrom
Do rules of law apply to entities as well as individuals?
A bill co-sponsored by Sens. Deb Fischer and Ben Sasse would help re-clarify the answer we all took for granted — yes — although, at first glance, the contents of S. 1140 would appear to be completely off the subject.
First a brief bit of history. Fueled in part by Rachel Carson’s 1962 publication of “Silent Spring,” President Richard Nixon proposed creation of an Environmental Protection Agency and issued an executive order allowing it to start operation on Dec. 2, 1970.
Two years later, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, charging the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers with the responsibility for keeping the “navigable” waters of the nation safe from pollution. Navigable, however, has proved a problematic term for the agency, which has come to see it as a synonym for everything watery.
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Rapanos v. United States and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, sought — it was hoped — to give the EPA clearer guidance on what navigable is and is not.
Alas, no such luck. The EPA has now come up with a new rule, finalized this year, which broadens its definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act to include nearly every pond and ditch in the nation.
“The Clean Water Act was written to govern interstate navigable waters,” said attorney Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). “No one doubts that the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes are covered by these rules. The problem is that the agencies want their regulations to spread far upstream to places where even a toy boat couldn’t float.”
There is a bigger problem, however, with the EPA’s new rule than just its historic power grab, and that is the illegality of its creation.
According to regulatory expert Dan Bosch of NFIB, “They simply decided that they didn’t even need to consider the effects on small business. That analysis is required by law. It’s not optional.”
Even another agency under the same administration agreed — a rarity that. In an October 2014 letter to the EPA and Army Corps, the Office of Advocacy in the U.S. Small Business Administration claimed, “The rule will have a direct and potentially costly impact on small businesses. The limited economic analysis which the agencies submitted with the rule provides ample evidence of a potentially significant economic impact. Advocacy advises the agencies to withdraw the rule.”
Granting the EPA unfettered power over nearly every drop of water that falls from the sky might sell well in the urban areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but Nebraskans have a better knowledge and longer experience in dealing with the EPA, being, as we are, a net-provider-of-commodities state, not a constantly taking one.
Whatever anyone’s thought of the EPA is, that is secondary to the most important question of all: Are we a nation of laws and do those laws apply to federal agencies as well?
Senators Fischer and Sasse are to be commended for their efforts on resolving that over-arching issue, and so are the other 40 bipartisan group of senators lending their support to S. 1140. A similar measure, H.R. 1732, has already passed the U.S. House.
But you can’t help but wonder if it gets through Congress and signed by the president, will it make any difference to the EPA.
Bob Hallstrom is Nebraska state director for the National Federation of Independent Business. His office is in Lincoln
The Hill: 53 percent think feds should increase highway spending
Monday July 6, 2015
Keith Laing
A majority of U.S. residents would like to see the federal government increase its spending on the nation's roads and bridges, according to a poll that was conducted recently by The Associated Press and GFK.
The poll shows 53 percent of the nation's population think Congress "should increase spending to build and improve roads, bridges and interstate highways."
About 33 percent of U.S. residents "think current spending levels are about right," while 10 percent "would like to see less money spent on roads," according to the poll.
The findings come as lawmakers are struggling to come up with a way to pay for even an extension that would at least keep the spending levels flat past this summer ahead of a July 31 deadline for the expiration of the current infrastructure measure.
Congress has been grappling with a transportation funding shortfall that is estimated to be about $16 billion per year for a decade.
The federal government typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in approximately $34 billion annually.
Congress has been struggling to come up with a solution to the deficit since 2005, but they have not passed a transportation bill that lasts longer than two years in that span.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will take about $100 billion, in addition to the gas tax revenue, to close the gap long enough to pay for a six-year transportation funding bill.
The 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal gas tax has been the main source of transportation funding for decades, but it has not been increased since 1993, and more fuel-efficient cars have sapped its buying power.
Transportation supporters have pushed for a gas tax increase to pay for a long-term transportation bill, meanwhile, but Republican lawmakers have ruled out such a hike.
The Department of Transportation has said the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in late July or early August if Congress does not come to an agreement on an extension in the next couple of weeks.
Lawmakers have turned to other areas of the federal budget to close the transportation funding gap in recent years, resulting in temporary fixes, such as a two-month patch that was approved by lawmakers last month.
If lawmakers cannot come up with a way to pay for the long-term transportation bill by the end of July, they will likely have to settle for another short-term patch.
The AP poll found 40 percent of U.S residents "say spending on public transportation should be increased, while an equal number "say current spending is about right." The poll found 18 percent of the nation's residents "say transit spending should be cut."
Federal law currently requires that 20 percent of highway spending be set aside for transit projects.
The full poll results can be read here.
Randi Thompson
Nevada’s senior senator is putting the finishing touches on a long career in public service. Presumably, he will then come home to teach and to comment on public affairs from his unique perspective as a major participant in the governance of our great nation.
But before he does, Harry Reid has a big question left to answer: Are we still a “government of laws, and not of men,” as John Adams phrased it?
Reid can answer in the affirmative by lending his support to S.1140, a bill in the Senate that would not only curb one of the biggest power grabs by any U.S. government agency in the history of our country, but also would remind certain bureaucrats about the rule of law.
By now, every Nevada business owner is keenly aware of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule, scheduled to take effect Aug. 28, greatly expanding its authority under the Clean Water Act to include virtually every pond and ditch in the nation.
Did anyone really think two U.S. Supreme Court decisions would have succeeded in reminding the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers about their jurisdictional limits on navigable waters? (Rapanos v. United States and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) The EPA in particular has always been the most rapacious of federal agencies, and habits are the strongest force in nature.
“The Clean Water Act was written to govern interstate navigable waters,” said attorney Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business. “No one doubts that the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes are covered by these rules. The problem is that the agencies [EPA and Army Corps of Engineers] want their regulations to spread far upstream to places where even a toy boat couldn’t float.”
Equally important to its unprecedented power grab, the EPA’s new rule also violated the law, in this case the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As Harned’s colleague Dan Bosch, NFIB’s manager of regulatory affairs, put it, “The process was rigged in favor of the agencies. They simply decided that they didn’t even need to consider the effects on small business. That analysis is required by law. It’s not optional.”
Dr. Winslow Sargeant, former chief counsel for the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, agreed. “The rule will have a direct and potentially costly impact on small businesses,” wrote Sargeant in an October 2014 letter to the EPA and Army Corps. “The limited economic analysis which the agencies submitted with the rule provides ample evidence of a potentially significant economic impact. Advocacy advises the agencies to withdraw the rule.”
Whether Harry Reid agrees with the EPA rule, it was clearly promulgated with a cavalier disregard for the law, a matter that not only insults the American people, but diminishes the significant pro-business accomplishments of Reid’s Democratic predecessors.
In 1979, four Democrats — Sens. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin and John Culver of Iowa, and Reps. Neil Smith of Iowa and Andrew Ireland (then a Democrat) of Florida — teamed up to pass the Regulatory Flexibility Act. While he waited for it to land on his desk, President Jimmy Carter started advancing as many of the bill’s provisions as he could through executive actions, noting that “regulations often impose heavier burdens on small organizations than on big ones.”
Thirteen years after the RFA became law, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, to remind federal agencies to adhere to the RFA. Three years later, he signed into law the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, which strengthened the RFA.
Reid would not be alone in supporting the latest bill. It currently has 42 co-sponsors, including influential Democrats Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
“Farmers, ranchers, dairymen and others, on and off the farm, are in widespread panic with the finalization of this rule,” writes agricultural expert and former congressman Larry Combest in The Hill, “because not only does it allow EPA onto their land, but it throws the gate wide open to environmental group-led citizen lawsuits that promise to carry the rule’s reach beyond what even the EPA envisioned. … This rule carries with it fines under the law to the tune of $37,000 per day, but comes with absolutely no clarity for farmers as to what side of the law they are now on.”
Reid cannot remain silent on S.1140, not without degrading the contributions of his party’s predecessors and tarnishing whatever legacy he hopes to convey.
Randi Thompson is Nevada state director for the National Federation of Independent Business.
Raeann Kelsch
You certainly couldn’t tell by its title, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, or from any of the text, but a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and John Hoeven, R-N.D., would do something vitally needed in Washington at the moment: restore the rule of law.
That S1140 takes direct aim at two federal agencies, which should by their very natures be instruments of the people’s will, is a sad commentary on the body politic of today. One agency in particular has been operating with an imperial attitude for longer than should be allowed: the Environmental Protection Agency.
North Dakotans have long experience with the excesses of the EPA and, by now, are fully aware of the agency’s latest rule greatly expanding the definition of — and their commensurate jurisdiction over — waters of the United States.
“The Clean Water Act was written to govern interstate navigable waters,” said attorney Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business. “No one doubts that the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes are covered by these rules. The problem is that the agencies (EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) want their regulations to spread far upstream to places where even a toy boat couldn’t float.”
It had been assumed that two U.S. Supreme Court cases the EPA was on the losing end of, Rapanos v. United States and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, might have humbled the agency and established, once and for all, generally accepted limitations on jurisdictional expansion via the rule-making process. Not so.
Not so, either, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and subsequent amendments to it that require all federal agencies to consider the impact to small businesses of any rules they promulgate.
Commenting on EPA’s new rule, regulatory expert Dan Bosch of the National Federation of Independent Business said, “The process was rigged in favor of the agencies. They simply decided that they didn’t even need to consider the effects on small business. That analysis is required by law. It’s not optional.”
The Office of Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration agrees. In an October 2014 letter to the EPA and the corps, it said, “The rule will have a direct and potentially costly impact on small businesses. The limited economic analysis which the agencies submitted with the rule provides ample evidence of a potentially significant economic impact. Advocacy advises the agencies to withdraw the rule.”
So there you have it. When EPA is not ignoring Supreme Court limitations on it, it is blithely disregarding rule-making laws required of it.
S1140 would stop the new rule from taking effect. A similar measure, HR1732, has already passed the U.S. House. Sens. Heitkamp and Hoeven are right to take a lead on this issue. The new rule also looks ripe for a legal challenge.
You have to wonder, however, if any of it will get through the palace gates of the EPA and into the ears of the royalty.
Journal of Commerce: US needs independence from freight transport inefficiencies
Saturday July 4, 2015
Elaine Nessle
Folks across the country will be gathering this weekend to participate in a classic Independence Day barbeque with hot dogs, drinks, and sparklers. Lawn chairs are purchased at Target or Wal-Mart, patriotic decorations arrive at your doorstep from Amazon, and you rely on your nearest grocery store to provide you with fresh produce and corn on the cob.
Even though the economy is rebounding and people are purchasing more products, our system of goods movement has not received commensurate investment to keep pace with increased production and mobility needs. In order to embrace this increased growth, Congress must invest in our multimodal freight network to keep goods moving at a rate that’s cost effective to the consumer. States and localities can’t make these investments alone because over 75 percent of goods cross state lines, meaning there is a strong federal responsibility in planning, maintaining, and enhancing our freight network.
Although our nation’s founders assigned Congress, through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the responsibility to make investments that support interstate commerce, Congress has failed to do so. As a result, our nation’s borders, gateways, and trade corridors can’t keep up with demand. Years of underinvestment has dropped the United States from 8th in global rankings for quality of roads in 2008 to No. 16. The Interstate Highway System, once the envy of the world and an asset to businesses, farmers, and commuters, is deteriorating. It’s harder to get goods from suppliers to store shelves, a factor that’s driving up the price of your lawn chairs, hot dogs, coolers, and sparklers.
Delays on our nation’s highways can ruin your Fourth of July barbeque. They cost Americans $124 billion in direct and indirect losses and that number is set to rise. If we continue to inadequately invest in America’s infrastructure, U.S. companies will pay $430 billion more in transportation costs between now and 2020, causing them to underperform by $240 billion.
Last week the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee rolled out a bipartisan bill, theDeveloping a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act or the DRIVE Act, which calls for targeted investments on our highway system aimed at improving goods mobility. If passed into law, the DRIVE Act would create our nation’s first-ever freight program and provide much-needed funding for the infrastructure that moves our goods to market. The DRIVE Act also contains a megaprojects grant program, designed to provide funding on a competitive basis for projects too large for traditional programs. This program, known as the Assistance for Major Projects Program, would benefit bridge and road improvements all over America.
Our national economy is rebounding and our population is growing. Nationally, freight volume is expected to grow 45 percent by 2045. Our current system is unable to accommodate this growth, and without improvement, infrastructure deficiencies will become a drag on the nation’s economy. We’re going to need a program of strategic investment that supports our goods movement network and includes solutions such as those designed in the DRIVE Act.
Congress is up against a deadline: on July 31, funding for highway systems will expire. Our state and local governments have seen this play out too many times before. Extensions of varying lengths have been enacted in the absence of a long-term solution and consumers are left to pay the price for insufficient and unstable federal funding. Sustained and strategic investment is needed to ensure that the United States remains competitive well into the 21st century.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has taken the first step by laying out a plan for improvement. House leadership needs to support and build upon this program and produce legislation designed to improve our nation’s multimodal freight system. As a nation, we shouldn’t settle for 16th place. We need to support Congress and ask for redoubled efforts to improve our multimodal freight system and bring us back to the top of the heap.
Whether you’re buying a swimsuit for your trip to the beach or a grill for your Independence Day celebration, you’re relying on the goods movement network to bring your products quickly, reliably, and cost effectively. The United States remains the world’s number one economy and we have the means to invest in our own prosperity to ensure that same world-leader advantage for our children.
http://www.joc.com/regulation-policy/transportation-policy/us-transportation-policy/us-needs-independence-freight-transport-inefficiencies_20150704.html
