The Oklahoman Editorial Board

UNDER Republican control of Congress, lawmakers have advanced modest but sensible proposals that were previously stymied under Democratic control. Yet many conservative activists decry this as a do-nothing Congress.

That conservatives hoped for more from a Republican Congress is understandable. But expectations must be tempered by political reality. So long as Barack Obama is president, progress on the nation's most pressing challenges will be exceedingly difficult. Many national policy failures originated with Obama, and he remains committed to preserving those mistakes regardless of the consequences to citizens.

Nonetheless, this Congress has been far more productive than its predecessors. Admittedly, that bar was set low given the severe dysfunction under Democratic control. Consider this: There were more votes cast in the U.S. Senate during the first two months of this year's session than in the last two years under the leadership of Democratic Sen. Harry Reid.

And lawmakers have done more than simply vote. For the first time since 2009, the House and Senate have both passed a budget plan with those proposals outlining a gradual path to a balanced budget. Appropriations bills have advanced from committees on schedule.

Such accomplishments are more procedural than substantive, but represent progress and lay the groundwork for improved budget planning.

More significant measures also have advanced. Legislation authorizing construction of the Keystone pipeline was sent to the president's desk (Obama vetoed it). A major trade promotion act was approved, opening the door for consideration of free-trade agreements in the Pacific region. Rewrites of the federal No Child Left Behind education law have advanced (a process Democrats delayed for eight years). An effort to target human traffickers has advanced.

Under the leadership of Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, bipartisan agreement is forming to significantly revise the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time since its 1976 enactment, which could restrain the power of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Those are all goals conservatives broadly support. Virtually none would have advanced under Democratic leadership.

“This has been a much more successful session of Congress than most people recognize,” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, told The Oklahoman editorial board. “It's passed more legislation, done more significant things, and operated more efficiently.”

Still, conservatives hoped for more, understandably so. With full control of Congress, many expected Obama would be forced to at least veto more bills, including repeal of unpopular Obamacare provisions. Many expected Obamacare's tax on medical devices to be quickly repealed, partly because many Democrats are on record opposing it. That hasn't happened — yet.

Inhofe says there are strategic reasons to delay some votes, noting Democrats will face greater pressure (and may therefore be more likely) to support repeal of the medical device tax in an election year.

But even if congressional Republicans are ultimately able to overcome Obama vetoes on select issues, those victories will be limited in scope.

Obama successfully advanced much of his agenda because his party held the presidency and supermajority control of Congress in 2009 and 2010. Until Republicans hold similar leverage, the effort to roll back the worst abuses of the Obama regime will be a slow, plodding process.

Conservative voters need to brace themselves for a long, drawn-out fight — and keep up the pressure on Congress, not throw up their hands and declare there's no difference between the parties.

Sens. Joe Donnelly, John Barrasso, Heidi Heitkamp, Jim Inhofe

Whether you're a farmer in Indiana or a rancher in Wyoming, a Republican from Oklahoma or a Democrat from North Dakota – we all want clean water.

On Friday, EPA's new rule is supposed to go into effect and will attempt to redefine which sources of water can be regulated under the Clean Water Act. Thirty-one states and several industry groups have sued to prevent the rule from moving forward. The EPA wrote and finalized its "Waters of the United States" rule without consulting with some of the people who care about clean water the most: farmers, ranchers, small business owners.

The problem is that the rule, while well-intentioned, provides excessive burdens for small farmers and ranchers. As such, the new rules have created considerable and potentially costly confusion for many American businesses and communities who are just trying to do their jobs well.

EPA's Waters of the U.S. rule has raised concerns across nearly every sector of our economy, from agriculture, real estate and, energy to construction, conservation and recreation. In fact, even our local communities – cities, towns, and counties – are expressing concern. The National Association of Counties said, "the flawed consultation process has resulted in a final rule that does not move us closer to achieving clean water goals and creates more confusion than clarity."

American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said, "The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult for private landowners to farm and ranch, build homes or make changes to the land – even if the changes that landowners propose would benefit the environment."

Most Americans believe we can get more accomplished when we work together. We agree. That's why we worked as a group to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, which would direct the EPA write a better rule that better serves farmers, ranchers and small businesses by simply making sure that the agency works with our partners across the country to integrate the feedback from those who live and work alongside these waters every day. They are the ones EPA's rule most directly impacts, so they should have their voices heard about how the rule works or doesn't work – something that was missing before this rule was released.

This is something both parties can get behind, by focusing on commonsense principles to shape a final rule and requiring straightforward procedures that the EPA should have taken in its initial proposal. It simply asks EPA to take into account the feedback it has already received and go back and do the research and analysis that wasn't done the first time.

In the principles, we include explicit protections for waters that most everyone agrees should be covered, like our navigable waters and wetlands that filter out pollutants from our rivers and lakes. It also provides commonsense exemptions for isolated ponds and agricultural or roadside ditches, most of which EPA has indicated it never intended to cover.

More importantly, our bill is not designed to undermine the EPA's efforts, but rather to develop an effective, workable rule that gives consideration to those voices who will be most impacted by it. In fact, our bill encourages the EPA to thoroughly and appropriately complete its rule by December 31, 2016.

We need a Waters of the U.S. rule that works to keep our waters clean – something we can all agree upon – as do the communities, businesses and family farms that rely on clean water. Our bill recently passed the Senate Committee Environment and Public Works, and we are hopeful that the full Senate will vote on it soon.

No one wants cleaner water or better land conditions than the families who live on American farms, own American businesses and lead American communities. If we're going write a rule that makes sense for the people who work with the land every day, we need to use their feedback.

John Greuling

In July, the United States Senate passed legislation vital to our nation's commerce, jobs and quality of life: the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act (DRIVE Act). It provides targeted investments for our surface transportation system aimed at improving goods mobility and supporting agriculture, U.S. manufacturing and exports. In developing this piece of legislation, Republicans and Democrats united in calling for a freight program that makes strategic improvements to the transportation system driving our economy.

The House of Representatives will need to act swiftly upon returning to Washington in September, as existing legislation expires at the end of October, placing jobs and desperately needed infrastructure improvements in jeopardy. While the House of Representatives presently does not have a proposal on the table, it has upheld the same freight investment principles through the recommendations offered by its bipartisan Special Panel on 21st Century Freight Transportation.

Extending current law for the 33rd time is insufficient if we want to support and grow the economy, because current transportation programs do not adequately invest in goods-moving infrastructure. Between 2008 and today, Congressional underinvestment has resulted in the quality of U.S. roads dropping in rankings from eighth to 16th in the world. The Interstate Highway System, once the envy of the world and an asset to manufacturers, farmers, consumers and commuters, is deteriorating and driving up the price of the goods we consume each day. If freightvolumes grow 45 percent by 2045, as the United States Department of Transportation predicts, our problems will dramatically worsen.

There is an unquestionable federal role in goods movement as more than 75 percent of goods cross state lines. And, there is an unquestionable benefit: Delays on our nation's highways cost Americans $124 billion annually in direct and indirect losses.

In Will County alone, goods movement activity generates 40,000-plus jobs and freight volume locally is expected to double in the next 10 years. Examples of important projects that will likely be shelved without DRIVE's new investment are adding lanes to I-80 between Route 30 and I-55 and reconstruction of the Des Plaines River Bridge and the Route 53 interchange at I-80.

The DRIVE Act's freight program provides, for the first time ever, a freight-specific package that could significantly reverse this challenge. It will be critical for the House of Representatives to match - or surpass - this enthusiasm for a freight-specific infrastructure program to support economic growth and jobs in the south and southwest suburbs. Without Congressional leadership, our region will not continue to grow as a global logistics hub.

A strategic investment campaign is needed to improve our freight infrastructure and keep us economically competitive in the global marketplace. States and localities can't do it alone - we needCongressional leadership to DRIVE this effort. Please join me in supporting our elected officials' efforts to move forward a surface transportation reauthorization bill complete with a robustly funded freight program.

Transport Topics

The way Anthony Foxx sees it, there's nowhere to go but up.

“The good news, I think, is we are close to rock bottom,” the transportation secretary said Aug. 12 about the struggle to get a commitment from Congress to a long-term highway funding bill. “I think we’ve got a moment here where something bigger can happen.”

Foxx was touring Nebraska with Sen. Deb Fischer (R), lobbying again for a permanent fix to a problem that has seen Congress pass 34 consecutive short-term patches since 2009. One of their stops was in the state capital of Lincoln for a round-table discussion of infrastructure.

The Senate has approved a six-year bill that provides three years of funding, but because the House did not take action before recessing, a three-month extension of current authorization was pushed through and signed by President Obama.

Fischer and Foxx co-authored an opinion piece that appeared in the Journal-Star. In it, they wrote: "America’s transportation network is the framework upon which our nation’s economic system rests. With a long-term infrastructure strategy, proper coordination at all levels of government and a robust freight policy, we can address our nation’s transportation challenges head on, while strengthening safety on our roads and boosting productivity."

At his appearance at the site of Nebraska's first diverging diamond interchange, Foxx said it was time to "vanquish the specter of uncertainty" that is handcuffing states.

"Frankly, how many projects can you get done in three months, from start to finish?" Foxx asked rhetorically. "Or two months, or one year? It takes planning, it takes work, it takes design, it takes engineering, and it takes construction, and that process takes multiple years."