Presidential Memorandum -- Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

May 17, 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures

Reliable, safe, and resilient infrastructure is the backbone of an economy built to last. Investing in our Nation's infrastructure serves as an engine for job creation and economic growth, while bringing immediate and long-term economic benefits to communities across the country. The quality of our infrastructure is critical to maintaining our Nation's competitive edge in a global economy and to securing our path to energy independence. In taking steps to improve our infrastructure, we must remember that the protection and continued enjoyment of our Nation's environmental, historical, and cultural resources remain an equally important driver of economic opportunity, resiliency, and quality of life.

Through the implementation of Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects), executive departments and agencies (agencies) have achieved better outcomes for communities and the environment and realized substantial time savings in review and permitting by prioritizing the deployment of resources to specific sectors and projects, and by implementing best-management practices.

These best-management practices include: integrating project reviews among agencies with permitting responsibilities; ensuring early coordination with other Federal agencies, as well as with State, local, and tribal governments; strategically engaging with, and conducting outreach to, stakeholders; employing project-planning processes and individual project designs that consider local and regional ecological planning goals; utilizing landscape- and watershed-level mitigation practices; promoting the sharing of scientific and environmental data in open-data formats to minimize redundancy, facilitate informed project planning, and identify data gaps early in the review and permitting process; promoting performance-based permitting and regulatory approaches; expanding the use of general permits where appropriate; improving transparency and accountability through the electronic tracking of review and permitting schedules; and applying best environmental and cultural practices as set forth in existing statutes and policies.

Based on the process and policy improvements that are already being implemented across the Federal Government, we can continue to modernize the Federal Government's review and permitting of infrastructure projects and reduce aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects by half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment by institutionalizing these best-management practices, and by making additional improvements to enhance efficiencies in the application of regulations and processes involving multiple agencies -- including expanding the use of web-based techniques for sharing project-related information, facilitating targeted and relevant environmental reviews, and providing meaningful opportunities for public input through stakeholder engagement.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to advance the goal of cutting aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects in half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Modernization of Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures. (a)      The Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement (Steering Committee), established by Executive Order 13604, shall work with the Chief Performance Officer (CPO), in coordination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to modernize Federal infrastructure review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures to significantly reduce the aggregate time required by the Federal Government to make decisions in the review and permitting of infrastructure projects, while improving environmental and community outcomes.

This modernization shall build upon and incorporate reforms identified by agencies pursuant to Executive Order 13604 and Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review).

(b)      Through an interagency process, coordinated by the CPO and working closely with CEQ and OIRA, the Steering Committee shall conduct the following modernization efforts:

(i)      Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Steering Committee shall identify and prioritize opportunities to modernize key regulations, policies, and procedures -- both agency-specific and those involving multiple agencies -- to reduce the aggregate project review and permitting time, while improving environmental and community outcomes.

(ii)      Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Steering Committee shall prepare a plan for a comprehensive modernization of Federal review and permitting for infrastructure projects based on the analysis required by subsection (b)(i)      of this section that outlines specific steps for re-engineering both the intra- and inter-agency review and approval processes based on experience implementing Executive Order 13604. The plan shall identify proposed actions and associated timelines to:

(1)      institutionalize or expand best practices or process improvements that agencies are already implementing to improve the efficiency of reviews, while improving outcomes for communities and the environment;

(2)      revise key review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures (both agency-specific and Government-wide);

(3)      identify high-performance attributes of infrastructure projects that demonstrate how the projects seek to advance existing statutory and policy objectives and how they lead to improved outcomes for communities and the environment, thereby facilitating a faster and more efficient review and permitting process;

(4)      create process efficiencies, including additional use of concurrent and integrated reviews;

(5)      identify opportunities to use existing share-in-cost authorities and other non-appropriated funding sources to support early coordination and project review;

(6)      effectively engage the public and interested stakeholders;

(7)      expand coordination with State, local, and tribal governments;

(8)      strategically expand the use of information technology (IT) tools and identify priority areas for IT investment to replace paperwork processes, enhance effective project siting decisions, enhance interagency collaboration, and improve the monitoring of project impacts and mitigation commitments; and

(9)      identify improvements to mitigation policies to provide project developers with added predictability, facilitate landscape-scale mitigation based on conservation plans and regional environmental assessments, facilitate interagency mitigation plans where appropriate, ensure accountability and the long-term effectiveness of mitigation activities, and utilize innovative mechanisms where appropriate.

The modernization plan prepared pursuant to this section shall take into account funding and resource constraints and shall prioritize implementation accordingly.

(c)      Infrastructure sectors covered by the modernization effort include: surface transportation, such as roadways, bridges, railroads, and transit; aviation; ports and related infrastructure, including navigational channels; water resources projects; renewable energy generation; conventional energy production in high-demand areas; electricity transmission; broadband; pipelines; storm water infrastructure; and other sectors as determined by the Steering Committee.

(d)      The following agencies or offices and their relevant sub-divisions shall engage in the modernization effort:

(i)      the Department of Defense;

(ii)      the Department of the Interior;

(iii)      the Department of Agriculture;

(iv)      the Department of Commerce;

(v)      the Department of Transportation;

(vi)      the Department of Energy;

(vii)      the Department of Homeland Security;

(viii)      the Environmental Protection Agency;

(ix)      the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;

(x)      the Department of the Army;

(xi)      the Council on Environmental Quality; and

(xii)      such other agencies or offices as the CPO may invite to participate.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a)      Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)      the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)      the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals, or the regulatory review process.

(b)      This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)      This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and my memorandum of November 5, 2009 (Tribal Consultation).

(d)      This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e)      The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

The President and the Department of Defense are taking unprecedented steps to protect our environment, achieve significant cost savings, and give our military better energy options.

Today at the White House, we convened the 10th annual meeting of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Gun Lobby Bombards Newtown Families With Robocalls Against Gun Regulations

A 16-member Connecticut panel tasked with making recommendations for how to prevent gun violence in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting released its interim report this week, urging lawmakers to pass a ban on high-capacity magazines and limit ammunition purchases. The proposals, which came just one day before a state committee unanimously approved a bill requiring background checks for all guns sales in the state, have sent gun groups into overdrive, with some directly lobbying families in Newton to oppose the measures.

Newtown Action Alliance — a Sandy Hook-based, all-volunteer organization working to reduce gun violence and death — reported on Thursday that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is making robocalls and sending post cards to Newtown families asking them to oppose any new measures. The messages, first obtained by Christina Wilkie of the Huffington Post, warn that “Connecticut General Assembly are aggressively forging ahead with numerous proposals that are designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen”:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation — a group which represents gun manufacturers — has also begun airing radio ads claiming that restrictions will “punish law-abiding citizens” and threatening that gun manufactures will leave the state and take away “thousands of jobs”:

Meanwhile, a recent Quinnipiac poll finds that Connecticut voters — and gun owners — overwhelmingly support universal background checks (93 percent, including 89 percent of gun owners) and stricter statewide gun safety laws. The Newtown families are also not taking kindly to the pr-gun advocacy. One resident told the Huffington Post, “The idea that this message could have been delivered to a sibling of one of the families who lost children at [Sandy Hook Elementary School] is just appalling.” “You’d think they could have scrubbed the list, just to be decent. Instead, you’re making an unsolicited call with no opt-out that my children could answer.”

The Connecticut panel, formally called Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, recommends: requiring registration, including a certificate of registration, for any firearm, a ban on the sale, possession, or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding
device in excess of 10 rounds, limiting the amounts of ammunition that may be purchased at any given time, and requiring that trigger locks be provided at the time of sale or transfer of any firearm.

Since the Newtown shooting, lawmakers proposed close to 100 gun safety measures, but have yet to enact new reforms.

View the original article here

Illinois Republican Legislator Compares Gun Regulations To Castration

State Rep. Jim Sacia (R-IL) (Credit: Lane Christiansen)

In a rant on the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives Tuesday, State Rep. Jim Sacia (R) objected to statewide gun violence prevention efforts comparing them to castration.

As the right-wing Red Alert Politics reported, Sacia screamed that the bill was being forced by Chicago legislators because they have a “runaway gun problem.”

SACIA: Don’t blame the rest of us. This isn’t about Democrats, it’s not about Republicans. It’s because Chicago wants a warm fuzzy. “Let’s pass a bill that will eliminate assault rifles.” Last year, there were more people killed with hammers than with assault rifles. Here’s an analogy folks, I ask you to think of this: You folks in Chicago, want me to get castrated because you’re families are having too many kids. It spells out exactly what is happening here! You want us to get rid of guns. … You bet I used Chicago as an example, because you’re the folks that want this craziness.”

Watch the video:

While gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago, the problem is by no means limited to the Windy City. In 2012 alone, a school shooting rocked Normal, a gunman shot five people in a Decatur nightclub, and a gunfight broke out a Rockford nightclub. In 2008, five students Northern Illinois University students were killed by a gunman in DeKalb, Illinois.

Sacia joins a long list of Republicans who dismiss gun violence prevention efforts by suggesting guns are less dangerous than everyday household items.

Last month, Sacia wrote on his personal website that “Gun free zones are killing fields for the deranged.” He also lauded an Australian grandmother for engaging in vigilante justice with an illegal gun, noting that after her granddaughter was raped, “the grandmother personally hunted down the two rapists. She shot one’s manhood completely away and significantly shortened the other’s abilities.”

View the original article here

Congressman Considers Gabby Giffords A ‘Prop’ For Gun Regulations

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV) on Tuesday agreed that he considers former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), who was a victim of an assassination attempt two years ago, a “prop” in the debate over gun regulations.

Jon Ralston of Ralston Reports, uncovered the audio of Heck, speaking with conservative radio talk show host Alan Stock, agreed that Giffords was nothing more than a “prop” at the State of the Union:

STOCK: At the end of the president’s State of the Union when he said have a vote for Gabby Giffords, have a vote for this and that. I found that to be nauseating and you know what else is nauseating too is putting Gabby Giffords up there, who can’t even clap her hands, as a figure of somebody being — having shot her. I think it’s a shameful act putting her up there as a prop. I’m sorry. I really do.

HECK: Yeah, no I agree. I think again in the cloud of emotion surrounding Connecticut those who are anti-gun want to use that to limit their Second Amendment rights.

Listen to it:

Giffords has made a remarkable recovery since she was shot through the head at a town hall in a parking lot in Tucson, AZ, two years ago. In fact, the experience has prompted Giffords, along with her husband Mark Kelly, to found an organization called Americans For Responsible Solutions, devoted to combating gun violence.

Heck’s office release this statement on the incident:

My statement was in reference to the idea of gun control grab coming out of Washington DC. Of course there is no way that I think that Gabby Giffords is a prop… Should I have come to her defense? You know, in a fast-moving interview, in retrospect, I should have said something but I didn’t. I was just looking to get past that and talk about gun control in general.

View the original article here

The 10 NRA-Funded Senators Hoping To Block Gun Regulations

The National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC has distributed more than $1 million in career donations to current members of the United States Senate. And, like their House counterparts, the Senators who have received the most are also among the most vocal opponents of any new gun violence prevention legislation advanced in the aftermath of the school shooting at Newton, Connecticut.

A ThinkProgress analysis of data from Political MoneyLine reveals that the top 10 Senate beneficiaries of NRA money are all Republicans. Each has already indicated his opposition to President Obama’s gun violence proposals and each has received an “A” or “A+” rating from the NRA. They are:

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK) — AT LEAST $64,900

Inhofe said last month, “I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. … The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO) — AT LEAST $60,550

Blunt said last month, “Unfortunately, the president’s proposals today fundamentally fail to address ways that we can prevent tragic events like Sandy Hook, and instead, he’s attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.” Last week, he expressed doubt that the Senate would even expand background checks.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA) — AT LEAST $56,950

Chambliss said last month, “While I am certain that the president’s proposal is well-intentioned, it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected.”

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD) — AT LEAST $48,605

Thune said last month, “There is a lot of emotion driving this debate. We need to prevent this in the future, and make the schools and our kids safer. And frankly, I don’t think it has to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) — AT LEAST $46,600

Graham said last month, “One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal. As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.”

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL) — AT LEAST $43,755

Shelby said on his Congressional website, “We all mourn the victims of shocking tragedies that have resulted from senseless acts of violence perpetrated by seriously disturbed individuals. However, such tragedies should not be viewed as an indictment of America’s precious Second Amendment rights. Thus, we should not react in a manner that would unnecessarily and improperly infringe upon the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners. Unfortunately, it seems that some zealous gun rights opponents are seeking to leverage tragedies to further their long-held agenda of unduly restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID) — AT LEAST $43,700

Crapo said last month, “The President’s proposal on gun control is very disappointing. Any discussion about restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans deserves, at minimum, a full and public debate in Congress. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) — AT LEAST $41,750

Hatch said last month that even passage of universal background checks would be “the way reductions in liberty occur.” He added, “When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who’s who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty,” noting that gun rights are “an express provision in the Constitution, unlike the penumbras and other conjured-up provisions that aren’t there that the court has come up with over the years. This is express, and many people are very, very concerned about any infringement on it, and I’m one of them.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) — AT LEAST $41,200

Grassley said last month, “The Second Amendment is more than just words on paper. It’s a fundamental right that ensures citizens the ability to protect themselves against the government. Unfortunately, the President seems to think that the Second Amendment can be tossed aside. Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment is a power grab along the same pattern we’ve seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people. Some of these directives clearly run afoul of limitations Congress has placed on federal spending bringing the President’s actions in direct conflict with federal law. More importantly, it’s hard to see how any of these executive actions would have prevented the tragedies that precipitated this effort.”

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS) — AT LEAST $36,750

Wicker said last month, “The President’s proposals would violate the Constitution and have been proven not to be effective in preventing gun violence, I will be part of a bipartisan coalition opposing this legislation and looking for real solutions such as school safety guards, mental health care, and addressing the culture of violence in the media. The Second Amendment rights of Americans must be preserved.”

The 10 have received more than $480,000 combined in career NRA PAC money.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine proposals to reduce gun violence. The four Republicans on the nine-person panel are Graham, Hatch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Cruz (at least $9900) has blasted the President for “trying to exploit the tragic murder of children as an excuse to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda,” and Cornyn ($17,850) has said we must enforce existing gun laws before we consider any new ones.

View the original article here

California Democrats Propose Strictest Gun Regulations In The Nation

California Democrats present gun violence prevention plan.

Thursday afternoon, a group of California Senate Democrats rolled out a legislative package that would create what would likely be the tightest gun regulation system in the nation, ranging from sweeping prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles to restrictions on guns in the home. The proposal consists of ten points:

1. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines. California’s assault weapons ban only restricts the possession of semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines if they have an additional, “military-style” feature like flash suppressors. The new laws would tighten this law by banning all such rifles regardless of external features.

2. Ban possession of high-capacity magazines. California law bans the transfer, not possession, of magazines that can hold over ten bullets. This allows people wanting to skirt the law to buy the constituent parts and make the magazines themselves. The new law would close that loophole.

3. Ban “bullet button” conversion kits. State law defines “detachable magazines” as, in part, magazines that can be released “without the use of a tool.” Bullet button kits allow magazines to be released quickly by pressing a bullet into them, thus creating an end-around the intent of the assault weapons ban. The new provisions would ban such kits.

4. Bans shotgun-rifle combinations. It would ban this class of class of weapon.

5. Universal registration of all guns. The law would create “ownership records consistently across-the-board, ensuring all firearms are recorded” so that the background check system can prevent criminals from getting guns.

6. Background checks on ammunition. This provision requires a “full and complete” background check on ammunition sales, “building on” laws existing in Los Angeles and Sacramento.

7. Regulating gun loans. The legislators propose setting up an as-yet undefined regulatory system for the loan, as opposed to sale, of guns.

8. Prevent prohibited individuals from living in homes with guns. California’s Armed Persons Prohibition (APP) database lists people who can’t legally own weapons (as a consequence of criminal or mental health records) under state law. This addition would prevent people on the list from living in a house that has a gun.

9. Cracking down on people who can’t own guns legally but do anyway. Currently, 19,700 people who are on the APP list own guns. Police estimate that these people own roughly 39,000 firearms. This new law would authorize additional funding to enforce the law in this area.

10. Required safety training for handgun owners. People with concealed carry permits are required under California (and many other) state laws to pass a mandatory safety and firearm instruction course. This provision would require all handgun owners, regardless of permit status, to undergo a similar process.

View the original article here

Republican Congresswoman Likens Regulations Of For-Profit Colleges To The Holocaust

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) compared efforts to regulate the for-profit college industry to the Holocaust during a speech Tuesday. Speaking at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, Foxx invoked a famous Holocaust maxim in order to defend for-profit colleges against increased scrutiny. “They came for the for-profits, and I didn’t speak up,” the North Carolina congresswoman said.

Insider Higher Ed has the details:

In criticizing the private college presidents, Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who leads the subcommittee on higher education, adapted the famous statement from the German theologian Martin Niemöller on Germans who ignored Nazi persecution. (“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.”)

“‘They came for the for-profits, and I didn’t speak up…’” Foxx said. “Nobody really spoke up like they should have.”

Even if her choice of words is shocking, her willingness to stand up for the industry is of little surprise. Foxx is heavily-financed by the for-profit college industry. As the Center for Responsive Politics reported, “In her first year on the [Higher Education and Workforce Training] subcommittee, Foxx picked up at least $48,668 from PACs or individuals affiliated with for-profit colleges.”

Though Foxx is readily willing to advocate on behalf of an industry that saddles students with debt and leaves them with few employment prospects, she paradoxically dislikes people who take out student loans. Said Foxx on a radio show last year, “I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that.” In fact, many of the students with such large amounts of debt can trace their troubles to the fact that largely unregulated for-profit colleges are extraordinarily expensive.

Foxx is no back-bencher in the GOP caucus. She was elected to her party’s leadership last year to serve as Secretary for the House Republican Conference and has been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 2014.

View the original article here

States Aim To Strengthen Gun Safety Regulations

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

73 Percent Of Evangelical Leaders Support Increased Gun Regulations

Vice President Joe Biden, the head of President Obama’s task force to curb gun violence, held meetings with both supporters and opponents of stricter gun restrictions, and his task force is set to make its recommendations by next Tuesday. Biden met with a dozen religious leaders Wednesday night, when he urged them that there was moral reason to take action.

New polling shows that religious leaders agree. According to a survey from the National Association of Evangelicals, nearly three-quarters of evangelical leaders support increasing restrictions on guns as a way to curb America’s gun violence epidemic, according to a release from the organization:

When asked whether the government should increase gun regulations, 73 percent said it should.

“Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives,” said Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). “The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also called for increased gun regulations in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. “With regard to the regulation of fire arms, first, the intent to protect one’s loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible,” USCCB said in a December statement. As far back as 1978, the USCCB has advocated for stronger gun restrictions, including “the registration of handguns” and “the licensing of handgun owners.” In the 1978 statement, the USCCB said it believed “that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police, military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.”

And Daniel Darling, an evangelical pastor in Chicago, where 87 percent of the city’s 500 homicides were gun related last year, wrote that people of faith should “advocate making it harder for people to acquire guns, even sensible weapons purchased for self-defense or hunting. Gun ownership should be a privilege earned by good behavior and conferred only on the most trustworthy of our citizens.”

A majority (52 percent) of religious people supported stricter gun laws in a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in August 2012, months before the Sandy Hook massacre focused the nation’s attention on gun violence. (HT Faith In Public Life)

View the original article here

Conservative Group Pushes For Delay Of ‘ObamaCare’ Regulations

By Megan R. Wilson - 01/03/13 10:51 AM ET

A conservative nonprofit group is putting pressure on the Obama administration to delay major regulations from the healthcare reform law.

The Minnesota-based Citizens Council for Health Freedom says the administration is trying to “rush ‘ObamaCare’ ” by providing just 30 days for comment on major pieces of the program.

The group has asked supporters to write the Health and Human Services Department and demand that the rule-making process be slowed down.

"The Obama administration has given you just 30 days over the holidays to read more than 700 pages of proposed ObamaCare regulations which unless you act will become law. They want to rush ObamaCare into implementation. You can help slow it until repeal," the organization wrote.

The group’s efforts have resulted in a flood of comments on four proposals that outline rules for the healthcare exchanges and partnering with state plans, among others. Of the more than 1,500 total comments the administration has received, a large portion include the language suggested by Citizens Council for Health Freedom asking for a 60-day extension.

Other comments submitted to the administration echo the call for a slower implementation.  

"It's the Christmas rush and you think that I have time to read a 700-page document? Please extend the deadline by two months!" wrote Joanne Smith from Minnesota. 

And Steve Kintgen of Minnesota commented, "This is quite unrealistic and in bad taste and quite contrary to 'We the People' not to have a adequate [sic] chance outside of Advent and the Christmas season to be able to read and digest all this information."

Co-founded by registered nurse Twila Brase in 1998, the Citizens Council for Health Freedom aims to reduce "dependency on government healthcare programs," according to its website. 

Brase said the short-time frame given to comment on the regulations was "unfair."

"My hope is that they actually extend the deadline. … It's really important for the public to know what's in there," she told The Hill. "We don't look at it as a law that will remain in place. So for our purposes, it's important to slow the process down."

Brase said more than 70 percent of the comments on two of the regulatory proposals called for a longer review process. 

The regulatory proposals from the healthcare law are available for comment on Regulations.gov. The agencies rolling out the programs, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Personnel Management, provided 30-day comment deadlines for the proposed regulations that ended on Dec. 26, Dec. 31 and Jan. 4. 

The agencies are required to respond to the comments before any of the proposed regulations become final.

— This story was updated at 11:51 a.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

Virginia Governor Quietly Certifies Restrictive Abortion Clinic Regulations

On the Friday between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) quietly approved new, stringent regulations intended to target abortion clinics. Virginia’s Board of Health adopted the new anti-abortion rules in September, and the governor’s certification is the next step toward making the regulations permanent — and potentially forcing many of the state’s 20 abortion clinics to close their doors.

A spokesperson for McDonnell explained the governor advanced the anti-abortion rules because he believes “these common-sense regulations will help ensure that this medical procedure takes place in facilities that are modern, safe and well-regulated, in order to help ensure the safety and well-being of all patients.” But women’s health advocates designate this type of legislation as the “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers” (TRAP) because — rather than doing anything to ensure women’s safety — they actually over-regulate abortion providers as an indirect method of restricting women’s reproductive rights. TRAP laws force many abortion clinics to close when they find themselves unable to comply with complicated, expensive standards.

Even though Virginia’s Board of Health is intended to operate as a nonpartisan medical body, the fight over enacting the new clinic regulations has become intensely political — a growing trend among state-level boards, which anti-abortion advocates are increasingly using to advance their anti-choice agendas.

When the Board considered the new rules before their final vote, protesters and women’s health advocates were barred from speaking during the hearing, and only a limited number of people were even permitted to enter the room. And it turned out State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) was essentially threatening Virginia’s Board — which ended up approving the TRAP laws by a 13-2 vote — by warning members they could be denied state-funded legal services if they voted to relax the clinic regulations. In October, Virginia health commissioner Dr. Karen Remley resigned from her position on the Board in protest of the regulations, citing her disapproval of the proposed TRAP laws as the primary reason she could no longer serve “in good faith.”

Now that McDonnell has approved the regulations, they will be sent back through the process of review by the Board of Health following a 60-day public comment period. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the permanent regulations are expected to be adopted by this summer.

View the original article here

Tech at Night: CISPA passes the House, FCC passes campaign regulations, Boehner calls out Obama

So, the Internet died this week or something. CISPA was amended much, as I gather mostly tightening up some alleged privacy concerns. Then it passed the House. I don’t know if it’ll become law, but it’s a good idea. The comparisons with SOPA are deceptive.

Speaker Boehner cut to the heart of the matter, pointing out that President Obama’s CISPA veto threat was rooted in his desire to control the Internet. The White House was stung enough to reply, but it’s true: CISPA opposition is a ruse to fool feeble minded leftys into thinking Republicans are the threat, rather than the Democrat Cybersecurity bill in the Senate, pushed by Joe Lieberman. It’s Lieberman-Collins that’s the threat to liberty online.

More and more it’s clear we dodged a bullet by preventing Joe Barton from becoming Energy and Commerce chairman.

Darrell Issa’s on a roll: His FISMA overhaul also passed, passing easily under suspension on the heels of his transparency bill passing by voice vote. Secure the government. If the government is so good at Internet security that Barack Obama wants to regulate, then let’s just clean house internally instead. As long as Anonymous can hit things like the CIA website, there’s work to be done. I know, it’s just a website, but what other websites are at risk?

Look, guys, the bad guys are out there and looking for ways to attack America online. They’re sharing information amongst themselves, too. That’s why we need CISPA: to level the playing field. That’s also why improving the government’s standards for itself also matters.

The FCC continues to outdo itself when it comes to power grabs. Now they’re after content: passing regulations attempting to stifle political speech ahead of the election.

Yet unfortunately Chuck Grassley is relenting on his FCC holds, saying he’s satisfied with the FCC starting to open up to him, even though there’s still more investigating to be done on the LightSquared situation.

Jim DeMint has got some people worried. Even as he questioned Aereo, he’s threatening the unfair advantage broadcasters have in retransmission negotiations. That’s why lately you’re seeing lots of sob stories about broadcasters. This is a coordinated effort to make you think that DeMint is the Grinch attacking the poor local TV station. Ignore it.

Spectrum: we need it, the Democrats obstruct that process as in the cases of Verizon, AT&T, and any other high profile deal they can get their thieving hands onto, but Cliff Stearns and the Republican House are trying to fix it. Enough said.

That’s all we need for a great wireless market. we don’t need regulation, just freed-up spectrum for competition and growth.

View the original article here

Tech at Night: FCC gives in to Chuck Grassley, Republicans question the rush to privacy regulations

Am I tired of expressing dissatisfaction with the Obama FCC and other government intrusions? Never!

Al Franken is setting up an unfalsifiable rationale for government action against Verizon and Comcast. Gotta love that, eh?

I’m sure he, the FCC, or both will try to overturn the courts who say bundling is not anticompetitive. I like bundling. It saves me money when I’m buying both things anyway. Then again, I like choices in the marketplace.

Why we want FCC subsidizing tablet makers though, I have no idea.

Chuck Grassley’s threat seems to be working at least, as FCC starts to break down on LightSquared transparency, a necessary step toward being able to confirm the President’s new appointees to the commission.

Sprint continues to try to drum up government action, and also continuing to strain the bounds of credulity. Sprint says there’s a 4G duopoly, conveniently forgetting the fact that Sprint was the first major entry into the 4G market. Sprint just chose the wrong technology (WiMAX, instead of the apparently-winning LTE), the latest in a series of bad business decisions.

PATENT WARS: Even as Apple considers changing its patent strategies against firms like Samsung deploying Android, it turns out Nokia may provoke a whole new patent war over SIM card technology.

I’ve long plead for Mary Bono Mack to ease up on privacy issues, fearing it would lead to bad government action. Fortunately she seems to see those risks as well, and other Republicans like Marsha Blackburn also see the dangers of “a massive expansion of government… that would put some limits on our individual liberties.” Yes, yes, yes, exactly. That’s why I say we need to get privacy issues back into the realm of common sense self precautions, not government dictates.

This will be the last Tech at Night from California. Also because of my move to Virginia next week, will be no posting Monday or Wednesday as I will be traveling across the country to my new home, so have fun until next week!

View the original article here