Out of the Storm News
With its passage of the USA FREEDOM Act earlier this month, Congress declared a commitment to restore privacy protections that many feel have been violated. But civil libertarians and technology companies recognize there remain a number of other significant challenges to citizens’ Fourth Amendment protections and at the top of nearly everyone’s list is email privacy reform.
Last Congress, Reps. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., and Jared Polis D-Colo., introduced H.R. 1852, the Email Privacy Act. The authors recruited 272 cosponsors but ultimately was unable to secure a floor vote in the U.S. House.
Undeterred, the bipartisan duo earlier this year introduced the Email Privacy Act. This time around, H.R. 699 has already received a flood of support from members of Congress. With 284 co-sponsors, it already has support of the majority of the House, and is the most-supported bill not yet receive a hearing, much less a vote.
The Email Privacy Act would update the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 to require government agents obtain a warrant before accessing the content of private emails, texts or other digital correspondence. It essentially would treat all emails, regardless how old, with the same privacy protections currently granted to physical letters in a person’s cabinet.
Emails and other forms of electronic communication are currently protected under ECPA, but it has not been updated since 1986. Though it was remarkably forward-looking for its time, technology has advanced dramatically and ECPA has been outpaced. The law allows digital communications to be searched and seized without a warrant if they are more than 180 days old. Over the years, courts have issued inconsistent interpretations of the law, creating uncertainty for service providers, law-enforcement agencies and for the hundreds of millions of Americans who use the Internet in their personal and professional lives.
There’s really only been one significant hang-up with the Email Privacy Act. Civil regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission insist they need the authority demand the contents of electronic communications without a warrant. SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White has expressed that requiring warrants to obtain emails could impede financial-fraud investigations.
These concerns apparently have some sympathy in the Senate, where a companion bill by Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., also is awaiting action. In many respects, civil agencies and law enforcement are working against civil libertarians in ways similar to when security hawks lined up against privacy advocates in the USA FREEDOM Act debate.
But after a long wait, the landscape might be changing. The House Judiciary Committee recently convened a “listening session” to allow members of Congress to present ideas related to criminal-justice reform. Rep. Yoder took the opportunity to explain that, if Congress was interested in criminal justice reform, they should look at the disparity in Fourth Amendment treatment of paper versus digital correspondence. Others on the committee appeared sympathetic to his arguments, which makes sense, when you consider that 23 of the panel’s 39 members already are cosponsors of the bill.
In a National Journal article last week, Yoder detailed ongoing discussions with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., (not a cosponsor), who described ECPA reform as being “on his to-do list” as well as noting that there may be “some potential modifications to the end product.”
It is possible email privacy is next on the “to-do list.” There has been chatter on the Hill that the legislation could receive committee and House floor action in July, with Politico Morning Tech reporting Friday:
The House Judiciary Committee is planning to mark up a bill to update the nation’s email privacy law before the August recess, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill.
The panel hasn’t picked a specific date for the vote, but the plan is to mark up a measure from Reps. Kevin Yoder and Jared Polis that modernizes the decades-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the sources said.
Over the next few weeks, we’ll see whether a clean version of the bill will move forward or whether it will be weakened with carve-outs for the SEC or other federal departments.
From my vantage point, Republican leadership would be wise to note that the 284 cosponsors endorsed a strong bill with no indication they would tolerate a weakened product. Passing the Email Privacy Act would restore confidence and security to Americans, while providing clarity to tech businesses trying to develop innovative new services and compete in a global marketplace.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
From The Economist:
R.J. Lehmann, a senior fellow at R Street, a free-market think tank, sees a big smaller-government upside to Mr Roberts’ Obamacare ruling. “Roberts has just opened a huge new avenue for challenges to administrative rulemaking”, Mr Lehmann writes. “From labour laws to environmental standards—not to mentions reams and reams of tax rulings—there’s no shortage of federal rules” now open to challenge. Indeed, conservatives and libertarians may soon happily come to rely on the Obamacare ruling in their quest to rein in an unruly executive bureaucracy. If they do so, they’ll be conceding, at least implicitly, the model of the division of powers Mr Roberts has so cagily persuaded the court’s liberals to sign on to. But this model is manifestly one of the legislature’s rule-making supremacy, and the court’s secondary, interpretive authority. Congress legislates. The executive gets to decide what ambiguous legislation means only if the decision doesn’t have important economic or political consequences, or if congress has granted that authority. Otherwise, it is up the court to settle what the law says.
Commuters on their way to Paris’ major airports and train stations were disrupted this week by the presence of a rolling blockade. Taxi drivers, under pressure from competition presented by the emergence of transportation network companies like Uber, obstructed crucial thoroughfares to draw attention to their plight.
Among the most bizarre aspects of this truly bizarre episode is the personage who first broke the story – former Hole lead singer and Kurt Cobain widow Courtney Love:
they’ve ambushed our car and are holding our driver hostage. they’re beating the cars with metal bats. this is France?? I’m safer in Baghdad
— Courtney Love Cobain (@Courtney) June 25, 2015
As of Friday evening, Paris remained in a state of total lockdown. But even when police do finally clear the streets, the French notion of concurrence déloyale – translated directly as “disloyal competition” – likely will take more time to correct.
The political rhetoric surrounding the demonstration makes that clear. Lydia Guirous, representative of France’s center-right Parti républicain, characterized Uber’s presence in the market as “wild competition” and called for a quick solution to “unfair competition.”
France’s unfair competition law is broad in comparison to its U.S. equivalent. The result of France’s permissive approach is predictable enough. Competing firms abuse the cause of action with an eye toward hobbling their competition.
The distinction between the U.S. and French approach is, at bottom, that the French law is predicated on a broad definitions of harm (including “imitation” and “parasitism”) whereas the U.S. law is predicated upon specific deceptive business practices (like misrepresentation or false advertising). Thus, in the United States, taxi complaints about unfair competition would not be fit for legal recourse. Instead, such concerns are relegated to the realm of public policy.
While these kinds of high-profile displays of competitive resistance are not common here, they certainly do occur. Be it in the courts, in the legislatures or the on digital highways, nontraditional venues are ignored at a firm’s peril. In the realm of technology, this is particularly true.
On flimsy pretexts, firms can establish virtual roadblocks that effectively deny their rivals the ability to compete. Recently, this occurred when the payroll processing giant ADP chose to deny a new player in the benefits market, Zenefits, ordinary and vital access to its customers on the basis of publicly unsubstantiated security concerns.
While that conflict has subsequently turned into something of a “he said; she said” affair, if ADP is acting in an anti-competitive manner, as Zenefits’ alleges, to protect their own forthcoming benefits platform, the fact pattern raises a broader question about the nature of competition in new fields.
When taxis obstruct streets, it is easy enough to correct. When digital roads are blocked to subvert competition, who does one call? At the moment, the only option is to call a lawyer.
It is clear that using market position to work in an anti-competitive manner is far easier in a non-corporeal space than it is on city streets. As a remedy, for the sake of preserving market flexibility, there is a need to undertake fact-intensive analyses on an accelerated basis to peer beyond pretext when one firm subverts another in a structural way. Doing so in a manner that avoids the pitfalls we see in France will be tricky.
To be sure, U.S. law does not yet have an answer to this question.
While different market actors should not be subject to different legal standards, lawmakers need to be cognizant that incumbent market actors already enjoy plenty of advantages. There is no need for them to also reserve an ability to literally shut-down traffic. When they do so, when outright and structural alienation occurs, savvy regulators should cast a suspicious eye.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Conservatives and libertarians aren’t very happy with John Roberts right now, and for good reason. For the second time, the Bush-appointed chief justice has handed down a decision that preserved Obamacare, that ultimate bête noire of the right.
I’m no fan of Obamacare, mostly because I’ve always failed to see how you can solve what largely are problems in insufficient competition among and supply of health-care services by legally mandating more demand. But there are subtler aspects to both of the Roberts decisions that many on the right are missing, and for which they may actually find themselves thankful in the long run.
I’m not here speaking primarily of the political ramifications, though there is, of course, that as well. Obamacare was just past the trough of its popularity when the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision came down, and it’s feasible that, at the time, the American public would have digested a contrary ruling fairly well. But had the court’s most recent ruling this week in King v. Burwell gone the other way, the fallout would have been disastrous for the 37 Republican governors who would be forced to choose either to commit suicide with their base by agreeing to create a state health-insurance exchange, or else face the consequences with the broader electorate that would come with ripping away the subsidies that millions of voters need to buy coverage.
But those sorts of considerations are obvious and, at this point, fairly well-covered ground. What I’m talking about instead are the long-term legal consequences of Roberts’ two decisions. There is a way to see both as part of what amounts to a “long con,” a kind of 11-dimensional chess, in which he agrees to give away a near-term policy outcome in exchange for ripping apart 100 years of liberal jurisprudence on the administrative state.
In the NFIB decision, Roberts infamously joined the court’s other conservatives in finding that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. Roberts instead wrote his own decision (joined, ultimately, by the liberal wing of the court) upholding the law as constitutional under Congress’ taxing authority. The assessments that those who fail to buy coverage would have to pay were not (as the plain language of the statute described them) legal “penalties,” but rather a tax on the status of being uninsured.
This was an unexpected decision, not only because it required some remarkable linguistic contortions to reach, but because that was never an argument the administration had put forth as central to their defense (and in earlier cases in the lower courts, had explicitly rejected). In the immediate aftermath of the decision, it made little difference to conservatives how Roberts had arrived at his ruling. If anything, the fact that he recognized the Commerce Clause justification as invalid, but upheld the law nonetheless, was seen as just another sign of his duplicity.
But was it really? It’s important to remember that the decision came in the context of a nearly century-long streak of mostly bad decisions on the nature and meaning of the Commerce Clause. Initially granting Congress authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” the clause has been so expanded that it now essentially grants Congress authority to regulate any action, anywhere. In 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich, the court found that Congress’ authority over “interstate commerce” applied even when the activity in question (the growing of marijuana for personal consumption by a patient with a valid doctor’s prescription) involved no commerce at all and was limited solely to a single state (California) where the behavior in question was completely legal.
Thus, if nothing else, NFIB set some limits on what the Commerce Clause means, even if that limit is nothing more than: “Congress cannot induce commerce for the sake of regulating it.” Within a year of its filing, the decision already had been cited in a number of challenges to federal statutes, including the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act and the so-called “assault weapons” ban. One should expect many more in the years ahead.
The Burwell decision is arguably even more sneakily subversive. For most legal observers, it was obvious a decision in favor of the administration almost certainly would rely on the doctrine of “Chevron deference.” First elucidated in the landmark 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the principle holds that, when an executive branch agency is required to interpret statutory language whose meaning is ambiguous, courts should defer to that interpretation unless it is shown to be unreasonable.
This seemingly dry principle sets a very high bar for those who would seek to challenge administrative rulemaking. Its application frequently has meant that, even where courts concede that it is obvious a bit of language has another, more natural meaning than the one promulgated by a federal agency, so long as the agency’s interpretation is a feasible one, it must stand.
If Chevron deference is applied in the Burwell case, it’s a slam dunk for the administration. The initial petition was dismissed at the District Court level, where it was ruled unambiguous that the Affordable Care Act made federal subsidies available through the Federal Exchange. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals conceded that the language was ambiguous but, applying Chevron, deferred to the IRS’ interpretation of the statute.
Though Roberts’ decision ends up with the same result as those earlier rulings, he got there a very different way. Notably, he found that Chevron deference would not apply in this case:
The tax credits are one of the Act’s key reforms and whether they are available on Federal Exchanges is a question of deep ‘economic and political significance'; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly. And it is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort.
The bit about carving out questions of “economic and political significance” is a pre-existing limitation on Chevron, but the verbiage concerning the IRS’ lack of “expertise” in this policy area is new, and potentially significant. Implied is that, had Congress intended such a big question to be decided by an executive branch agency, it would have explicitly chosen one with experience in the subject matter, such as the Department of Health and Human Services.
This is clearly an attempt by Roberts to rein in executive agencies’ reliance on Chevron to reach whatever finding happens to be most convenient to them. In a nutshell, Roberts didn’t say: “We should grant the IRS deference to decide what the law says.” Rather, what he said was: “WE, the Supreme Court, decide what the law says, and it so happens it says what the IRS said it says.”
It may seem small consolation to Obamacare haters, but there’s actually a big difference between those two findings, albeit one that largely will be missed by nonlawyers. Roberts has just opened a huge new avenue for challenges to administrative rulemaking, particularly where a plaintiff can demonstrate the unlikelihood that Congress would have delegated a particular decision to the specific agency that ultimately made it. From labor laws to environmental standards — not to mention reams and reams of tax rulings — there’s no shortage of federal rules that potentially could fit the bill.
I know it’s hard to believe now, but the day may come when those on the right will thank John Roberts for what he has set in motion.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the IRS’ decision to provide health insurance subsidies through the federal exchanges, it’s important to analyze whether these subsidies are actually sustainable. When spent on the cooperative nonprofit insurers created by the Affordable Care Act, they are not.
In many states, those receiving subsidies for purchasing insurance on state exchanges may get coverage from Consumer Oriented and Operated Plans (CO-OPs). CO-OPs were set up as a sort of half-hearted replacement for the “public option” that many on the left insisted be included in Obamacare. The rationale was that, by creating nonprofit insurers to compete at the state level with Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans (some of whom have shed their nonprofit status in recent years), the cost of insurance would fall.
However, a new study by the Galen Institute’s Grace-Marie Turner and American Enterprise Institute’s Thomas P. Miller shows that CO-OP prices are rising fast and billions in taxpayer dollars have been wasted.
CO-OPs are nonprofit mutual insurers owned by their policyholders. CO-OP executives aim to balance premiums collected with losses paid, without having to return any profits to investors. They only sell their products on state or federal exchanges, meaning they are more likely to provide options to uninsured and more costly patients.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act set up a $6 billion fund for CO-OPs to use toward startup costs and to make it through tough times. Thus far, $2.4 billion of that has been either granted or loaned. Among the somewhat unusual rules the CO-OPs must abide are regulations preventing any government, insurance company or insurance association employees from serving on any of their boards of directors.
Turner and Miller find that when CO-OPs entered a market, they tended to offer premiums well below the market price, hoping to attract customers. Iowa’s CoOportunity Health offered its platinum plan 7 percent lower than the average silver plan, 24 percent lower than the average gold plan and 41 percent lower than the only other platinum plan; CoOportunity gained 10 times more consumers than forecast.
In Tennessee, Community Health Alliance plans were 10 to 25 percent below commercial prices, allowing them to obtain 23 percent of the market in just two years. In Colorado, HealthOp offered the lowest-priced plans across the state and, by the end of the 2015 enrollment period, had racked up 40 percent of the exchange market.
What happend when a government-backed nonprofit charged priced well-below market indicators? The answer comes from a study conducted by Scott Harrington of the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard David Institute of Health Economics:
The ratios to premiums of medical claims, claim adjustment expenses and general expenses for CO-Ops combined for the first three quarters of 2014 were 91.7 percent, 3.8 percent, and 21.3 percent, respectively, producing a total ratio of costs to premiums of 116.8 percent.
In other words, for every $100 CO-Ops collected in premiums, they paid out $117. In Kentucky, Health Cooperative posted a loss ratio of 158 percent in 2014. That means for every dollar collected the group spent $1.58, and that’s not even including expenses. Remember, a good portion of the money collected in premiums comes from the federal subsidies that were just upheld by the Supreme Court.
These groups have responded by raising rates. CHA asked Tennessee regulators to approve a 32.6 percent increase in premiums. In Kentucky, rates will increase either 20 percent or 25 percent, according to the federal exchange website.
Rate increases indicate that these nonprofits are making a turn in the direction of more sensible pricing, but in order to propel themselves, they are asking for bailouts. CO-OPs are seeking to tap Obamacare’s risk adjustment, reinsurance and risk corridors to make up for their losses.
Risk adjustment demands that insurance groups enrolling high-risk patients receive compensation from plans with relatively low-risk enrollees. Iowa’s CoOportunity Health reported $168 million in losses over the last 13 months of its operation, before it was liquidated in February. The burden for paying these loses falls on the Nebraska and Iowa Life and Health Guaranty Association, funded by the group of surviving insurers in the state. Clearly, a liquidated CoOpportunity probably will never pay back its full $145 million in federal loans
Obamacare also required each state to establish a transitional government-backed reinsurance program to provide compensation to insurers when a catastrophic illness or accident occurs. All health insurers have reinsurance coverage in exchange for a prescribed reinsurance fee, but CO-OPs are more likely to have patients requiring reinsurance.
Risk corridors allows the government to offset high losses by providing solvency funds. For the CO-OPs, these funds are supposed to come from profits earned by other CO-OPs. The problem is that, of the 23 CO-Ops, only one (Maine Community Health Options) was profitable in 2014. In total, the CO-OPs reported $613.9 million of underwriting losses.
HealthOp has been given $72 million in startup and solvency loans. New York’s Health Republic Insurance has received $90 million in federal solvency funds. On Nov. 10, 2014, the Kentucky Health Co-op received $65 million in solvency funds to expand its operation to West Virginia. The expansion has been delayed until 2016 and the money, it appears, has been spent to pay losses in Kentucky. The group also expects $257 million from competitors and reinsurance to make up for 2014 and 2015 losses.
Another key problem is that, in offering premiums well-below the market rate, the CO-OPs forced profitable insurers to take on more risk and lower premiums to remain competitive. So not only will the profitable and private companies be forced to bail out the CO-OPs, they have also taken on more risk than they are accustomed to. In the long run, rates for citizens buying both on and off state and federal exchanges will increase to pay for current losses.
In Vermont, the state’s insurance commissioner saw the problem coming and denied Vermont Health CO-OP a license. However, the $33 million in loans that the federal government granted the nonprofit has not been returned to the U.S. Treasury. Even when bad behavior was prevented by a smart commissioner, taxpayers have been robbed.
CO-OPs have swallowed large amounts of money as medicine for a disease with no cure. Congress should stop throwing good money after the bad.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
As proposals are floated both in Congress and in the White House’s budget plan to change the tax treatment of reinsurance purchased by U.S. insurers from offshore affiliates, R Street hosted a Capitol Hill panel discussion June 18 that looked at the significant negative market impacts such a change would have. The panel — “Ensuring Low-Cost Insurance: Reinsurance & International Tax Reform” — was moderated by R Street Outreach Director Lori Sanders and featured legendary supply-side economist Art Laffer, the Tax Foundation’s Alan Cole, Mayer Brown’s Timothy Keeler and former U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.
You can watch the full video below.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Almost any high school textbook on U.S. government will tell you Congress makes the laws, the president approves the laws and the Supreme Court interprets the laws. Based on yesterday’s 6-3 decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell, it might be time to rewrite those textbooks.
Chief Justice Roberts had the political left jumping for joy yesterday as he delivered the opinion of the court. The opinion further established how the court must respect the legislature and provide a fair reading of the law in the context of its legislative plan. Claiming to be carrying forward the legislative plan of Congress, the court declared that the Affordable Care Act intended for tax credits to be offered through federal health-care exchanges, despite the law’s language limiting such subsidies to exchanges “established by the state.”
While both sides of the political aisle can agree on respecting Congress and its intentions, there is a clear distinction between making laws and mending laws. In King v. Burwell, the political agenda of saving the Affordable Care Act seemingly superseded a clear, literal interpretation of the text.
Two-thirds of the Supreme Court chose to ignore that language. They used judicial abdication to their advantage, broadened the meaning of the text, and appeased the leviathan state. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia responded to the majority’s interpretation of the statute, stating”
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’
Regardless of the intent of Congress or its unintentional so-called “drafting error,” the Supreme Court has no obligation to bend down to Congress, and no power to rescue it from perceived errors. The court has one job, and that is to interpret the law.
The Supreme Court will be praised by some for preventing 6.4 million from losing health-care subsidies in 34 states, yet few will recall the millionswho lost their previous health insurance because of the ACA. Nor will they mention the rising insurance premiums for healthy Americans, or the emerging evidence of the overall decline in access to and the overall quality of medical care in the United States.
By using judicial abdication to alter the reading of the text of the Affordable Care Act, the court has set precedent for future decisions, allowing for much more than just “interpreting” the law.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Members and staff may use official resources to participate in open source projects, procure and publish open source software
WASHINGTON (June 25, 2015) — The OpenGov Foundation, the Sunlight Foundation and the Congressional Data Coalition (CDC) today announced that members, committees and staff within the U.S. House are now able to use official resources to procure open-source software, to fully participate in open-source software communities and to contribute software code developed with taxpayer dollars back to the public under an open-source license.
Until now, significant uncertainty surrounded whether or not open-source software, communications and code contributions are permitted within the U.S. Congress. That lack of clarity continues within the U.S. Senate. However, it has been determined that, in general, members and staff in the U.S. House, when conducting official business, now have a choice between using proprietary and closed technology and open-source solutions that are restriction-free, reusable and frequently more cost-effective.
While generally approved open-source software is new to the U.S. House, it is not new to the federal government. In September 2012, the Obama administration entered the open-source world by joining Github, declaring that:
We believe in using and contributing back to open-source software as a way of making it easier for the government to share data, improve tools and services, and return value to taxpayers. – WhiteHouse.gov/Developers
Within Congress, understanding of and support for open-source software has recently spiked. Over the coming weeks, Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas and Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., plan to launch a House Open Source Caucus. In May 2015, Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., submitted feedback on proposed procurement reform legislation via Github. On June 5, 2015, Republican Conference Chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers outlined her vision for a modern, efficient and effective Congress that is able to:
[C]reate an open-source solution for constituent communications that anyone could add on to. I would love to see a system that is open-source, with real time analytics, with social media and text messaging integrated in from the beginning.
In October 2014, the OpenGov Foundation, Sunlight Foundation and CDC jointly called for rules changes that would permit the use and publication of open-source software by House offices. Moving forward, we will continue to work with members of Congress, staff, legislative support agencies and all stakeholders to continue these efforts to create a more efficient, effective and open U.S. Congress.
“Adding open source options to the Congressional tech toolkit is a major step toward creating a 21st century legislature,” said Seamus Kraft, executive director of The OpenGov Foundation. “In the face of shrinking budgets and growing workloads, governments across America are increasingly turning to open-source solutions to help them serve better while spending less. #Hack4Congress showed us all that the open-source community is ready to do its part to help those working to innovate Congress from the inside. While much work needs to be done before members and staff can fully tap into the power of open source, we are excited to continue supporting those efforts however we can.”
“Purchasing only proprietary and closed technology leads to cost overruns on quickly outdated technologies,” said Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif. “Adding open-source software to our list of options will save money and allow Congress to build and improve on what already works, rather than constantly playing catch-up. Our constituents rightly expect more from us.”
“Open-source software presents so many exciting opportunities for members of Congress to more effectively represent and interact with their constituents,” said Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). “By taking advantage of the newest technology and collaborating with the open-source community, we can improve everything from the accessibility of congressional websites to the efficiency of business on the House floor. Personally, I can’t wait to begin integrating open-source technology into my office’s daily operations.”
“I’m glad that the House of Representatives has finally opened the door to open-source software,” said Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas. “For over a decade, Individual coders and businesses around the country have been working with open-source software because of cost savings, productivity gains and the ability to modify the code to meet specialized needs. It’s past time that taxpayers see the same benefits. I applaud The OpenGov Foundation, the Sunlight Foundation and the Congressional Data Coalition for their efforts to make this happen, and I look forward to working through the Open Source Caucus to help educate my colleagues on how open-source software can benefit their offices and constituents.”
“We now have clear guidance on the use of open-source software in the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. “Members of Congress and the open-source community can work collaboratively to improve online access to the Congress and bring the institution more in line with other flexible, modern organizations that use open-source solutions to realize cost-savings and greater efficiency.”
“For far too long, the halls of Congress have been closed to open source,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass. “That changes today, and our office plans to embrace the open-source community on a range of projects that will enhance our constituents’ experience with our office and their government.”
“Open-source software is an important way to increase congressional transparency and accountability while furthering government efficiency, and we applaud the House of Representatives for its efforts to build a 21st century legislature” said Daniel Schuman, co-founder of the Congressional Data Coalition.
“This is an important step that will enable the House to adapt more quickly to changes in technology,” said Sean Vitka, federal policy manager at the Sunlight Foundation. “Allowing Congress to use open source tools will improve transparency and communication between government and the people.”
“Adoption of open-source software by the House of Representatives will be a force multiplier for the taxpayer dollar, allowing information technology systems to be built once and more easily shared between members’ offices,” said Ben Balter, Government Evangelist at Github. “In doing so, the House joins the hundreds of government organizations around the world that participate in the open-source community each day to deliver services more efficiently, more transparently, and in collaboration with the citizens they represent.”
“I’m so pleased the House has taken this critical step forward in allowing Members and staff to take advantage of the rich, productive—and, most of all, transparent—resources of open-source software,” said Mike Godwin, director of innovation policy at the R Street Institute. We’ve known for many years that the open-source approach can be a powerful engine for technological advance, economic growth and the creation of new, powerful initiatives ranging from the Open Knowledge Foundation and Creative Commons to Linux and Wikipedia. I’m excited that the House is now empowered to take greater advantage of the fruits of open-source development.”
WASHINGTON (June 25, 2015) — The R Street Institute welcomed today’s introduction of bipartisan legislation streamlining the process for private companies to begin offering, and states to begin regulating, flood insurance coverage options outside of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Introduced by Reps. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., and Patrick Murphy, D-Fla., and Sens. Dean Heller, R-Nev., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., H.R. 2901 and S. 1679, the Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act, would broaden which privately underwritten flood insurance policies may be used to satisfy federal lending requirements.
“Congress made clear in the 2012 flood insurance reform bill that banks and other lending institutions should accept privately underwritten flood insurance on the same terms as coverage written by the National Flood Insurance Program,” R Street Senior Fellow R.J. Lehmann said. “This legislation will aid banking regulators in determining what sorts of coverage should qualify, relying largely on the states, who already take the lead in regulating the business of insurance.”
Under terms of the bill, any company admitted to write policies in a given state, or surplus lines writer not disqualified by that state, could offer the coverage.
Some states have already begun leading the charge of modernizing the flood insurance market. Florida, West Virginia, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have all created frameworks for state regulators to oversee flood insurance offerings by admitted market companies.
“The private market for flood insurance remains small, but a growing number of insurers and reinsurers have expressed interest in offering more flexible products to consumers,” Lehmann said. “If we are ever to unwind the deeply indebted and unsustainable NFIP, it’s crucial to take these kinds of steps to encourage a vibrant market of private capital to handle this risk in the years ahead.”
Details TBA. Save the date!+ Export to iCal + Export to Google Calendar Details
- - Austin
Events 30.267153 -97.74306079999997 03/11/2016 - 03/15/2016 - 12:00 am
Details TBA. Save the date!+ Export to iCal + Export to Google Calendar Details
US Capitol - Washington
Events 38.8899389 -77.0090505 07/07/2015 - 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm
US Congress - Room TBA
US Capitol - Washington
Events 38.8899389 -77.0090505
By invitation only.+ Export to iCal + Export to Google Calendar Details
- - Washington
Events 38.9052763 -76.98158769999998 06/25/2015 - 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
R Street's Anniversary Celebration
- - Washington
Events 38.9052763 -76.98158769999998
My name is Ian Adams and I am Western region director of the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank headquartered in Washington, with five offices spread throughout the states. As an organization committed to the principles of limited government, we seek pragmatic solutions to the most pressing policy concerns, with a heavy focus on energy and environmental issues. I write today to share our views on H.B. 1912, legislation before your committee related to distributed energy-generation systems.
As an avowedly free-market institution, we’ve joined with other conservatives to oppose subsidies for wind power and other alternative energies; fought burdensome new command-and-control power plant regulations in the name of mitigating climate change; and supported construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
But as an organization committed to responsible environmental stewardship, we have simultaneously written about expanding both our use and our trade of clean hydropower; fought to ensure that BP oil spill dollars are spent on legitimate coastal restoration instead of special-interest boondoggles; and supported restricting subsidies for environmentally damaging farming practices. The unifying theme of our work in this area is the belief that free markets, not heavy-handed government mandates, offer the best solutions to America’s energy challenges.
It is for precisely this reason that I write to express concern with H.B. 1912. We find the incentive rate schedule established in this legislation appears arbitrary and the additional incentive for in-state manufacture of energy-system components is ill-fitted to this effort. We also would suggest the Utilities and Transportation Commission is not the proper regulatory and oversight institution for distributed-energy leasing companies.
The legislation includes a large and arbitrary subsidy schedule for distributed-generation sources. The incentive payments laid out in this structure do not appear founded in any documented costs and benefits of distributed-generation services to the grid or to the utilities required to make these payments. In fact, the potential incentive payments range from 16 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to 43 cents per kWh. Those are levels well-above the average March 2015 cost of residential power, cited by the U.S. Energy Information Administration as 8.68 cents per kWh. Just as utilities grapple with the planning and capital costs associated with creating a smarter grid with diverse sources of power, they also are tasked as stewards of a program that disguises those costs for distributed-generation customers.
Additionally, the legislation would create an incentive structure that gives preferential treatment to wind and solar systems manufactured within Washington State. Aside from the clear violation of the dormant Commerce Clause by prejudicing against interstate trade in wind blades and towers and solar modules, this portion of the legislation is problematic in that it goes beyond the scope of incentivizing distributed generation per se. The source of distributed generation systems has no bearing on the amount or quality of electricity produced and should be irrelevant to this legislative effort. This additional incentive simply adds yet another expenditure to the multitude of manufacturing, renewable-energy manufacturing and renewable-energy production tax credits already in place. Should the State of Washington wish to address incentives for manufacturers, it should do so in separate legislation.
Finally, the Utilities and Transportation Commission is the wrong institution to serve as the regulatory body for third-party vendors that make distributed-energy systems affordable and accessible for energy consumers. The UTC portfolio is geared toward regulation and oversight of utility-scale corporations that are in the business of providing power and natural gas and have a clear public-interest designation. Third-party vendors like those captured under this legislation are power providers only in the most attenuated sense. Their product is not units of power, but the option for individual consumers to become power producers in their own right. It is more appropriate to leave regulatory control and oversight with the Office of the Attorney General, which has authority over other similar service providers.
No power source, solar included, should benefit from an extensive system of subsidies and preferences. Nor should any power source, solar included, be saddled with an extensive system of regulations and restrictions that artificially reduce its use. While well-intentioned, our view is that H.B. 1912 imposes unnecessary and potentially expensive rules on distributed generation to the detriment of consumer freedom and competition in the marketplace.
From the Washington Times:
And grass-roots conservatives are enthusiastic about this movement, too. At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference the session on state criminal justice reforms was packed. Activists stood along the walls and sat on the floor in the aisles. They expressed whole-hearted support for the effort to reform the justice system. Eli Lehrer wrote in the Weekly Standard that criminal justice reform is “perhaps the most important conservative domestic policy initiative in decades.”
This piece was co-authored by R Street Governance Project Director Kevin Kosar.
Consider the hut. Its real name is unknown. For all anyone knows, it might have been used as a storage shed or for some other purpose. The U.S. Department of Interior sought to get rid of the squat, 95-square-foot stone pile in 2010. It was crumbling and had not been used in years.
Alas, the DOI had no such luck. The federal land-disposal process requires buildings more than 50 years old, including this pile of rocks, to be evaluated for historic designation. The department was stuck using its limited resources to restore a structure that served no purpose.
Then there’s the confounding situation that surrounds the David W. Dyer Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse. Built in 1933, the Miami structure “is a skillful example of Mediterranean Revival architecture that combines Renaissance Revival elements with regional Florida architectural features,” according to the General Services Administration, which owns and manages real estate for most government agencies.
The feds cleared out of the Dyer building after the new $163 million Wilkie D. Ferguson Building opened next door in 2007. Over the following six years, Miami-Dade College repeatedly attempted to buy or lease the property. The Dyer building was never brought to market and the extended vacancy has caused damage that the GSA estimates would cost $60 million to correct. Tired of the delay, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla, introduced legislation two years ago to give the property to the college. The bill died in committee. Though the ornate courthouse remains empty today, taxpayers spend $1.2 million annually to maintain it.
These aren’t just anecdotes. The federal government’s property management problem is both longstanding and significant. Getting rid of unused and underutilized property is a particularly big problem, as was underscored at a Senate hearing this past week. The Government Accountability Office has had the GSA portfolio on its “high risk” list since 2003, a designation indicating vulnerability to “fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement.”
According to the GAO, the federal government owns or leases 900,000 buildings and structures. GSA data from Fiscal Year 2014 report 735,000 buildings and structures. A Congressional Research Service report from 2010 estimates around 77,000 of them are vacant or underutilized. We can’t be sure if these numbers are right, the GAO told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as the GSA’s Federal Real Property Profile is not entirely reliable. The GSA’s property database is not readily accessible to either Congress or the public, although the GSA does post FRPP reports and some summary data.
Removing excess property from federal ownership should have broad appeal. Conservatives like shrinking government and everybody supports responsible stewardship of tax dollars. Entrepreneurs and the public can benefit from the redevelopment of federal properties, many of which are quite nice. (Some, like the 140-year-old pink octagonal monkey house in Dayton, Ohio, are more of an acquired taste.) Transferring federal property to private hands makes it taxable by local and state authorities, and when sold, it delivers additional funding to the treasury. Real property disposition also plays well in western states, where the feds control nearly half the land.
With budget caps in effect and appropriators threatening cuts, one might think that agencies would be in a hurry to offload unneeded buildings and property. Alas, such efforts have been halting. The GSA sold off just 342 unwanted properties in FY2014, according to testimony by Norman Dong, commissioner of the agency’s Public Buildings Service. That this number does not match the figure GSA reports in Table 15 here underscores the data-reporting mess.
It would be easy to attribute the slow pace of federal property sales to bureaucratic gaffes and that is one factor. The larger issue is that federal real property disposition is a mess because of well-intended policies that have aggregated over decades.
- The Federal Real Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 forbids most agencies from putting up their properties for sale. Instead, they must work through GSA, which first offers the property to other federal agencies. This policy is intended to encourage rational management of the total federal real estate portfolio.
- The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 directs agencies to register historic properties with GSA, a designation that means agencies must consult with assorted stakeholders as to what can be done with the structure.
- The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 obliges agencies to assess the environmental impacts of a property disposal before disposing of the property.
- The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 mandates agencies either clean up contaminated federal property before offloading it, or get assurance the new owner will do so. The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 amended CERCLA and established a brownfields rehab program. Unwanted federal properties with contamination may be slated into this program.
- The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 requires agencies to offer surplus property for use by entities aiding the homeless. Since 1987, only 122 properties of the 40,000 buildings that were screened ended up being transferred to nonprofits aiding the homeless.
These are just some of the statutes that come into play. Collectively, these policies mean it takes years to dispense with unwanted federal buildings. Offloading them necessitates surmounting numerous hurdles and can inflict upfront costs for repair and clean-up. Agencies often face incentives to do nothing.
An unintended and particularly distressing effect of this policy aggregation is demolition by neglect. Shuttered properties crumble, meaning agencies face higher repair costs before they can dispose of them. This makes them less likely to be repaired and sold. The Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, has numerous derelict properties that cost money to maintain. This destruction of public wealth has fueled more than a few media horror stories.
Congress has been working on a number of bills to improve matters for some years. There has been discussion of a BRAC-type commission, a fast-track process for removing the most valuable properties or devoting 2 percent of the proceeds from property sales to homeless assistance. Some members have introduced legislation directing agencies to convey specific properties to private hands.
None of the systemic reforms have come close to enactment. Real property reform is a complex, “good government” issue that does not strike legislators as an election-winner. Any real property reform bill also must respect, or at least not offend, the various values at play (such as historic preservation) while giving agencies clear incentives to participate and making the whole process more prompt and less wasteful.
It’s easy to condemn a mass murderer fueled by hate; it’s much harder to root out symbols, conventions and comments masquerading as innocuous relics of a time gone by.
The murders in Charleston at the hand of a racist madman have again sparked conversations about race relations in the United States.
The Civil War was romanticized throughout my childhood in the South. The horrible bloodshed of brother against brother wasn’t about slavery. It was about states’ rights against the federal government. I was even told that the driving reason for the war was that the Yankees wanted control of the South’s raw materials.
As a young man, the stories fit a convenient rebel narrative. Cowboy boots, faded jeans, and an attitude went well with the tale of fighting against an oppressive, impersonal government.
Like it did for so many of my peers, the Confederate flag came to represent pride in the South. I love the Southland; I love its people. It’s my home.
It also happens to be home to many people I care about who have a different color skin than me.
The same fairytale of my ancestors was instead their nightmare.
As much as I support the rights of states to govern themselves, no man has the right to own another. Sometimes states get it wrong—deeply wrong.
My forefathers fought for the Confederacy. Today, they’re long dead and buried. The lost causes of the Confederacy are less relevant to my Southern identity than sweet tea and seersucker suits.
Yet we can’t wipe past wrongs away so easily. They left indelible scars on our nation that linger.
Racism and hatred have been defeated time and again, but they leave hollow shells we refuse to discard. We look past them because they’re not a seen as a threat. We tell ourselves that putting away flags or changing our social habits won’t stop racism.
What we fail to realize is that those shells of the past become refuges for monsters like Dylann Roof.
How careless we are to leave them scattered about. Are flags more important than our friends? Is honoring the dead we never met worth inflicting pain on the living?
I love the South, but I don’t show my affection by flying a rebel flag. I can’t be serious about caring for our people when I hold my tongue in the face of racist jokes and sweeping generalizations. I degrade my home when I choose to clutch a historical fiction rather than the hands of my black friends and colleagues.
It’s shameful that it’s taken me so long to understand that my obtuse revisionist perspective on a lost war is a source of pain for those I love and a haunt for those with hate in their hearts.
I see that now, and realize the greatest way to honor our Southern heritage and secure our future is to leave the symbols of our past wrongs behind.
The R Street Institute is a nonprofit, free-market think tank based in Washington, D.C. Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. What’s more, we maintain the largest insurance-focused project of any non-industry think tank. In California, our focus has been in the area of property insurance reform – with an eye toward the California Earthquake Authority, in particular.
Nowhere is the risk of a major earthquake greater, in terms of a population’s exposure to high intensity and severity events, than in California. In March 2015, the U.S. Geological Survey released its Third Uniform Earthquake Rupture Forecast. The study revised upward the odds of an 8.0 magnitude event occurring in California within the next 30 years from 4.7 percent to 7 percent. Less profound earthquakes are even more likely.
In our January 2015 study, “Insuring a Way Out: Modernizing the California Earthquake Authority,” we suggested that the Legislature adopt an earthquake-retrofit equivalent of the “Property Assessed Clean Energy” financing program. We favor such an approach because it is a free-market and fiscally conservative approach to increasing the state’s seismic resilience:
The PACE model overcomes two of the biggest hurdles to widespread adoption of major property upgrades: the high upfront cost and property owners’ uncertainty about when they might sell their property. Investors also are protected, because their obligation becomes attached to the property itself.
S.B. 602 (Monning) is PACE for earthquakes made real – but, by another name. The “Property Secured Mitigation Program” combines the scale and reach of government without warping the private price signals necessary to transmit a full understanding of risk. In concrete terms, that means that the program could lead to more Californians with earthquake insurance in three distinct ways:
- First, since a retrofitted home is less likely to sustain large amounts of damage during a seismic event, it is less expensive to insure. As a result, earthquake insurance premiums on retrofitted properties can be lower, while also being actuarially sound.
- Second, because homeowners and earthquake insurance are linked in California, homeowners that opt for seismic retrofits could enjoy meaningful discounts on their homeowners insurance if they purchase earthquake insurance, which would further incentivize earthquake insurance.
- Third, as the sheer number of retrofitted properties increase, earthquake insurance premiums will go down across the board.
For these reasons, The R Street Institute is an enthusiastic supporter of S.B. 602 (Monning) and urges a “yes” vote. If you have any questions, please contact Ian Adams at (916)761-5269.