So many big issues have people riled up these days, it’s hard to get much attention for relatively minor ones. People demonstrating against President Donald Trump’s travel ban, making calls to protest a cabinet appointment, and preparing to march for climate change action don’t have much spare time to focus on selenium runoff and ecosystem planning.
That’s an opportunity for Republicans in Congress, who have been eagerly waiting for an opportunity to undo the previous administration’s actions.
They demonstrated how eager last week, using the previously moribund Congressional Review Act, or CRA, to rescind several regulations made late in the Obama presidency. Citing onerous compliance requirements for coal mining companies, oil and gas producers, and other corporate entities, Republicans have started repealing protections for streams, wells, air, and animals.
The CRA, used just once before in this way, allows for the nullification of recently-enacted rules promulgated by federal agencies, via joint resolutions. The House began voting on them last week, with more on the way. Because they differ from regular bills, Senate Republicans can quickly concur without overcoming the 60-vote obstacle to end debate. Trump has already declared his intent to sign five of them when they reach his desk.
The moves have largely escaped notice. In an effort to draw more attention, Somerville Congressman Michael Capuano has offered his own cheeky names for the measures — including the Clean Air is Overrated Act, the Love That Dirty Water Act, and the Make Corporate Bribery Legal Again Act.
Any regulations issued late enough in the Obama presidency are eligible, but many of the ones singled out for CRA repeal concern environmental protections.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise, says Nikki Tsongas, who has often fought GOP efforts on public land use and other environmental issues. “We’ve shifted into a different direction with President Trump,” Tsongas says, “that’s in line with what my Republican colleagues have been wanting to do all along.”
Tsongas points out that one of the very first actions House Republicans took this year was a rule change making it easier for Congress to transfer federal lands to state and local authorities — something opposed not only by Democrats and environmental advocacy groups but Trump’s own interior secretary nominee, Ryan Zinke.
Republican control of Congress has been a big reason that Obama has promulgated many environmental policies through the relatively blunt — and more easily undone — method of departmental rule-making.
The Stream Protection Rule, on the chopping block via CRA nullification, was eight years in the making, Tsongas says. Another measure, concerning the Bureau of Land Management, was shaped by more than 3,000 comments submitted over two years.
House Republicans are reportedly still searching for additional regulations they can revoke through the CRA, but they are limited by the bill’s time constraints.
That only means they’ll turn to other methods, some even more obscure. Just a couple of years ago, Republicans used a national defense funding bill to eliminate certain conservation protections.
“We have to fight these fights, even though they may not be on the front pages,” Tsongas says. “They have a cumulative effect, and they change who we are as a country.”
No Blue State Blues Yet
It’s been a quiet concern in New England since the election: Will President Donald Trump’s administration freeze out this region when it doles out federal dollars?
The new government promises to be miserly overall, and it would surprise few if the notoriously resentful president sought to punish states that voted for Hillary Clinton by reducing their slice of that shrinking pie. And outside of Maine’s Susan Collins and Bruce Poliquin, the region has no Republican members of Congress to entreat the Republican administration.
Early signs, however, suggest those concerns may be misplaced.
First came news that the long-delayed Green Line extension project is on the administration’s list for funding under an infrastructure bill — even though it goes right through the sanctuary city of Somerville, Massachusetts.
Then last week, new Defense Secretary James Mattis came through for New Hampshire’s Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Trump’s announced hiring freeze appeared to affect new hires at the shipyard, according to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who led an effort to obtain an exemption for it and other Navy public shipyards. On Thursday, the Department of Defense issued a directive ensuring that exemption.
And early this week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a $1.3 million grant to repair Lynn’s Seaport Marina from winter storm damage.
That’s in the congressional district of Rep. Seth Moulton — who, barely a week earlier, declared that he is “ashamed” that Trump is his president, in reference to the executive order on travel into the United States.
If that’s not enough to lose federal funding, perhaps there’s less to worry about than some feared.
The New “Senator No”
She’s voting no on Trump’s nominees for attorney general, secretary of state, secretary of education, secretary of health and human services, secretary of the treasury, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and director of management and budget.
No, this New England obstructionist isn’t Elizabeth Warren; it’s Maggie Hassan.
Barely a month since being sworn in as a U.S. senator, the former New Hampshire governor has emerged as a somewhat surprising “senator no.”
During her 2016 campaign, which ended with her beating incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by barely a thousand votes out of 740,000 cast, Hassan repeatedly emphasized her bipartisanship and willingness to compromise. Facing efforts to portray her as a lock-step liberal Democrat, she emphasized her accomplishments with a Republican-led state legislature.
And, true to that word, Hassan started off — as many Democratic senators did — in a generally conciliatory fashion. In one of her committees, she gave important thumbs-up votes to transportation secretary nominee Elaine Chao and commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross. On another committee, she voted in favor of John Kelley for secretary of homeland security.
She also voted in favor of confirming Nikki Haley as United Nations ambassador and Mike Pompeo as CIA director.
But trouble began when Hassan questioned education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos at a confirmation hearing in mid-January.
Hassan, whose adult son is severely disabled, reacted with disdain when DeVos appeared unfamiliar with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Later in the month, Hassan pressed Office of Management and Budget nominee Mick Mulvaney hard on his attitude as congressman toward government shutdowns, Planned Parenthood, and climate change.
She later announced plans to vote against both DeVos and Mulvaney. And, since late last month, she has issued a string of statements announcing her reasons for opposing one nominee after another.
That has not yet included the nominee for Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch. After Trump’s announcement of Gorsuch’s nomination last week, while Massachusetts Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren were already declaring their opposition, Hassan put out a brief, non-committal statement.
Perhaps that’s just a courtesy to her former rival. Ayotte has been recruited by the White House to lead Gorsuch’s confirmation process in the Senate.
