The following are Land Improvement Contractor's position papers on various legislation:

LICA Position Paper on the American Clean Energy Act, H.R. 2454

If enacted, H.R. 2454 would be the biggest government takeover of the nation’s economy since WWII, which is the last time energy, food, and other basic commodities were rationed.   It would also be the biggest tax increase in the history of the world, and would cause a colossal transfer of wealth from consumers to big business.  The claimed purpose of Waxman-Markey is to contain global warming by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.  The cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the bill would do this by severely limiting the amount of energy derived from the three carbon-dioxide producing fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas – that Americans would be allowed to use.  Currently over 80% of U.S. energy comes from these three fuels simply because they are the least expensive fuels available.  Waxman-Markey would require cutting emissions by 17% below a 2005 baseline by the year 2020, 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050.

How high might energy prices rise under Waxman-Markey?  Some Democrats on the committee think it may require doubling electric rates and getting gasoline prices above $5.00/gal.  The president agrees.  He said on Jan. 17^th 2008 that “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”  This tax falls disproportionately on the poor who spend a larger portion of their income on energy.

Worse, it is not necessary.  Respected scientists are far from united on the idea of man-caused global warming.  Staff on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has compiled a list of 700 well-credentialed scientists who argue against the theory.  More than 31,000 scientists have signed a Global Warming Petition expressing doubts.  The founder of the weather channel, John Coleman, has written that warming is “the greatest scam in history.”  They all have good reason.  Earth temperatures actually have dropped since 1998.  The National Snow and Ice Data Center in April showed more Arctic Sea ice than in any April since 2003.  Even many prominent warming supporters acknowledge that their own models now forecast cooling over the next 30 years.  Any notion of consensus on global warming is a myth.

Continuous climate change is normal as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration explained in the article “Earths Fidgeting Climate.”  On its Web site, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works mentions no science that justifies taxing Americans for carbon usage.  We don’t believe any amount of money or any human tinkering can change the Earth’s climate patterns.  We do not understand how supposedly intelligent people can recommend bankrupting our nation to solve a non-problem.  Increasing Americans’ fuel and utility costs in this recession is not only bad public policy, it will kill millions of jobs in our industry.  LICA opposes H.R. 2454  Final 27 JUL  2009/jwp

LICA Position Paper on the proposed amendments to the Clean Water Act.

Written 31 DEC 2009/jwp, Approved by the LICA Board, 26 FEB 2010 

The US House and Senate are both proposing amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500).  The House Bill introduced on May 21, 2007, is H.R. 2421 championed by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN).  The Senate Bill introduced on April 2, 2009 is S. 787 championed by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others.  One of the concerns about these proposed amendments is that they would replace the term “navigable waters” with the term “waters of the United States.”  This change alone would vastly expand federal control over all the waters of the United States including potholes, playas and irrigation return flows on private property.  These proposals: 

• Grant EPA and the USACE unlimited regulatory control over all “intrastate” waters.

• Grant EPA and the USACE unrestricted authority to regulate all activities (private or public) that may affect intrastate waters.

• Nullify existing agency regulations without maintaining long-standing and important regulatory exemptions allowing historically commonsense uses.

• Include a citizen lawsuit provision that allows anyone to sue you if they “think” your activity “might” affect water.

 Two Supreme Court Decisions have provided some regulatory relief for landowners and local governments, and have had a profound effect on the ever-expanding jurisdictional reach of EPA and the USACE.  They are the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) decision in 2001 that said the CWA does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands.  The Rapanos decision in 2006 said that the jurisdiction under the CWA must show a clear connection to a navigable water, the term used in the Act.  Some have not liked the reigning in of EPA and the USACE, and want to get back to a point prior to these Supreme Court decisions and in fact expand federal authority and jurisdiction even more.  The EPA administrator admits these amendments will expand enforcement.    

While the original CWA was very broad and extensive, it was never intended to be unlimited, and that is what these amendments would make it.  At some point, federal jurisdiction must end, and for now that end point by definition is “navigable waters,” as imprecise as that may be.  And since these amendments would claim federal jurisdiction over all waters of the U.S., it follows that all land management activities that might impact those waters in any way would also be regulated.  So, this is not just a water grab, but a land grab as well.  The real issue is NOT one of clean water; it is one of jurisdiction and federal control.  And federal jurisdiction does not equal protection, just look at the plight of our National Parks and Monuments that have to seek maintenance funds from commercial companies. 

Many groups supporting these amendments are the anti’s; anti-private property, anti-free market, anti-use, organizations such as Earth Justice, Greenpeace, etc.  Those that oppose these amendments tend to be the actual producers in society, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Wheat & Corn Growers, National Mining Association and even the National Association of Counties.  These amendments would have an adverse impact on LICA construction activities.

These amendments go far beyond the interpretations of jurisdiction advanced by the agencies in the 30 years preceding the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions.  The National Center for Public Policy Research says they would do more to threaten the cherished pastimes of outdoor enthusiasts than they would do to ensure the cleanliness of the nation’s water.  These bills push the limits of federal authority not matched by any other law, with the possible exception of the cap & trade & national health care legislation also being proposed.  For these reasons, LICA opposes H.R. 2421 and S. 787.

LICA Position Paper on the “Employee Free Choice Act” or Card Check Bill

On Thursday, March 12th, Democrats in both houses of Congress plan to introduce a union-organizing bill that is labor’s top priority for the year, Democrat officials said. The result could be a high-decibel, high-stakes brawl between business and labor.

The measure — widely known as the Card Check Bill and formally as the Employee Free Choice Act — would allow a union to form after enough workers in a shop sign cards, or petitions, rather than voting by secret ballot. LICA believes that the Card Check Bill has three principal prongs, all of them bad; 1) it could effectively eliminate the secret ballot election, a cornerstone of representative democracy; 2) it would short circuit the collective-bargaining process after 120 days, allowing an arbiter to impose contract terms neither the union of the company has sought; and 3) it would replace remedial penalties for NRLB violations with Draconian punitive fines that could drive some firms into bankruptcy – while imposing no fines for union misconduct.

The fact that the bill is being introduced so early in the session is an indication of it being a priority and of confidence in the vote count. But others see “surefire signs of stall” over the measure, and quote leaders of both sides as saying it could be hung up for months, perhaps pushing it into 2010. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions plans to start hearings the week of March 9th, 2009.

The White House has not weighed in on timing or tactics although the president favors the measure.

The business community and LICA claim the measure would have a crushing effect, putting the Administration in a tough spot as the economy sinks. In the early part of the last century unions were helpful as working conditions were not healthful and pay was often inequitable. Today, the need for unions has diminished substantially, as employers foster positive employee relations and understand that these relationships should be conducted in the spirit of mutual respect and fairness.

Legendary investor Warren Buffett, a supporter of the president, said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box”: “I think the secret ballot’s pretty important in the country. I’m against card check, to make a perfectly flat statement.” The percent of those voting for union membership drops dramatically in a secret-ballot election compared to a public card check vote, which is the reason unions want the non-secret card check.

Because the Bill contains all the deficiencies noted above, LICA is opposed to the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act which will result in union intimidation of employees. This Bill is one of the most direct threats to economic growth and job creation and retention. The Effect of Card Check would be especially disastrous in the construction industry, where the unemployment rate is already more than 18%.