Executive Order 13801: Apprenticeships

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13801 is entitled "Expanding Apprenticeships in America" and was issued on June 15, 2017.  This EO has 11 sections.  Skills of workers is a very important topic currently since the rate of technological change is unprecedented and unrelenting.  Increasingly, automation is reducing the number of jobs and for those jobs that remain, the work itself is different and requires computer skills.

Section 1

This section lays out the purpose of the EO, but it also speaks to the administration's policy.  There is an emphasis to change what has been done in the past because it has been ineffective.  The measure of success seems to be whether retrained workers find further employment.  This makes sense, but if the jobs move to a different place, then ultimately the people have to move as well.

Section 2

This section summarizes the administration's policy into a single sentence.  A couple of things seem to pop out of the statement, first, there seems to be an assumption that the trainees will bear the burden of some of the cost.  Since most people will not have a pile of cash in their back pocket for paying for retraining, then it means that people will have to take on debt to finance such retraining.
Second, it mentions easing the regulatory burden on such programs.  This potentially means a roll back in consumer and worker protections for apprenticeship and retraining enrollees.  The fine print in the rule-making will be critical.

Section 3

This defines what an apprenticeship and a job training program are.

Section 4

This section directs the Secretary of Labor to initiate rule-making aimed at promoting the development of apprenticeship programs by third parties.  Here it becomes a question of figuring out what third parties would find sufficiently attractive to have an apprentice work at a job.

Section 5

This section directs the Secretary of Labor to focus spending on apprenticeships towards students at secondary and post-secondary schools.  I think this is completely misdirected.  Frankly, the real problem that everyone keeps talking about is older workers losing their jobs as a result of closure of manufacturing plants.  Retraining of these workers so that they have skills that can be used in other industries which are growing rather than shrinking should be the focus.

Section 6

This section directs that various cabinet members promote apprenticeships.  Both for people who might need retraining as well as the companies that ultimately will provide the apprentice positions that trainees will fill with the hope that at the end of it, they will have a permanent job.

Section 7

This section directs the Secretary of Education to promote apprenticeships at colleges and universities.  This is symptomatic of the anti-intellectualism of this administration and as mentioned above, I believe it is the wrong place to focus.

Section 8

This section creates a Task Force that is to write a report with recommendations that would promote the creation and use of apprenticeship positions.  This task force include the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Education and up to 20 others as appointed.  Note that per (g), the attendance to meetings of the Task Force can be delegated to others.  The budget comes from the Department of Labor.  Subsection (e) is interesting and seems to be part of a recent trend wherein the President is delegating his functions or responsibilities increasingly frequently to others (typically cabinet members).

Section 9

This section sets up an awards program to recognize good apprenticeship programs.

Section 10

Finally, the EO is calling for reports to be generated to identify what programs already exist.  The Director of the OMB is directed to create a scoring matrix that will fulfill the concern that programs need to be effective.  The deadline given is the development of the President's FY 2019 Budget which will be released in early 2018.

Section 11

This has the usual legal fine print necessary to assure that the EO is constitutional.

My Commentary

First, I would be really surprised if apprenticeships and re-training has not previously been considered so presenting this as if it was the first time is misleading.  Second, who provides training and how to measure value are valid questions and if the scoring is done in an unbiased and scientific way, that would help.  Finally, I think that the focus on who should get apprenticeships and retraining needs to be focused on older displaced workers and not on young high school and university students.

Memorandum of June 21, 2017

In the Federal Register, a memorandum dated June 21st, 2017 was published.  This Memorandum was quite short, but rather cryptic.  It states:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 10005 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) (the “Act”).

The link in the above did not actually work for me, so here is a different link that should work.
What this is saying is that the President is delegating the responsibility under section 10005 of the Act to the Secretary of Defense.  This is a rather ironic development.  During the campaign, Trump stated that he did not need the generals and that he had a special secret plan for defeating ISIS.  Since taking power, he has issued an Executive Order which requests that a plan is developed by the Generals as to how to defeat ISIS.  Section 10005 provides for spending ($2.4 billion) on defense subject to the President providing a report to Congress (potentially with a classified appendix) on the strategy to defeat ISIS.  So basically, Congress is having trouble getting information on what the current strategy is.  Sad!
Some news outlets, I believe have written this up as Trump delegating his powers as "commander in chief".  This is definitely overstating what is in the memo.  But clearly, the president does not seem to have an interest anymore on figuring out how to defeat ISIS and so has passed the task on to the Secretary of Defense.  Logically the Secretary of Defense would have in large part been involved in the writing of any strategy document, but this oddly pushes the buck down the chain but is within the pattern of behavior we have seen many times before by the President.

Executive Order 13802: Suspension of Visa timeliness goals

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13802 is entitled "Amending Executive Order 13597" and was issued on June 21, 2017.  This EO has only 3 sections.  All it does is delete a subparagraph of an old EO and then directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to update the plans that had been created under the old EO.

Section 1

This simply states that section 2(b)(ii) of EO 13597 is deleted.  This said "ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within 3 weeks of receipt of application, recognizing that resource and security considerations and the need to ensure provision of consular services to U.S. citizens may dictate specific exceptions."

Section 2

This section directs the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to update the plans that had been created under the original EO in line with the deletion of the subparagraph.

Section 3

This section has the usual legal fine print needed to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

The original EO noted that one of the consequences of the 9/11 attacks was ramping up security screenings of foreign nationals and that this dampened tourism.  The targeted subparagraph intended to address concerns about how long it might take to get a Visa to the US.  There can be a chicken and egg problem for some foreign nationals in that they cannot apply for a Visa until they have booked the plane tickets, but you don't want to book the plane tickets until you are sure if and when you will get your Visa.  So maybe it's easier just to go visit Canada.
The goal stated, even though it comes with wiggle room, would require a somewhat different attitude towards foreigners than what has been demonstrated by this administration.  Hence, removing the goal ultimately provides a number of things to the administration.  First, now not meeting it because of the reduced resources at State cannot be a point of attack by critics.  Second, if it does take a long time to schedule nonimmigrant visa application interviews and this discourages foreign nationals from visiting the US, that is a good thing as far as the administration is concerned.  Third, it undoes yet another thing that Obama did.
This EO simply extends the xenophobia that launched this administration and therefore is not surprising in any way.

Presidential Memo Re: Executive Order 13780

On June 14th, 2017, the President issued a memo regarding the effective dates of Executive Order 13780.  EO 13780 was issued on March 6th, 2017 and is entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States".  I have not yet written about this EO in the Blog.  This EO was challenged in part in court and various provisions of section 2 and section 6 of the EO have an injunction against their implementation.
In section 14 of the EO, it had stated that the EO would become effective March 16, 2017.  However, the injunctions were issued prior to the EO going into effect.  The court cases have progressed to a point where they are now going to be appealed to the supreme court with a final ruling by that body.  This memo clarifies that once the cases with respect to the EO are lifted or stayed, the EO sections under dispute become effective 72 hours thereafter.

My Commentary

So, in the meanwhile, part of the reason that was given for needing to have a temporary ban on entry of certain foreign nationals was to examine the vetting system used to determine the identity and security risk associated with individuals from certain foreign nations.  EO 13780 was the second so-called "Muslim ban" (the first being EO 13769) that was written and this was about 90 days ago.
Section 2(b) of EO called for a report on what countries can provide adequate information for vetting to be written within 20 days of the EO.  Further, in section 2(d), it directed that requests be made for the required information with those countries within 50 days of the issue of the 2(b) report.
Section 5 is entitled "implementing Uniform screening and vetting standards for all immigration programs."  This section had never been, as far as I know, affected by the court orders.  One would think that the Department of Homeland Security would by now have made progress in coming up with something here.  So, if they have, then the point of the suspensions of entry is largely moot.  However, I believe the court cases will proceed to finally determine if there is a basis to issue a blanket ban on individuals from a specific nation since most likely the work stemming from section 5 of the EO will recommend such a blanket ban on specific foreign nationals.

Executive Order 13782: Federal Contracting

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13782 is entitled "Revocation of Federal Contracting Executive Orders" and was originally published on March 27th, 2017.  This EO is quite terse and does not have a lot to say.

Section 1

This section revokes the following:

• Executive Order 13673
• Section 3 of Executive Order 13683
• Executive Order 13738

Section 2

This section directs the various executive branch agencies and departments to revise any rules that were created as a result of the EO's mentioned in section 1.

Section 3

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

Well, What do these other EO's actually say?  EO 13673 requires that there is reporting on suppliers or contractors to the Federal Government as to whether they comply with labor laws.  While this does not change the underlying laws, there will be a lot less transparency as to whether suppliers are complying with requirements.
Section 3 of EO 13683 is just an edit to EO 13673 section 2(a)(i)(I).  I really do not see the reason for needing to strike this even considering the severability clause in Section 7 of EO 13683.
Similarly, EO 13738 is an edit to 4 different clauses in EO 13763.  Again, it seems pedantic to revoke this EO, but I guess the lawyers will take every step to assure no one has an argument against.
So does it matter?  In the end, this will reduce the transparency of how the Federal Government does business.  It does matter.  The argument for the EO is that the original EO, as amended, created a lot of additional overhead for businesses as well as government to provide all of the required compliance reporting.  This is a cost which provides a certain benefit.  That benefit is transparency, better compliance to labor laws by Federal suppliers and contractors and probably higher wages.  It would be hyperbole to suggest that this EO is going to lead to the Gulag where Federal infrastructure projects get done by slave labor.  However, it is certainly a small step in that direction.  I trust the pendulum will swing back after 2020.

Memo to the Secretary of Defense June 13, 2017

In the Federal Register, under Presidential Documents, there was published a Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense entitled "Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 4533(a)(5) of the Defense Production Act of 1950".  This is 82 FR 27607.
This is a very short memo which memorializes that current US industry is not able to provide adequate amounts of aerospace structures and fibers, radiation hardened microelectronics, radiation test and qualification facilities, and satellite components and assemblies.  Since these are deemed to be critical to national defense, the President is directing the Secretary of Defense to buy extras so as to try and stimulate enlarging the industrial capacity of these items.  This is what 50 USC 4533 says.
However, in reading the reference subsection (a)(5), it says "Except as provided in paragraph (7), the President may not execute a contract under this subsection unless the President, on a non-delegable basis, determines, with appropriate explanatory material and in writing, that-".  What follows is verbatim what is written in the memorandum.  I do not see what in the memo constitutes the "explanatory material."
Someone in the Department of Defense, under the authority provided in the memo, is going to buy a bunch of stuff related to satellites and put it into a warehouse and make some private company a bunch of money.  This is so opaque that it is hard to believe someone is not playing games behind the scenes.

Executive Order 13783: Economic Growth

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13783 is entitled "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth".  This EO was originally issued on March 28th, 2017 and has 8 sections.  However it is in fact rather long in comparison to some other EO's that have been issued and at the time it was indeed rather controversial partly because it actually changed things.  We'll have a look why as we go through it.

Section 1

This section defines the policy and has 5 subsections.  The third subsection directs all executive departments and agencies to immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden production and use of energy resources.  The fourth subsection directs the executive branch to only make regulations when it is clear that it is a federal executive responsibility.  Clearly, there is an assumption here that some rules currently in place should have been State responsibilities or that the rule tries to legislate and is not supported by the underlying legislation.  Finally in the last subsection, this says that environmental regulations need to ensure that there is a net benefit (although it is not mentioned to whom!) and that regulations should be based on science and economics.  There are assumptions hidden in this which are criticisms of the prior administration: the rules protecting the environment were too conservative is considering the effects of human activity and that the science used to justify the rules was bad.

Section 2

This section details the implementation of the review directed in 1(c).  Within 45 days, every agency has to have a plan to conduct the review and complete it within 180 days.  A draft report with recommendations is to be issued, followed by a final version.  Then the Director of the OMB will be responsible to have the approved recommendations acted on.  No doubt this will result in a lot of Rulemaking notices in the Federal Register.

Section 3

This section revokes a number of previous presidential and other documents and then requests the departments to take action to further rescind or modify rules that had been created based on these documents.  Here are the items that have been revoked or rescinded:

• Executive Order 13653
• Presidential memo of June 25, 2013
• Presidential memo of November 3, 2015
• Presidential memo of September 21, 2016
• The President's Climate Action Plan of June 2013
• Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions of March 2014
• Final guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews.(See 81 FR 51866)

Section 4

This section directs that agencies should also review anything related to the "Clean Power Plan".  The intent is that where this is deemed to burden energy producers or consumers, the rules should be revoked.  Also, this asks the Department of Justice to back off on any currently pending prosecutions of companies who are in violation of the rules in the Clean Power Plan.  This clearly shows that this administration does not believe that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

Section 5

This section revokes a number of guidance documents that defined what was a good way to estimate the long-term social costs of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide and Methane emissions.  Also it disbands the group that had written these documents.  Essentially, I think there are no rules now and therefore the long-terms social costs of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide and Methane emissions do not matter in the opinion of the current administration.

Section 6

This section directs the Secretary of the Interior to lift the moratorium on coal mining on federal lands.

Section 7

This section lists a number of rules related to oil drilling and exploration that are to be reviewed by the Secretary of the Interior and to have the Department of Justice back down on current prosecutions related to these rules.

Section 8

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My Commentary

There is a term that has been used in many cases: "The deconstruction of the administrative state".  The thought process here is that the government is too prescriptive in laws, policy and regulation and mandating how people live in a way that is intrusive to privacy, religious beliefs and other rights and freedoms originating from the constitution.  It is very much the embodiment of Republican party positions.  This EO was crafted and written very much in that spirit.
But the real problem is people, inventive greedy people with a weak moral compass.  People who find an opportunity to make a buck because of the ignorance, trust or gullibility of others.  This applies doubly so in corporate settings and on the internet because often in these settings the person who is the mark is some anonymous person who will never find be able to track back to you the action you might be taking today that adversely affects them.  The bad actors are emboldened simply because it seems like there are more levels of indirection and that violations will be very hard to detect.  Will this be the legacy of the current administration, that they emboldened bad actors?
There has been a lot of news recently about the effects of this EO in the coal industry which was a specific target of campaign promises.  So far, there have been a few expansions, but also there have been a some additional closures of coal mines.  Many commentators and reporters have challenged the notion that the only reason that the coal industry and the number of mining jobs has declined in the past 20 years is due to increased environmental regulations.  There are other things that have had an affect.  It seems that this EO may slow the loss of jobs, but it certainly will not bring the jobs back and there will be a cost to the environment because of the EO.