Executive Order 13807: Permitting Process

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13807 is entitled "Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects".  It was issued on August 15th, 2017 and has 7 sections.  It deals with streamlining the permitting process for the anticipated infrastructure spending that was a campaign promise last year.

Section 1

This section defines the aspirations of this EO which is to streamline Federal Government decision making so that decisions can be made quicker so as to expedite starting up construction activities.

Section 2

This section defines the policy.  Essentially this can be summarized as wanting to conduct environmental reviews through the various Federal agencies in a coordinated and efficient manner.

Section 3

This section contains definitions for "Authorization", "CAP Goals", "Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council", "Infrastructure Project", "Major Infrastructure Project" and "Permitting timetable".

Section 4

This section defines that the Federal Government will start creating agency and personnel performance goals to reduce the time to conduct environmental reviews to 2 years.  Further, information on whether these goals are being met will be published.  The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for the collection and publishing of the performance data.

Section 5

This section is about "process enhancements."  This includes the mechanism of establishing a "champion" for each infrastructure project which is winding its way through the review process and having that "champion" be responsible for shepherding the decision to a conclusion as quickly as possible.  Essentially, it is customer service.

Section 6

This section revokes EO 13690 entitled "Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input" which had been issued by the previous President in 2015.  It also modifies some of the process defined in EO 13766 entitled "Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects".

Section 7

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

My Commentary

With respect to section 6, the roll back of the Federal Flood standards, it is ironic due to the intervening events with Hurricane Harvey and the damage due to flooding along the Texas coastline and elsewhere.  Clearly, this EO has not yet had any impact, but in the long run, this will result in more homes and businesses being built in flood hazard areas.  Further, as always with the current President, he is obsessed with trying to undo the actions that had been taken by the previous administration.
On that, it is always much easier to tear down than to build, just ask anyone who has done even a small home renovation project.  In the past 7 months since the inauguration, a fair amount has been undone, especially in the Justice department, but little has been achieved.  Even those things which looked like easy wins have turned out badly.  And even this revocation is actually flawed since EO 13690 is actually a modification to a previous EO.  And therefore, it does not actually eliminate Flood Risk Management, but reverts it back to older processes as defined in EO 11988 which had been issued under President Carter.
It needs to be noted that in section 2(b), previous administrations would have emphasized that decisions on environmental impacts need to be made based on information gathered in a scientific way.  Here, the decisions need only be "informed" although it does not state what information should be considered.  I have to admit there are some worthwhile goals expressed in the policy section.  To the extent that Federal agencies are jointly responsible for conducting environmental impact reviews, there should be obtainable efficiencies by reducing duplication and ensuring co-ordination across the various agencies, but this being an EO, it cannot actually change the Rules (i.e. the Code of Federal Regulations).  This is good since the last parts of Section 5 do seem to direct agencies such as the FPISC and CEQ to be responsible to push through environmental reviews with people who are political appointments making decisions.
In reading this, one thing I had been suspicious about is whether this streamlined permitting process could be used for private enterprise to build a manufacturing plant.  It does not seem likely.  However, nuclear power plants (despite how unlikely it is that someone would want to try to build a new one) fall into what can be considered by this EO.
This is in some ways a well thought out comprehensive document that seems to have been written by some knowledgeable policy wonks and ends up being relatively unpartisan in comparison to a lot of the EO's that have been issued by the current administration.  It should be noted that this EO is essentially version 2 of EO 13766 which actually details out some of how things can be made faster and better, but also it is based on a previous model "Synchronizing Environmental Reviews for Transportation and Other Infrastructure Projects" dating from 2015 (See Section 5(b)(iv)(A)).
It is not easy to judge just what are the long-run implications of this EO.  Faster decisions by governments on environmental approvals would be welcome, provided these approvals (or rejections) are fact-based and scientifically sound.  But the Federal government is only one piece, as is mentioned within the EO, state, local and tribal governments get involved as well.

Executive Order 13806: Manufacturing base

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order 13806 is entitled "Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States".  It has 3 sections.

Section 1

This section defines policy.  It posits that the manufacturing capacity and defense industrial base has been weakened by the loss of factories and jobs.  This has consequences for national security.  Therefore policies should be crafted to enhance manufacturing capacity and the defense industrial base.

Section 2

This section mandates that a report is created.  It does have a number of subsections which define the aspects of the report.  These include identification of stuff that is essential to national security, what domestic manufacturing capability exists, what internal and external shocks might precipitate a crisis and what we should do to prevent that.  This report is due in 270 days.

Section 3

This section contains the necessary legal fine print to assure that the Executive order is constitutional.

My Commentary

This is tricky.  There is a real national security weakness when the USA relies on weapons manufactured outside of the country.  Further, it is true that some weapons which are assembled in the USA rely on components and raw materials that come from outside the country.  Any of these components or raw materials could be made into point of leverage, be it batteries, memory chips or high strength magnets.  All of these three mentioned parts rely on metals which are often rare and not necessarily found in the USA.  Batteries require lithium.  Chips are made with gallium and arsenide.  Magnets are made with neodymium.  What are the options to obtain these minerals when faces with some kind of external shock.
The problem is that these Executive Orders have been, under this President, often tools of simple political posturing, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  Also, anyone that knows anything about this topic knows that there are no simple solutions.  Partly this is because the pace of industrial innovation and technological development is such that in order to aim to catch up with someone, you end up trying to come up with the next round of evolution (or revolution) in a technology before them.  If you just try to match where they currently are, by the time you get there, you are behind again.
The last point I want to make is that short of the government procuring goods and services from private industry, there are few if any direct tools to create manufacturing jobs or build factories.  As such, the probability is that the suggestions will amount to re-invigorating the military-industrial complex of the 1970's and 1980's.  The government has much more power to influence conditions that are conducive to job growth and expansion of the manufacturing base.  These would include: low interest rates, low tax rates, less regulation, the availability of highly skilled workers who will work at low rates of pay. All of these disadvantage or harm workers.  Fundamentally, manufacturing is not coming back and we will have to deal with the national security implications of that.

Executive Order 13805: Infrastructure Council

It's been some time since I have posted here.  I've been busy at work and also trying to enjoy the summer.  Much craziness seems to be on-going, but still need to catch up on some of the Executive orders that have been issued even though they have been overtaken by events.  Long-term, we shall see if this blog continues or maybe I will change focus again to something else.  But, now to continue with Executive Orders...

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13805 is entitled "Establishing a Presidential Advisor Council on Infrastructure" and was originally signed on 7/19/17.  It has 8 sections.

Section 1

This section defines policy on infrastructure projects.

Section 2

This section simply establishes the council.

Section 3

This section defines the membership of the council to be 15 and that there are 2 co-chairs.  The members are solely appointed by the President at his discretion.

Section 4

This section defines the mission of the council.  Basically it is to come up with a list of things to be done and then make recommendations on how to get things done faster and using less public money.

Section 5

This section indicates that the council is to be run and supported by the Department of Commerce and the Secretary of Commerce.  The Secretary will set the course via determining the questions that the council should investigate for the report that they will submit.

Section 6

This section states that the council will create a report and submit it to the President.

Section 7

This section defines when the council is terminated.  This is December 31, 2018 at the latest, but could be sooner depending on when the report is submitted.

Section 8

This section contains the usual general provisions to assure that the Executive Order is legal.

My commentary

So this Executive Order has been affected by subsequent events in Charlottesville.  After the statements made by the President  which appear to endorse racist views, potential participants on the Council have backed off and now it has been basically cancelled.  However, there is some interesting bits of cognitive dissonance in section 1.  Even though the policy intends to "create high-quality jobs", the council is asked to find ways to cut costs in projects which would reduce both the number of jobs created in the US as well as the number of high-quality costs.  The policy states that there is a desire to "improve quality of life" and to "protect the environment", but yet the council is asked to find ways to expedite the approval process so that answering these questions is a rubber stamp rather than a true determination.
The membership is so vague that the council can be packed with partisans or through nepotism so clearly it is a political instrument.  This infers that the value of the output is likely going to be pretty small and therefore it is not a big loss that it has ended before it began in the first place.

Executive Order 13804: Modifying EO 13761

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13804 is entitled "Allowing Additional Time for Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Amending Executive Order 13761."  It was issued July 11th, 2017 and has 2 sections.  This modifies an Obama era Executive Order regarding Sudan which established a July 12th, 2017 deadline by extending that deadline until October 12th, 2017.
The other change is to revoke section 11 of Executive Order 13761.  That section is for follow-up and updating of the report to be issued in section 10.

My Commentary

This is part of the overall strategy for foreign policy for the Sudan and the on-going civil war.  My belief is that EO 13804 was written and signed just so as to "kick the can down the road".  With the focus on all of the drama between the Russia investigations and the attempted Health Care reform, there is little attention paid for foreign policy.  I am certainly guilty of that and it seems the whole situation in Sudan has largely fallen out of the news whereas in the past there were reports of famine and atrocities due to the execution of the war.  One trusts that the State department was involved and has made a good decision.  The analysis of the EO is difficult in that while 13804 is simple, 13761 makes many references to laws as well as a half a dozen previous Executive Orders.  This EO seems to be something that is part of the normal functioning of the government for once.

Executive Order 13780: Revised Travel Ban

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13780 is entitled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" and was issued on March 6th, 2017.  This was the revised version of the original travel ban (which was EO 13769) but was still challenged in courts leading up finally to a Supreme Court ruling which allowed it to go into effect with some conditions being applied.  Also of note is the issuance of a memo on June 14th, 2017 which adjusted the dates of when things are to go into effect.  Finally, it should be noted that at the time of this writing, the whole thing is moot since the time periods have expired, the supreme court case will likely never be heard and there has been another executive order that has been issued with regards to restrictions on entry into the USA of certain foreign nationals.

Section 1

Subsection (a) defines the policy which is that the vetting procedures associated with the USRAP need to be improved.  Subsections (b) and (c) give us a history lesson or legal brief (take your pick) on the events surrounding EO 13769.  Subsection (d) makes a really strange argument that people should not be admitted into the US because sometimes its hard to remove/deport them.  Tell that to illegal aliens.  Subsections (e) and (f) make a case that nationals from 6 particular countries "present heightened risks".  These countries are Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  You will note that Iraq was removed from the list which should prompt people to ask, what has changed?  To which the answer is: it looked really bad for the administration to prevent Iraqi's from travelling to the USA.  Subsection (g) presents the "special case" of Iraq.  Subsection (h) provides factoid type statistics and anecdotal evidence of bad people who have entered to USA as refugees.  But frankly the examples given (and you have to assume they picked the ones that best supported their argument) actually undermine the reasons stated.  One of the examples is regarding Iraqi's and yet, Iraq is given special treatment.  The other example is of someone who went through the naturalization process and was still yet radicalized.  Finally, in subsection (i), it is declared that EO 13769 is revoked and this EO takes its place.

Section 2

Subsection (a) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine what additional information is required to properly vet nationals of all countries prior to issuance of a visa allowing them entry into the USA.  Subsection (b) states that a report on subsection (a) needs to be issued within 20 days of the EO. Subsection (c) suspends entry of nationals of the listed 6 countries for 90 days.  Subsection (d) directs the Secretary of State to demand foreign governments to provide additional information based on the report from subsection (b).  After 50 days from (d), in subsection (e) an amended list of countries shall be submitted by the Secretary of Homeland Security to the President who will then take further action.  At any future time, according to (f), countries can be moved in or out of the list.  In subsection (g), there are regular monthly reports that need to be provided to the President.

Section 3

This section define who is no longer able to enter the US.  Subsection (c) defines a number of reasons for which Customs and Border Protection may issue a waiver and allow someone into the US.  Specifically, a number of these were situations that happened when the first ban went into place and it played very sympathetically in the news.

Section 4

This section defines some additional requirements for Iraqi citizens.  Basically, it requires a review to assure that the person trying to enter the USA is not a terrorist.

Section 5

This section directs certain cabinet members to implement a program to detect terrorists and other people who are trying to enter into the USA fraudulently.  There are reports to be submitted to the President at regular intervals regarding the progress of the program.  First, I have to ask, aren't we doing this already?  And second, I have to ask if someone is also thinking that they would be able to tighten restrictions on Mexicans using this as well.

Section 6

This section suspend the USRAP program for 120 days.  Further it reduces the number of refugees to be admitted to be only 50,000 for fiscal year 2017.  However, it is possible to allow entry of refugees on a case by case basis so long as it is in the national interest.

Section 7

This section deals with 8 USC 1182(d)(3)(B) and I have not looked it up.  I suspect that this clause might relate to a situation where someone comes up in the database as a terrorist and now that person will never be allowed into the US whereas before case by case exceptions could be made.

Section 8

This section calls for expediting the implementation of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System and reports as to why its not finished yet to be submitted regularly until its done.

Section 9

This section calls for the suspension of the Visa Interview Waiver Program.  This kind of bureaucracy is what will really slow down the number of aliens seeking to come to the US.  If you are not a citizen of a country that does not require a visa to come to the US, it will now be really grueling and a long wait to get one.  Subsection (b) does call for beefing up the staff in order to mitigate against the number of interviews that will now have to be performed.  Unfortunately, the Department of State's budget is being substantially cut in the recent budget discussions.

Section 10

This section calls for changing the rules for citizens of foreign countries to match what those countries apply to US citizens.

Section 11

This section defines a publicity campaign to try and justify the implementation of the measures described in this EO.  These "reports" are supposed to be issued semiannually.  It would be interesting to see how far the writers go on stretching definitions to make the numbers look good.

Section 12

This section, while being entitled "Enforcement", outlines a number of exceptions for who is exempt from EO.

Section 13

This section repeats the statement that EO 13769 is revoked.

Section 14

This section defines as of when the EO is effective.

Section 15

This section invokes severability, meaning that while certain sections may be struck down, it does not affect the validity of the sections that were not struck down.

Section 16

This section includes the necessary legal fine print to ensure that the EO is constitutional.

My Commentary

Despite everything that has happened, I do not think that there is a clear link between immigrants and terrorism.  That is not to say that there are not people who are coming to the USA with the intent to do harm to citizens and residents.  Looking back, this EO was a clear statement on the level of xenophobia that this administration has.

Executive Order 13803:National Space Council

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13803 is entitled "Reviving the National Space Council" and was released June 30th, 2017.  The EO has 9 sections and supersedes Executive Order 12675.  This EO re-establishes the National Space Council, which as it mentioned in the order, effectively ceased operations in 1993.

Section 1

This section describes the National Space Council and some of its history.  It was originally established under G.H.W. Bush and died under Clinton.

Section 2

This section defines who sits on the council.  The first subsection lists 13 permanent members but the Vice President can invite others as needed.

Section 3

This section describes the functions of the Council which consists of developing a strategy for the implementation of the current space policy.  The Council has to meet annually or more frequently and will be given a staff.

Section 4

This section describes the role, responsibilities and authority of the Chair who is the Vice-President.  The Chair will be the person who drives space policy for the President.  This section also includes a requirement that a quarterly report to the President is made of the council's activities.

Section 5

This section seems to indicate that for the agencies who are involved in the Council, the Council becomes an additional approval point prior to doing anything.  Interagency co-ordination is important and perhaps this section is intending to use the Council in this fashion, but it is not clear because of the discretion that the Chair can exercise.

Section 6

This section establishes a Users' Advisory Group.  These are usually used to get feedback from industry, the general public and other non-governmental stakeholders.  The last subsection here though does strike alarm bells as it states that the Group cannot produce any advice or reports that go anywhere but the Council, so in that fashion, it is quite opaque.

Section 7

This section defines that support for the Council will come from the Office of the President.  Additional support can be extracted from the participating agencies by request from the Chair.

Section 8

This section mandates an annual report of the Council regarding recommendations on space policy and implementation strategy.

Section 9

This section essentially revokes EO 12675 and includes the usual legal fine print to assure the constitutionality of the EO.

My commentary

NASA and the Whitehouse have had disagreements.  This EO seems to be an attempt to run space policy out of the Whitehouse rather than leavening in the hands of NASA.  A director for NASA has not been nominated by this Administration.  This EO, in my opinion, bodes poorly for continued excellence in space exploration.
The Vice President has not been known, as far as I know, for expressing goals of getting off this planet.  The President does not mention any specific goals in the EO.  Things that could have been talked about include: establishing permanent habitations in orbit, going back to the moon and going to Mars.  Clearly from the press conference held at the signing of this EO, all the President wants to do is to go to "infinity".
Space exploration is hard and quite costly because of the fact that it involves solving problems that have not previously been solved or even defined.  The future of mankind, if it will be a truly long term future, is in space.  In the shorter term, population levels cannot continue at their current rate of growth for very much longer and migration into space colonies is about the only way to prevent some other force reducing human population, be that famine, war, or pestilence.
In summary, my opinion is that this is much more about internal power struggles in the Executive Branch than about promoting Space exploration and travel.

Executive Order 13781: Executive Branch Reorganization

What the Executive Order Says

Executive Order (EO) 13781 is entitled "Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch" and was issued on March 13th, 2017.  This EO has 3 sections and was promoted as part of the "drain the swamp" strategy.

Section 1

This section defines the policy that the executive branch should be reorganized to eliminate unnecessary agencies.  This will then improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the Executive Branch of the government.

Section 2

This section has 5 subsections.  The first subsection directs the heads of agencies to provide a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) within 180 days.  The second subsection directs the Director to request public comments and suggestions by way of notice in the Federal Register which is here.  The third subsection requests a report from the Director compiling the information from the first two subsections which is to be submitted to the President.  The fourth subsection details what the report is to cover which includes finding where multiple agencies are doing the same thing or where it would be preferable that State or local governments or private industry should perform those functions.  The report should also include recommendations for legislation to help meet the policy goal expressed in section 1.  The last subsection directs the Director to seek input from the heads of agencies and other persons or entities outside the Federal Government where appropriate.

Section 3

This section contains the necessary legal fine print to assure that the EO is constitutional.

My Commentary

Taken on face value, this seems to be a laudable goal.  Eliminating redundancy is good in any organization.  The difficulties will lie in how to make value judgments regarding whether the Federal Government should be performing some administrative or regulatory function and how intangible benefits are weighed against cash costs in the performance of functions.
Clearly the current administration campaigned on the plank of cutting back the government.  What this EO sets into motion is a reduction in the size of government.  In the President's proposed budget, this included cut backs on the workforce in a number of agencies, but it would appear to me that those cutbacks were not associated with this EO and probably developed independently.
The notice for comments was issued 5/15/17 and the period for comments closed on 6/12/17.  Per the www.regulations.gov site, 2,019 comments were recorded.  On April 12th, the Director issued this memo which asks primarily for agencies to find ways to cut the work force.
In the end, there are valid efficiencies that can be made by way of moving to use higher levels of technology in the course of service delivery and the rest of the day to day work of the government.  However, it is clear that the focus here is to determine what can be shut down.  It will depend on how hard the heads of agencies will fight against the President and Director as to how much of the government will be eliminated.