text:
Kim Davis Exposes A Nerve Of American Law
By: Hunter Baker
Somehow, a local controversy involving a county clerk in Kentucky provides the opportunity to revisit the Obergefell decision before the ink is dry on the Supreme Court's opinion. Kim Davis—whether you find her actions obstinate, principled, or poorly expressed—has raised a question that seemed to have been safely filed away.
The question, a fundamental one, has to do with the nature of law. Many were surprised to hear that the seemingly progressive Pope Francis took time to visit Davis, but his decision is fitting. By meeting with Davis, the pope demonstrated solidarity with her cause and concern for her situation.
For almost two decades, I have been a student of and then advocate for religious liberty. I spent my summers in law school writing pamphlets and briefs and otherwise pressing the cause of free exercise. But despite my deep commitment to religious liberty, when I heard about Davis's case I was less than supportive. It may have been my legal training, but I saw a bad case.
My ideal is something like the husband-wife team running the Sweet Cakes bakery. They were just two private citizens, trying to live their lives and provide for their family, when an intrusive state came after them for their religious beliefs. That case has good facts, sympathetic clients, etc. You'd like to go to court with that one.
With Davis, I saw a person employed within the apparatus of the state government. Her job is to process marriage licenses. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to same-sex marriage is fundamental. Therefore (leaving aside the possibility of accommodation), she probably should perform her part of the process or resign. I have expressed that opinion in various fora. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of my fellow Christians have been disappointed with that view. That disappointment has caused me to reflect more deeply on the nature of law.
Law Isn't Just Rules People Generate
When we look at the laws of our country, we tend to see the product of human effort. We host campaigns and elect officials. Some of those officials appoint judges. Elected officials (and sometimes judges) create laws. We view ourselves as having given consent to those laws because long-established procedures have been followed.
They were being tried according to some higher standard than the laws of their country.
Here is the crux of the issue. Law is more than a set of rules generated by human beings working under the auspices of the government. It almost has to be more than that, despite what Justice Holmes thought. Consider a couple of examples.
When World War II ended, German soldiers and officials who had committed or participated in various atrocities had to answer for their crimes at Nuremberg. They had not violated the laws of their government. So why were they being tried? They were being tried according to some higher standard than the laws of their country.
Where did that standard come from? If you say it came from the Allies who won the war, then you are saying the Allies merely imposed some kind of winner's justice. But I doubt many of us would settle for that idea. We believe the war criminals received punishment because they did wrong. Not some artificial or socially useful wrong, but real wrong, a wrong that transcends formal political rules.
Martin Luther King Jr addressed his Letter from Birmingham Jail to white ministers who thought King had gone too far in planning protest activities that were unlicensed and illegal. They were thinking about the Christian emphasis on submission to government authorities (Romans 13) and wondered why King did not comply and delay his protests. He famously responded by looking to the work of Christian thinkers (Augustine and Aquinas, for example) to distinguish between just and unjust laws. The letter is widely admired and continues to stand as an important reminder of the priority of true law over the kind that is merely man-made.
Bring Me A Higher Law
Whether you agree with her or not, Davis stands in the tradition of appealing to a higher law. Many fair-minded people will look to the examples I highlighted above and say, "Yes, such a tradition exists and is indispensable, but I don't agree that Kim Davis's refusal to participate in licensing same-sex marriages fits with either Nuremberg or Martin Luther King Jr."
Whether you agree with her or not, Davis stands in the tradition of appealing to a higher law.
Does the Supreme Court's decision to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex pairings resemble historic evils such as genocide or segregation? If we are talking about the harm done or the rights violated, then I say no.
However, I am not seeking to make a point about the scale of harms. I am making an argument about the nature of law. The Supreme Court redefined marriage. The four dissents (especially the chief justice's opinion) clearly highlight the nature of what occurred. Five lawyers out of nine who serve on an unrepresentative court imposed their own view of marriage on the nation. The word "lawyers" is important, because while people who go to law school should have a greater ability to interpret laws, there is nothing about the experience that would necessarily impart knowledge of the true, the good, and the beautiful.
That male-female marriage is actually prior to the state and the state would not exist without marriage is a strong argument. Aristotle argued as much. In other words, marriage creates the state rather than vice versa. Further, I would argue that the case Justice Kennedy made about the evils of coverture, miscegenation restrictions, and laws prohibiting deadbeat dads from remarrying are all examples of states attempting to wrongly redefine the nature of marriage in line with political preferences. Seen in that light, the court actually committed the evil it purportedly deplored.
Kim Davis Has a Point
Given the short-circuiting of democracy, the fundamental redefinition of the oldest human institution, and the relationship between marriage and the design of the creator (the most obvious source of any "higher" law), Davis has a leg to stand upon. She may not be Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr, but she is a reasonable candidate to appeal to the "big L" Law behind the law.
She may not be Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr, but Davis is a reasonable candidate to appeal to the 'big L' Law behind the law.
In addition to the question of the higher law, I think she and others can argue that the Supreme Court has delivered an unconstitutional decision. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion illustrates the problematic nature of the narrow majority's jurisprudence very effectively.
Because a case can be made both constitutionally and by appeal to a higher law that the court's decision is incorrect, it would make sense within our system to have various officials (presumably more like governors than county clerks) refusing to make the ruling effective in their jurisdiction.
The best reason for them not to do so is that southern states' decision to employ it in the service of slavery and segregation has sullied that tactic. Instead of extending the debate (and perhaps improving our understanding of the Constitution and its limits), it would only solidify the improper analogy between the gay marriage controversy and the struggle for African-American civil rights. The South's poor choice of a cause left federalism weak and seemingly unappealing.
Finding a Way to Live Together
Let us say that we do not wish to re-litigate the issue, but instead that we want to focus on finding a way to live together as a people with a dwindling consensus on social issues. Religious liberty takes center stage.
The logic of accommodation allows a nation such as the United States to house members of both camps by reducing the friction between winners and losers.
One of the great benefits of religious liberty is that it offers us a way to deal with competing claims to moral and metaphysical authority. We can seek to accommodate the religious and conscientious objectors in such a way as to respect their right to exist and not to yield to a questionable new social orthodoxy.
Although many excitable new victors on the left would like to press their advantage and view religious liberty as some kind of license for haters, they should realize the cases that emphasized accommodation began with the old liberal Warren Court, the same one that expanded constitutional liberties and protections in a variety of areas.
The logic of accommodation allows a nation such as the United States to house members of both camps by reducing the friction between winners and losers. If we take a strong view of religious liberty, we encourage peace between citizens instead of war because we acknowledge their right to exist and to avoid crises of faith and conscience.
In the same way that the just war tradition encourages fighters to limit the means they employ in order to win so peace will be more easily achieved when the war is over, the logic of religious liberty may allow us to live together when substantive consensus is hard to come by. The nerves of our system are exposed, but religious liberty can serve as a balm.
Hunter Baker, J.D., Ph.D is dean of arts and sciences and professor of political science at Union University.
Hunter Baker
conscientious objectors
free expression
Kim Davis
Obergefell
Obergefell v. Hodges
More from Law
No, Jeffrey Toobin, Biden Is Not Putting Kamala Harris On The Supreme Court
Mollie Hemingway January 18, 2022
Our Country Is Being Destroyed By Leftists' Unwillingness To Punish Murderers, Looters, And Street-Poopers
Jordan Boyd January 18, 2022
Legal Group Sues New York For Prioritizing COVID Treatment Based On Skin Color
Tristan Justice January 18, 2022


quot 80s summer party flyer template invitation summer party .
80 39 s 90 39 s 00 39 s dance party 26 december 2014 chéz .
35 fabulous vintage video game ads from the 1980s and 39 90s .
retro poster 80s party flyer audio stock vector 97074980 .
graphicriver 80 39 s flash back night flyer template .
school book club flyers from the past part 2 weekly .
music for all tastes theater dance and more hits the .
cnn set up an 80s display in nyc 39 s grand central station .
retro vintage 80s 90s geometric style stock vector .
80s retro scifi background vector retro stock vector .
the 50 greatest bmx logos complex .
film platvoet en zijn vriendjes de koudvuursteen ketnet .
城市夜景矢量图 建筑设计 环境设计 矢量图库 昵图网nipic com .


text:
Posts Tagged 'appropriations'
Amtrak, appropriations, ATC, Budget, Chao, DeFazio, DHS, EPA, Great Lakes, Mulvaney, Portman, Stabenow, TIGER, Trump, TSA, USACE, USDOT, Walker
In Congress, Energy/Environ, Federal Government, Infrastructure, Ports, Security, Transportation Policy on March 20, 2017 at 11:44 am
President Donald Trump's 62-page "skinny" budget proposal — he calls it his budget "blueprint" — is devastatingly consequential for most departments and agencies. (See my prior post.) It tells you, for example, that the State Department will take a 28 percent hit should Congress concur in this first Trump Administration budget request, but it is short on how the programs at State and most other departments will be affected. For that we will have to wait a few more months until the main budget document is to be released — or leaks emerge — and the various budget experts do their analysis.
Will Congress adopt the president's idea of winners and losers? Maybe not. His proposal is hardly a strictly partisan expression to which all Republicans will faithfully adhere, even if it is in the direction that they want to support. Moreover, as much as he wants to see a big defense build-up, dealer Donald Trump's budget has to be seen as his opening gambit in an appropriations process that is only just getting started. Meanwhile, the budget document and agency press releases provide some information. Here is what we know.
Corps of Engineers
The USACE civil works program proposed number of $5 billion is $1 billion less than current year funding — a 16.3 percent reduction — but, historically, that's not so bad. That is actually higher than the Obama FY17 budget. Every White House low-balls the Corps budget. The annual fiscal dance is for the president to bid low because he knows Congress will respond high. There is no more detail to report at this point. If there is a caution here it is that the Corps budget can't be viewed in isolation from the total Federal budget. This clearly is not a normal year. If the Defense Department and Homeland Security are going to benefit in the substantial way that the White House proposes, the competition will be for your program to lose less than the others. If Congress were to provide the civil works program with more than $5 billion, as it has in recent years, that might come from other parts of the budget that are already proposed for stiff reductions.
The budget blueprint shows a $2.4 billion reduction in spending over current year levels — a cut of 13 percent — and contains enough detail to identify some major programs targeted for elimination. Not surprisingly, the $500 million, multimodal TIGER grant program is prominent in that category. The White House would remove this most reliable source of funding for non-navigation port projects, including inside-the-gate improvements. (About $51 million was awarded to six port-related projects in FY2016.) TIGER, started in 2009, has survived past Republican efforts to eliminate funding but it has had strong support from Democrats and even Republicans. The White House is not alone in suggesting that TIGER is to some extent duplicated by the FASTLANE grants program that was created in the FAST Act and is dedicated to freight projects. (The Trump budget retains FASTLANE.) However, that part of the five-year FASTLANE program that most interests ports is the multimodal portion that is not limited to highway projects. Much of the total $500 million multimodal authorization was allocated in just the first year of the $900 million annually authorized spending for FASTLANE. There is no such modal limitation in TIGER. We will see if appropriators allow TIGER to end.
The DOT budget also would also eliminate funding for long-distance Amtrak operations, start down the path to private sector management of the air traffic control system, end the Essential Air Service program that is a major benefit for rural states, and close out a transit capital grant program.
Secretary Elaine Chao issued a statement on the budget blueprint announcement. It includes an oddly incongruent description of a national budget that the OMB itself acknowledges does not address deficit reduction. It also references an Administration talking point that, while proposing to reduce spending on transportation infrastructure, the budget is consistent with whatever will be the promised trillion dollar infrastructure initiative. The Secretary's statement explains that the "strategy behind" the DOT capital spending cuts "is to move money out" of existing programs and into "more efficient programs" in the still undefined Trump initiative. We will have to see how that manages to end up being a net plus for transportation projects. From Chao's statement:
This is a strategic document that looks to the future, and is designed to send a clear message on deficit reduction. For DOT, it addresses the department's discretionary programs, which make up about one-quarter of the Department's total resources. These proposed savings are largely geared towards future program investments, so they will not have an immediate direct impact on our DOT colleagues. This is just the beginning of the budget process, not the end. We will see the more complete picture when OMB releases its final FY 2018 budget in May, and as the President's infrastructure initiative takes shape. In fact, OMB Director Mulvaney noted yesterday that the strategy behind the savings in the DOT budget is to move money out of existing, inefficient programs and hold these funds for more efficient programs that will be included in the infrastructure package under development.
E&E News reported that OMB Director "Mick Mulvaney said the cuts to federal funds for transit and roads would be balanced by an infrastructure package coming to Congress in the fall. The grants proposed for elimination in yesterday's spending wish list were targeted "in anticipation" of a more fleshed-out White House plan…"
The lead Democrat on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Peter DeFazio (D-OR), was not complimentary, and not without irony, in commenting on the Trump planned cuts for USDOT.
The skinny budget exposes that as a big, fat lie. These are real investments. They could be putting people to work this summer. It's infinitely stupid for Republicans who have just taken over everything to give up TIGER grants, which are at the discretion of the Republican Secretary of Transportation, and I'm sure they'll use them much more politically than the dunces at the Obama administration did. [E&E News]
DHS is proposed to get 6.8 percent more in the coming year to benefit the construction of a southern border wall and heightened enforcement of US immigration law through technological and human resources. Significant additions of personnel — 500 more in Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) and 1,000 more for Immigration Control & Enforcement (ICE), plus support staff — also are intended to strengthen border security. Another $1.5 billion is slated for cybersecurity activity to protect Federal networks and critical infrastructure.
The budget proposes to cut State and Local security grants by $667 million. Earlier reports suggested a probable 40 percent reduction in the Port Security Grant Program but analysis by the Democrats of the House Appropriations Committee concludes that the budget means a 25 percent reduction in the program, from $100 million to $75 million.
According to prior releases of information the budget includes a cut in the Coast Guard, but that is not highlighted in the materials released by the White House and DHS yesterday. Instead, the DHS release simply says that the budget "sustains current funding levels [for the Coast Guard]…which allows for the continuation of day-to-day operations and investments in the Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements account."
The budget document also states that the Transportation Security Administration will experience the elimination and reduction of "unauthorized and underperforming programs." Details presumably to follow.
Of all the Federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency is targeted by the Trump Administration for the deepest cut — a 31 percent spending reduction. The budget statement offers an ironic compliment (kindest cut?) in suggesting that the "budget for EPA reflects the success of environmental protection efforts…" as if to say, "job well done." The EPA section appears to be the only one of the two-page department and agency sections that specifically notes the anticipated reduction in personnel — "3,200 fewer positions."
The proposed budget provides "robust funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure" that is comparable to current levels. It ends funding for Obama's "Clean Power Plan, international climate programs, climate change research and partnership programs, and related efforts…" It reduces the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance budget, reduces Categorical Grants funding, and "eliminates more than 50 EPA programs that are "lower priority," "poorly performing," and "duplicative."
The budget document proposal to end funding for multi-state regional efforts such as restoring Chesapeake Bay. The proposal to end funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is no partisan matter. Nine senators led by Rob Portman (R-OH) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) sent a letter to the White House expressing their concerns, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) joined them in opposing the cuts. Pbea
appropriations, Bill Shuster, Bud Shuster, Channels, Dredging, Harbor Maintenance Tax, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Maria Cantwell, OMB, Patty Murray, PAYGO, Peter DeFazio, Port Director, Ports, USACE, WRDA, WRDA 2016, WRRDA 2014
In Congress, Efficiency, Federal Government, Infrastructure, Legislation, Ports, Water Resources on May 31, 2016 at 11:20 am
If you polled US port directors as to their major objectives in Washington, DC most would put at or near the top of their lists full funding, every year, from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. They would say, if a dollar is collected through the Harbor Maintenance Tax in a given year, then a dollar should be spent on maintenance dredging in ports large and small. One of the other things many would want to see is predictable, biennial water resource bills (WRDA) — say "wurda" — to advance navigation projects.
Well, this is your day, Mr. and Ms. Port Director!
The House Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (H.R.5303) is the timely followup to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121), and a hopeful return to a two-year cycle. It also would make it possible for for ports to realize the long desired full-use of the HMTF and the Corps of Engineers harbor maintenance program to be funded directly — as in do-not-stop-at-the-Appropriations-Committee.
But before you start counting long needed dredging dollars…there's a catch. (We are talking about the congressional budget process, aren't we?) Too good to be true? No….but there is a caveat to this good news. Let's give it a name….call it "Delayed Port Director Gratification."
Here's the story.
Peter DeFazio (D-OR), the ranking Democrat on the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, made it a priority to include in the new WRDA bill a provision that would shift the spending of HMTF resources from being in the discretionary category and subject to appropriations to being mandatory. It would mean less constrained budgeting by the Office of Management & Budget and more funding for channel and anchorage maintenance. Overtime, the underwater infrastructure would be more fully maintained to design dimensions. Around five years ago the Corps of Engineers estimated that sustained annual funding of $1,500,000,000 would keep American harbors adequately maintained.
Today even those Federal channels in major ports are not kept at their originally constructed depths and widths. Small harbors often get the short end of the spending stick and the resulting deferred maintenance means a decreasing ability to accommodate commercial and sometimes even recreation vessels. A few years ago the Corps of Engineers reported that almost 30 percent of commercial vessel calls at US ports are constrained due to inadequate channel depths. (Note: Peter DeFazio also included a provision for the small, "emerging" harbors.)
Congress has come to understand that while Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies are authorized for spending only for certain port navigation and administrative purposes, the low level of appropriations has resulted in an accumulating, unobligated balance approaching $9,000,000,000. The HMTF has been a convenient pot used by budgeteers to make the Federal deficit look smaller, not to make port channels more efficient. To their credit, House and Senate appropriators have gradually increased O&M funding to the point where the FY 2017 funding bills include $1,300,000,000. Still hundreds of millions of dollars short of meeting the navigation needs in US ports and full use of HMT revenue.
Such mandatory or "direct" spending as the DeFazio provision would make possible could put the trust back in the trust fund…eventually.
When "eventually?"
Eleven years from now….and for good reason.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 requires that if Federal revenue is reduced, or spending is increased, it must be offset by a savings elsewhere or by new revenue. This was given the Monopoly game sounding name of PAYGO. A budget "score" indicates a proposal's projected cost and that analysis has a ten-year horizon. If Congress were inclined to provide an immediate change in the HMTF statute to dedicate the full collection of the Harbor Maintenance Tax each year to be spent fully on navigation dredging projects each year the House and Senate would have to come up with ten years of replacement revenue for the Treasury.
However, if a change in revenue, such as the fencing of HMT receipts so they no longer would be blended with other Federal tax revenue, would become effective eleven years from now, that proposed change in the law would not require an offset under PAYGO. The House WRDA 2016 bill says it sweetly and simply:
Section 108(a). … [T]here shall be available to the Secretary [of the Army, who heads the Corps of Engineers], out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, without further appropriation, for fiscal year 2027 and each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as may be necessary…"
The need for an offset is what has discouraged committee action to fix the HMTF in the past. Bill sponsors have largely left unspecified how to cover that multi-billion dollar cost…as a detail to be addressed at another time.
Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, introduced the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Reform Act (S.2729) last March. Their bill takes the immediate gratification route, both to address the "full use" issue and to address complaints among some of the large ports that have benefited little by current law.
The senators' Seattle and Tacoma ports require little harbor maintenance funding and much the same is true in the San Pedro Bay ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. S.2729 would redirect some trust fund resources to certain needs in those ports.
I will go into the Murray-Cantwell bill in greater detail in another post. Suffice it to say that by not waiting patiently for eleven years to roll around the bill likely would require an offset of 10 x $1,600,000,000, to use current year revenue as an example. The odds against finding consensus in Congress on how to raise/save $16,000,000,000 is enough to eventually discourage most any optimistic lawmaker.
The provision in the recently adopted WRDA 2016 bill is credited to Peter DeFazio, who has the support and cooperation of Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), but a little history is worth noting. The objective of direct or mandatory spending from the HMTF and other infrastructure trust funds was an objective of this committee back when Bill Shuster's late father, Bud Shuster (R-PA), was chairman of the committee and introduced the Truth in Budgeting Act.
What are the chances of the provision staying in the bill and becoming law? It's hard to say. Even the delayed gratification strategy will run up against opposition in Congress and the Executive Branch. I expect it will hear objections from the Appropriations and Budget Committees. The former would likely would lose jurisdiction and the latter just doesn't like mandatory spending even if it is secured by a dedicated tax or user fee. The White House Office of Management & Budget thinks similarly. Long considered the fiscal and policy nemesis of the civil works program, OMB will have a hard time dealing with the idea of the Corps getting its hands on more money. (Legislative Trivia: the House Budget Committee that in a separate report made its arguments against Bud Shuster's Truth in Budgeting bill was chaired by John Kasich (R-OH)).
To be clear, there are legitimate arguments to be made against making spending from the HMTF mandatory, but if one is looking for a solution to the long-standing problem of under investment in the maintenance of the nation's navigation system one finds no other practical options.
Okay, so the DeFazio provision will encounter opposition, perhaps debilitating opposition, in the next months. For the moment let's focus on who will like the policy change represented by the DeFazio provision. Those are the port directors. Also port authority commissioners, maybe some elected municipal officials, governors, and of course, the industries and other stakeholders who depend on reliable harbor maintenance. They will have to make themselves heard on the issue if it has a chance of staying in the bill.
And if it succeeds in becoming law, they will just have to wait until 2027, knowing that the wait will be worth it. Pbea
appropriations, Budget Process, civil works
Much Ado About a Budget Resolution
In Congress, Infrastructure, Ports on March 31, 2015 at 12:31 am
At 4:24 am last Friday the Senate called it a night (or morning). Shortly before, the "world's greatest deliberative body" quit deliberating, bringing its "vote-a-rama" session to a merciful end. "Deliberation" doesn't apply very well here. When the Senate takes up its annual budget resolution and an around-the-clock offering of amendments it is anything but "long and careful consideration or discussion," as defined in Oxford.
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) coached visiting constituents on Wednesday morning that this was great time to see the Senate from the gallery. The senator was right to the extent that one doesn't often get a chance to see a majority of Members on the floor for an extended period of time. As promised, she and her colleagues were there touting and voting on amendments to the FY 2016 Budget Resolution in a rare display of a constant quorum in search of a budget framework. Probably more than a few of them were also in search of an expeditious deliverance from what at times has the appearance of an exhausting, even pointless, legislative exercise.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 is serious business, much like its cousin, H. Con. Res. 27, which on Wednesday the House of Representatives dispatched in far fewer bleary-eyed hours. When/if the process is concluded, the Congress will have a single congressional budget resolution—no White House signature needed, thank you—that sets enforceable limits on appropriations in broad categories, e.g. transportation, for the next fiscal year. It is a budget discipline that Congress created in 1974.
In this case, both chambers and their Republican majorities last week produced resolutions that maintain the increasingly constrictive caps and the across-the-board cuts of sequestration of the infamous Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). Both resolutions project balanced budgets in ten years. Both put downward pressure on spending for non-defense and defense discretionary (non-entitlement) programs. But both, ultimately, also create exceptions so as to boost defense spending above the BCA ceiling that John McCain (R-AZ) called "reckless" and "a disaster" in his attempt to end the grip of sequestration on the DOD side of the ledger.
There are differences between the Senate and House resolutions, which may be resolved in conference between the two budget committees.
So, you might ask, what exactly is a "vote-a-rama" in the US Senate?" In large part, it is a chance for a large number of amendments to be taken up in a short amount of time. Everybody, in theory, has the opportunity to shape the broad framework for spending. Well, not really. It might better be described as rapid-fire amendments so one can go on record—or put the other guy on record—for or against something. Standard Senate rules are put aside for purposes of budget resolution consideration. No chance to spend 20 minutes airing an issue or in orderly exchanges with a colleague over some weighty matter. Instead, senators mostly were asked to vote on vaguely worded issue proxies that have little practical effect on spending decisions or the issues themselves.
Serious subjects may be raised but a senator has a minute to state her case, assuming her amendment—one of nearly 800 introduced—is among the few that actually get floor time. Some are approved without objection, others rejected or agreed to by recorded vote. Some are withdrawn—the point already made—or ruled out of order.
Susan Collins (R-ME) said "the process gets misused just to make the other side cast uncomfortable votes," adding that "the budget should be a serious process…" One didn't have to look far for a handy example, this one covering two political hot buttons in one amendment. A senator wanted to "establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to limiting the ability of Environmental Protection Agency personnel to carry guns." The italicized phrase is the common form used in the amendments, helping make it pertinent to the budget resolution and within its dollar limits.
Where any subjects of relevance to the port/logistics world proposed in the wearying session last week? Yes.
Two proposed amendments were inspired by the recent West Coast longshore talks and slowdown. One was by Deb Fisher (R-NE) relating to a request that has been (or will be) made for the GAO to investigate "the impact of service disruptions at West Coast ports during 2014 and 2015." The other was by Cory Gardner (R-CO) with the notion "to prevent labor disputes at seaports in the United States from causing national economic disruptions and crippling businesses across the United States." Neither would have practical effect beyond perhaps establishing Senate sentiment as to what took place during the longshore negotiations. (No vote)
Deb Fisher, chair of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security Subcommittee, and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the Environment & Public Works Committee, sponsored an amendment to "strengthen waterborne commerce in our ports and harbors, which may include increasing the percentage of the amounts expended from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that are dedicated to port infrastructure and maintenance." What does that mean? They associated themselves with the notion of increasing O&M spending from the HMTF. Nothing more. (Adopted)
A freight-related amendment by Dean Heller (R-NV) aspires to ensure that the DOT Secretary prioritize "the construction of projects that are of national and regional significance and projects in high priority corridors on the National Highway System…" (Adopted)
In the same vein, Cory Booker (D-NJ) sought to "encourage freight planning and investment that incorporates all modes of transportation, including rail, waterways, ports, and highways to promote national connectivity." (Adopted)
A Gary Peters (D-MI) amendment related "to supporting trade and travel at ports of entry." (Adopted)
Patty Murray (D-WA) called for increasing funding for the TIGER grant program. (Adopted)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) proposed one "to ensure high-income earners pay a fair share in taxes and to use the revenue to invest in repairing our Nation's bridges, coastal infrastructure, and damage from wildfires." (Withdrawn)
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) got a vote on his amendment relating to EPA regulation of "greenhouse gas emissions, which may include a prohibition on withholding highway funds from States that refuse to submit State Implementation Plans required under the Clean Power Plan of the Agency." (Adopted 57-43)
Today EPA's Gina McCarthy today said, no problem, Senator. "EPA doesn't have the legal authority" to do that anyway.
Pbea
Alternative Fuels, AMH, appropriations, Budget Process, cargo security, CBP, civil works, climate change, Coast Guard, Dredging, Environment, Federal Maritime Commission, Maritime Administration, USDOT
What Will This Congress Do?
In Congress, Infrastructure, Marine Highway, Politics, Ports, Security, Surface Transportation Policy, Water Resources on January 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Nearly a dime's worth of days into the New Year, this is no time to rehash what happened in the last Congress. A new Congress—the 114th of our maturing nation—is now underway. And what a new Congress it is.
Republicans now rule Capitol Hill and veteran Senate Democrats are being reminded of how it feels to be called Minority. (Republicans have held the majority in the House and Senate more often than not in the previous 10 congresses, since 1995.) At the other end of the avenue is a president who has confronted more than his share of domestic and international crises. January is the starting gun for his latest test – working with the 114th Congress and its routinely unfriendly and uncooperative Republican membership. In that respect, so far, there is not much new about this Congress.
The leaders in the House and Senate themselves face internal and external challenges as they assume on behalf of their caucuses the collective role of governing. Politico used apt "cliff" and "landmine" metaphors for what faces Speaker Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as they advance legislation through their own caucuses. The leaders know that the GOP is well positioned to turn around the "do-nothing Congress" label that the Republicans made possible—even intended—over recent years. (Yes, the dethroned Harry Reid hardly facilitated the legislative process in the Senate but Messrs Boehner and McConnell are faced with colleagues in the rank and file who came to Washington to stand in the way of government. Twelve Republicans found reason to vote against returning Boehner to the Speaker's chair, as if he is didn't well serve the cause(s) of conservative Republicans.) This go-round Democrats, with little control over committees, the bills they produce, and the floor schedule, will not be plausible scape goats for a failure to legislate. And in the Senate McConnell may be 6 votes shy of a filibuster proof majority but he has a pool of moderate Dems and an Indie who are potential "ayes," such as we will see with the upcoming Keystone XL vote.
The success of a legislature is measured by legislative productivity. Can this Congress be productive with the Obama White House, which has vetoed exactly two bills in the past six years?
As previously noted, President Obama also will be tested. How well he will deal with the new Congress, his constitutional partner in making law? No doubt we will see more vetoes in his last two years in office but his legacy will depend more on what is accomplished than what he blocked.
In other words, they need each other. Few points will be awarded if progress is not seen in Washington. So, the question is whether the president can find within him the resolve of Bill Clinton, who famously made lemonade out of the GOP blowout of 1994, and whether the Republicans will function as if they want to be remembered as the "did-something Congress."
All of that is background to a rundown of just some of the issues and questions that are of interest to the port/maritime industry and the larger freight sector.
The president put his previously stated policy view into surprise policy action with his late December announcement on normalizing diplomatic relations with Castro's Cuba. Any number of ports, exporters and others were pleased by the news. There is bipartisan support among some in the House and Senate but Congress will either come down hard on the White House initiative or, rhetoric aside and with an eye on what Castro might do in the months ahead, show a willingness to reconsider the long-standing trade embargo that can only be ended by a change in law.
Last year, Congress came close to hitting the "target" of spending $1.2 billion from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The enacted water resources law (WRRDA 2014) sets ambitious, incrementally higher targets for Congress to meet with funding for channel maintenance and other work authorized to be supported by trust fund monies. Will the Republicans, as the saying goes, "put trust back in the trust fund" or continue to allow the Harbor Maintenance Tax assessment on cargo to be used as general revenue applied against the Federal budget deficit?
Last year the House and Senate produced a "sense of Congress" statement generally in support of the US-flag and Jones Act sectors. It can be interpreted as reaffirming existing maritime policy. Around the same time John McCain (R-AZ) reaffirmed his own maritime policy to undo the Jones Act in a speech to the Heritage Foundation. He and the petroleum industry actively urge changes to current law, which is to say, the end of the Jones Act. Meanwhile the Maritime Administration and the Secretary of Transportation will steer a draft National Maritime Strategy through the policy and political wringers of the White House. What will that document say about Administration policy and what if anything needs to be done to improve the US merchant marine or American ports?
In 2015 Congress will have to tackle surface transportation policy and funding. Will it include real money to renew freight corridors and build new infrastructure to support modern, intermodal commerce? Will Congress bite the bullet and find the money to pay it or, for that matter, to save the failing Highway Trust Fund? Past refusal by Congress to tackle this issue has depressed road and transit funding and been a principal expression of austerity economics—advocated by most Republicans, but abetted by many Democrats who also have avoided new revenue proposals—during a time when the country was climbing its way out of The Great Recession. Should this Congress produce a transportation bill that only perpetuates an inadequate level of funding and papers over the structural deficiencies of Highway Trust Fund financing it will not make for a convincing accomplishment.
The issues that may arise in the new Congress are many. Committees are establishing their work plans for the year ahead. What will the Republican majority serve up in the way of budget cuts and appropriations? Will a uniform ballast water policy finally become law? Will the TWIC reader rule that seems to assume container terminals to be at a lesser risk be implemented without alteration? How will Title XI vessel financing fare and will marine highway policy wither from inattention? Will Congress see a Federal role in helping ports, cities and businesses plan for rising sea levels and assist in improving waterfront infrastructure for the coming decades? Will the Coast Guard prepare helpful guidance and rules on cybersecurity and will the industry actively engage in developing it? Will Federal policy foster clean fuel initiatives for the freight modes and encourage off-shore wind energy development? How will the committees answer shipper complaints about railroads? Will a Republican Congress and a White House Democrat come to terms on tax reform, infrastructure funding, and trade policy?
At bottom, how well do the legislators of the new Congress—both Republicans and Democrats—understand, and how will they respond to, these and other issues of relevance to the port/maritime sector? Pbea
appropriations, Budget Process, change, Congress, freight, Harbor Maintenance Tax, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Ports, rail, shippers, trucking, WRDA
The Murray-Cantwell Approach to Problem Solving
In Competition, Congress, Infrastructure, Intermodal, Water Resources on September 23, 2013 at 7:05 pm
This past week State of Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell introduced the Maritime Goods Movement Act of 2013 (S. 1905). Their inspiration for legislation came from what I have described as the unintended consequences of the Harbor Maintenance Tax, starting with complaints from the ports of Seattle and Tacoma that the Canadian competition to the north and the shippers, who are obliged to pay the Harbor Maintenance Tax when entering U.S. ports, were taking full advantage of the cost-differential where the HMT does not apply.
It is a complaint that was given some appearance of validity in a Federal Maritime Commission report issued last year and, a bit more convincingly, by data comparisons published by The Journal of Commerce last month.
At the request of the senators the FMC studied the role played by the HMT (0.125% of cargo value) in decisions to use the Vancouver and Prince Rupert gateways. The report, adopted by the FMC commissioners on a party line vote, didn't make a strong case as to cause and effect. It did suggest that if an equivalent of the tax were applied in Canada "a portion of the U.S. cargo…likely would revert to using U.S. West Coast ports." The report concluded by suggesting any remedy is in the hands of Congress not the regulatory agency.
The JOC looked at the issue by comparing market share within the PNW and among U.S. West Coast ports, where the HMT is uniformly applied. This is their finding in a nutshell:
Port data collected by The Journal of Commerce shows clearly that while Seattle and Tacoma have lost no market share relative to U.S. West Coast ports, their market share in the Pacific Northwest, a region that includes the Canadian ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, has slipped significantly in recent years.
That may not be conclusive of HMT culpability but it is indicative of competitive weakness just south of the 49th Parallel. The comparative strength in British Columbia could be attributed to the HMT in addition to other factors, among them the efficient intermodal delivery system established as part of Canada's ongoing Pacific Gateway Transportation Strategy.
Enter the Maritime Goods Movement Act User Fee proposed in the bill. The HMT would be repealed and then, for all practical purposes, recreated as the "MGMA User Fee." In virtually every respect it would be like the HMT. The principal difference is that it also would be applied to U.S. bound cargo that first enters North America through Canada or Mexico. Shippers would pay when the cargo crosses the land border. On this bill rest the hopes of Puget Sound's largest ports.
But the senators didn't stop there. They also decided to try to fix the issue that is troubling most U.S. ports—the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The bill would make several changes—including expanded uses of the HMTF such as are found in the Senate-passed WRDA (S. 601)—but let's here focus on the greatest failing of the law as it now stands. That is the under-spending of HMTF funds.
Unlike the RAMP Act that would rely on a parliamentary mechanism to leverage full funding over the objections of appropriators, and unlike the WRDA bills of the Senate and House that set funding targets at which appropriators might aim, the MGMA bill uses a direct approach. At the bottom of page 10 is this: "[N]o fee may be collected…except to the extent that the expenditure of the fee [for allowable activities] is provided for in advance in an appropriations Act." It is a rarely used means tying revenue collections to the spending of those revenues. The transaction would occur outside the section 302 allocations that cap appropriations committee spending. In doing so it would remove the incentive for appropriators to limit allocations and would treat the HMTF more like a dedicated trust fund.
This approach is employed in other areas of government where a user fee is collected to support a specific function of government. The only downside is that to meet the requirements of budget rules Congress also would have to identify offsetting revenue to fill the hole that would be created when, as a first step to creating the new MGMA User Fee, the HMT would be repealed, thereby eliminating 10 years of projected revenue. Yes, it gets murky down deep in the budget process. But the result would be the very easily understood concept of "dollars in, dollars out," as a Murray aide summarized.
Finding the offset, in the range of billions of dollars, presents a real challenge to the bill sponsors. There is a reason why other attempts at legislative solutions have produced little more than "sense of Congress" statements of principle and funding targets that are…well…just targets. The climb up this legislative Hill is very steep and the obstacles—including leadership objections and the search for offsetting revenue—have been daunting.
While we are noting the degree of incline ahead, let's add to this particular bill the likelihood of complaints to the State Department from Mexico and Canada, who are major U.S. trading partners, and opposition from shippers and the railroads that carry their cargo into the U.S.
But that doesn't mean it is the wrong solution to an HMTF problem that has existed since the early 1990s. It is the right one because it would be a more effective and lasting way to link the revenue to the reason for the revenue, which is to keep American harbor channels maintained and our ports competitive. Pbea
appropriations, Channels, Dredging, Harbor Maintenance Tax, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Ports, USACE, WRDA
WRDA Words
In Infrastructure, Ports, Water Resources on May 7, 2013 at 12:05 am
The Senate is about to take up the first water resources bill since President George W. Bush signed WRDA 2007 into law. By the count of many stakeholders–ports, river dependent shippers, flood weary communities–it is around four years late. So if, for argument's sake, the Senate passes the bill this month of May will WRDA 2013 spring into House action and to the desk of President Obama before Tidal Basin cherry trees feel the autumn cold and drop their leaves? There's reason to doubt it will happen that quick. But rather than peer that far into the legislative fog, let's take a look at what is before the Senate now.
Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ranking Member David Vitter (R-LA) proudly produced S. 601 with the full support of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. They patterned their WRDA 2013 bill after MAP-21, which emerged from a dysfunctional Congress with bipartisan support. The water resources bill would authorize Army Corps of Engineers civil works projects to move ahead, update and reform parts of the base law dating to WRDA 1986, and attempt to streamline Federal process and delivery (construction) of projects. There is a lot to pick at and find fault with as with most public works bills. Some stakeholders will see more benefit than others. But for an economy that has been going wanting for the stimulus of public works construction the bill's advancement to the Senate floor is being trumpeted. Five hundred thousand jobs, or so they say.
The bill has run into some buzz-saws. Environmental organizations and "tax-payer" groups have loudly complained. It might be said that both are traditionally unfriendly to water project bills. The former argues for keeping navigation and other projects to an absolute minimum while favoring "environmental projects," such as habitat restoration. The latter assumes there will be wasteful spending, which I would argue was certainly more true before the reforms of WRDA 1986 than it is today. The bill will result in "overspending, overcapacity, and substantial and unnecessary damage" to estuaries and harbors, or so they say.
Then there are the complaints made by leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee who predictably don't like sections having to do with with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. House and Senate Appropriators don't like being told they have to fund seaport channel maintenance at the rate of collected Harbor Maintenance Tax revenue. And it's not just because setting funding levels is their prerogative. It's the little matter of having to come up with around $700,000,000 in additional funds. That's a big lift in good fiscal times…and these are not good fiscal times.
Meanwhile Great Lakes senators who want the bill to assure full-use of HMT revenues for port channel maintenance are nervous, on behalf of their generally small-sized port industry, by the wording of the bill. The bill gives "high-use deep draft" ports priority status for HMTF expenditures. They want certainty that all small commercial ports are not "perennially put at the 'back of the line'." There are lots of other small ports in the country that would like that assurance spelled out.
Then there are the Washington State senators who have been champions of the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray (D-WA) is in a strong position to say something about how much HMTF funds are budgeted, how the monies are being used and, more parochially, how the collection of the HMT in Pacific Northwest ports can be a reason for U.S. imports to enter North America through Canada.
Let's not forget the Administration in all this. The White House official view cites reasons why the bill "doesn't currently support all" of the Administration "key policies and principles" but it is carefully worded not to threaten a veto. It echoes the complaints of environmental organizations in the Statement of Administration Policy released today. The bill's project streamlining provisions, among other things, undermine "the integrity of several foundational environmental laws."
In her testimony before the committee where she once worked, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy told Boxer and Vitter last February that the Obama Administration supports a channel maintenance spending level that "reflects consideration for economic and safety return of each potential investment" in maintenance as well as taking into consideration "other potential uses of the available funds," the meaning of which is troubling for ports whose primary concern is ensure the use of "available funds" for harbor maintenance only. The testimony includes a flat statement in opposition to the idea of fully using collected HMT revenue for channel maintenance. Spending "should not be based not the level of receipts from the current tax."
The SAP has a few odds things in it, including an incorrect description of the proposed change to the cost-sharing requirement that ports have to pay part of the incremental cost of maintenance of channels deeper than 45 feet. The bill would shift the sharing of costs to apply to channels deepened beyond 50 feet. It is in the bill as recognition of the increasing standard size of vessels and the fact that cost-sharing was to be required only when greater depths are needed exceptionally large vessels, which in 1986 were super tankers and colliers, not container ships.
Senators Boxer and Vitter have been preparing a "manager's amendment" to serve as a substitute for the version of S. 601 that emerged from their committee. We await its debut because it will reflect the compromises that have been made to address some of those complaints.
Word is that the HMTF full-use provisions were weakened at the appropriators' insistence in return for a pledge to increase O&M appropriations somewhat. Word is that changes were made to accommodate some concerns of environmental organizations. We now wait to see the words. Pbea
appropriations, California, Channels, Congress, Dredging, Fuel Tax, Harbor Maintenance Tax, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Inland Waterways Trust Fund, Obama, Ports, USACE, WRDA
Two Trust Funds in Search of a Solution
In Infrastructure, MTS Policy, Ports, Water Resources on October 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Yesterday Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (R) stood near Chickamauga Lock in Chattanooga and said, "We have two trust funds to deal with waterway infrastructure like the Chickamauga Lock, and neither of them works." He tells the truth.
The senator and former governor convened a presser to preview legislation–the American Waterways Act–that he and others will introduce when Congress resumes its session after the November election. The still in draft bill would tackle some financially challenging issues because the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (river system) and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (for the most part coastal ports) are both at the center of current navigation infrastructure problems and the ultimate solutions to those problems.
The IWTF fund, with collections from a fuel tax on commercial vessels operating on the inland system, raises insufficient funds for what is a large, backlogged demand for lock and dam construction and rehab work. The users of the system have proposed changes in cost-sharing as well as increases in the fuel tax.
As has been discussed elsewhere in MTS Matters the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is a problem of a different kind. The ad valorem tax on cargo raises sufficient funds to cover the nation's channel maintenance requirements but the Administration and Congress do not spend O&M funds at a rate commensurate with collections. The crafters of the planned bill are said to be working on how to assure annual appropriations at full-use levels as well as to free the accumulating surplus–now above $7 billion–for port projects.
The greatest challenge in drafting the legislation is the high hurdle presented by congressional budget rules. Based on what we have heard, the drafters intend to enable the spending of tens of billions of dollars for construction and maintenance work over a 5 to 10 year period. Even if the existing and future collections from the fuel and cargo taxes can handle that, as is the plan, Congress would have to effectively waive budget rules to get past procedural barriers. That doesn't happen often. Moreover, it would require consensus among the key actors and probably a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate.
And while there has been significant growth in the ranks of advocates on these issues, solutions to the IWTF and HMTF problems have yet to achieve that kind of consensus.
The AWA–if it isn't premature to assign an abbreviation to a measure not yet introduced–would have other provisions. Senator Alexander identified these:
address regulatory and permit process streamlining projects by adopting the MAP-21 approach to speeding projects;
shift the 50/50 cost-sharing requirement for coastal channel maintenance from 45 feet to apply to those channels deeper than 50 feet;
open the HMTF to now ineligible port projects, to include landside projects (especially to satisfy ports like Los Angeles that don't have much in the way of O&M dredging needs);
authorize a 5-year construction program to advance projects to deepen ports to accommodate post-panamax ships needing around 50-foot depths (to include Charleston and other planned deepenings that meet the present 3.0 benefit/cost test);
make the increasingly expensive Olmsted Lock project on the Ohio River a fully Federal responsibility, which would free IWTF resources to start other waiting construction projects; and
require the Federal government to follow the Inland Waterways Capital Development Plan developed by the industry and Corps of Engineers for an increase in the fuel tax and a 20-year schedule for projects.
The guts of the Inland Waterways Capital Development Plan were put into legislative language found in HR 4342, the WAVE 4 Act, introduced earlier this year byRep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY). Worth noting, the Administration put forward a different proposal to address the ITWF problem and had been at loggerheads with the industry with no agreement in sight.
The likely sponsors of AWA are from both parties and will include principal sponsors Lamar Alexander and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), plus others who may include Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Feinstein and Alexander are the lead senators on the appropriations subcommittee that funds the civil works program.
Why are senators talking about introducing a controversial reform bill soon before the 112th Congress comes to a close? There are several answers, one of which is that the House and Senate are preparing to tackle major fiscal and revenue decisions (see "fiscal cliff"). Resolving the navigation trust fund problems could be made easier as part of the larger debate. Also, as I mentioned in The WRDA Mantra post, an effort may be made to move water resources legislation (WRDA) during lame duck. The AWA is squarely in WRDA territory and Alexander needs to be ready to jump on-board even if the odds of WRDA advancing are slim to none. Push come to shove, the senators who introduce the AWA bill this year will be staking claim to the issue in the next congress.
Let's face it. The American Waterways Act, as it has been developing in the months leading up to Senator Alexander's announcement, is an extremely ambitious package. It will entail getting Congress to approve significant hikes in commercial navigation project spending, increase the fuel tax, venture into the touchy subject of expanding uses of the HMTF, and streamline permitting on some water resource projects that have been a favorite target of environmental conservation organizations…none of which are reasons to put a halt to such ambitious foolishness.
Said Lamar Alexander yesterday, "The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collects a lot of money, but doesn't spend it well. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund doesn't collect much money, but spends it well. This bill would fix the way our ports and waterways are funded so that we can meet the challenges they face…"
Here's a challenge for a do-something Congress. Pbea
9/11, appropriations, cargo security, CBP, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Ports
One Hundred Percent Security
In Congress, Federal Government, Ports, Security on July 23, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Not even Ivory Soap is 100 percent. It may float but, as the once ubiquitous slogan puts it, Ivory doesn't do better than "99 and 44/100 percent pure!"
So if the blue chip labs of Proctor & Gamble can't deliver a simple matter of 100 percent pure soap why should anyone think it's possible to implement 100 percent cargo scanning before the boxes hit our shore? …Or think 100 percent secure U.S. coastlines is possible. Okay, sure, that last one sounds a bit silly but we're dealing in facts here.
In the months following the attacks of September 11 former Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) insisted that America could be completely secured along the over 12,000 miles of seacoast. A tight seal that would catch whomever and whatever might dare to sneak into our collective nightmare. He persisted, earnestly, in pressing that point to a hearing witness, a retired Coast Guard rear admiral who found it hard to believe the congressman was serious.
In more recent years the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has struggled with that kind of no-exceptions, no-excuses expectation. The sort that has plagued the TSA for much of its existence. Congress directed the U.S. agencies to go forth and have image and radiation scanning equipment installed in every overseas port that exports containerized cargo to the U.S. We don't want terrorists to view our ports as easy gateways for nuclear weapons guised as consumer goods.
One result of al-Qaeda proving the nation's vulnerability was an almost immediate national awareness of our seaport system. Open doors in the global village. America had security in place at airports–tragically loopholed as it was–while at our ports the Federal agencies were on the lookout mostly for contraband, plant disease, and the occasional stowaway. Flood-lit attention quickly zeroed in on the seaports and land borders. Persons such as Stephen Flynn filled the vacuum as government and news agencies required expert testimony and quotable expressions of alarm.
The policy response was understandable. New laws, quickly crafted regulations, and a flood tide of security personnel. A new department was created when small-government Republicans largely dominated in Washington.
By 2007 two maritime security laws had been enacted and a considerable security regime was in place in our harbors, on cargo ships and in the supply chain. Countries and companies trading with the U.S. were told to meet our terms. Hundreds of millions of grant dollars were spent to harden security in large and small ports. (Over $2,000,000,000 for port security grants since then.) Funding also was provided for three pilot tests of 100 percent scanning in overseas ports. Then Congress upped the ante.
A new "full-scale implementation" requirement was put in place to deny entry to cargo containers unless they were "scanned by unobtrusive imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment at a foreign port before it was loaded on a vessel." The shipping/logistics industry explained why that wasn't good policy or particularly feasible. Nevertheless a deadline of July 2012 was set for 100 percent scanning along with authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to extend the deadline as necessary.
Not surprisingly, in June Secretary Napolitano reported to Congress that the deadline would not be met and has pushed out the compliance date to July 2014. Months before, the GAO gave testimony on the state of containerized cargo security. It is a readable statement about the layered, risk-based security regime that is in place and the challenges the government has experienced both here and abroad in securing the country against smuggled nuclear devices.
The legislators stand 100 percent behind their 100 percent requirement. In an op-ed piece three House Members acknowledge that the original deadline was ambitious but want to keep the pressure on an executive branch they doubt wants to see full-scale implementation. "Cost and technology have never been the primary obstacles to meeting this mandate. What is missing is a sense of urgency and determination." Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) said in a Washington Post story, "I personally do not believe they intend to comply with the law…. This is a real terrorist threat, and it has a solution. We can't afford to wait until a catastrophic attack."
Don't expect this issue to be resolved anytime soon. Few in Congress will go on record to remove the requirement.
Should we expect–even want–100 percent security at any cost? In a global supply chain so extensive and complex is absolute security possible? Ask voters if they are willing to be subjected to metal detectors and armed guards at their local Loews Cinema after what just happened in Aurora. Where will the next troubled mind chose to bear arms? At the Harris Teeter meat counter?
In 2002 I met with the fellow who headed the transportation branch at the Office of Management and Budget. He and his colleagues were struggling with the budgetary response to September 11. They faced the practical questions of what can be afforded even when we had horrific cause to be generous with tax dollars–and indeed, the money flowed–and whether unlimited spending could really make the nation secure. How do we determine risk in order to set priorities? Could money buy the "full-scale" securing of the American transportation system? How does one make a public transit system 100 percent secure?
Go to the Ivory Soap website–actually a Facebook page–and you see this absurdly-reassuring corporate statement that could be a Madison Avenue rewrite of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. "Ivory provides freedom from nonsense and complexity by giving you everything you need and nothing you don't."
Just don't look for 100 percent. Pbea
appropriations, Channels, Dredging, Harbor Maintenance Tax, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Ports
HMTF: A Bump and RAMP Strategy
In Infrastructure, Ports, Water Resources on April 27, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Bump and RAMP doesn't sound like a sophisticated legislative strategy. It certainly isn't a complicated one. But when one is talking about the world of dredging one must do what one can to make it sound interesting.
As I've discussed previously the RAMP Act is an attempt to remedy a failing of current law. A tax is collected on some of the beneficiaries of port infrastructure–specifically channels, turning basins, anchorages–in order to cover the cost of maintaining–specifically dredging–that Federal navigation infrastructure.
You can read about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) by going to previous postings: RAMP Gets Its Chance and The Seven Billion Dollar Clue. (Hmm…those like a lot like Hardy Boys titles. Who?…oh, never mind.)
The procedural (point-of-order) solution in the RAMP legislation is not a complete solution. There is nothing to mandate full funding of channel maintenance.
Absent an automatic funding mechanism that effectively bypasses congressional appropriations–which ain't happening–the president will have to budget for channel maintenance every year and Congress will retain the prerogative to decide how much to spend.
Yesterday, today and tomorrow ports and other stakeholders have to make the case to Congress in support of the Corps of Engineers channel maintenance program. While the RAMP lobbying effort, led by the dredging industry, has proceeded so has the routine effort to increase the level of appropriations for channel maintenance. Bumping up the annual funding has been the persistent and particular point of emphasis for the American Association of Port Authorities along with others. And the effort has seen success.
Since FY 2009 the appropriation from HMTF funds has progressively grown from $773 million to $833 million in FY 2012. The FY 2013 budget, now subject to appropriations committee attention, estimates $839 million will be used from the fund.
Most, but not all, of the appropriated amounts apply to port O&M costs. Some goes to dredged material management facility construction, offsets for St. Lawrence Seaway tolls on the U.S. side, and for administrative overhead costs. If we look at the HMTF allocation to O&M the growth over that same timeline has been from $737 million to $767 million, in actual spending, and $779 million budgeted for FY 2013.
That's modest growth, especially considering the fact that over the same period HMTF annual revenue (HMT receipts + interest) grew from $1.253 billion to an estimated $1.864 billion in FY 2013.
But it is growth in a time when Federal spending isn't exactly growing like gangbusters.
One might attribute the growth to the RAMP effort, which commenced in 2008, and to AAPA's bump-up strategy. Those complementary and not exclusive efforts have shone a bright light on the inconvenient fact that the infrastructure maintenance buying power of dedicated user-taxes has been capped while Federal-managed channels are allowed to shoal.
As of this writing, 44 percent of the House Members have cosponsored Rep. Boustany's RAMP Act (HR 104) and over one-third of the Senate has signed on to Sen. Levin's S. 412. Those numbers reflect a bipartisan sensitivity to taxes collected but not used-as-promised as well as a greater awareness of the correlation between full-depth channels and the ability of U.S. exports to compete successfully on the global market.
That increased appreciation on Capitol Hill for the muddy, mundane world of maintenance dredging explain the two most recent and significant developments to date.
First, the House of Representatives voted, by voice, in support of full funding of Federal channel maintenance. The vote was an easy one. It doesn't have an enforcement provision, so there is nothing in the approved amendment to ensure full funding in future appropriations. That explains why the amendment–a watered down HR 104, also sponsored by Rep. Boustany–didn't have the opposition of committees that object to the RAMP Act as well as any other proposals for mandatory spending from trust funds.
That said, it is slightly stronger language than the "sense of Congress" provisions contained in the House and Senate transportation bills and which simply say what the Administration and Congress should do. So, for the first time, the full House is associated with the view that the total spending from the HMTF should equal HMTF revenue.
Second, and quantifiably more significant, the House Appropriations Committee this week approved a record level of funding from the HMTF for FY 2013. It is a handsome, marvelously round number of $1 billion. It is over $150 million more than in the president's budget, which itself represents an increase.
We don't know as yet what is the comparable HMTF allocation on Senate side but the draft committee report is quotable:
The Committee understands that the O&M budget fluctuates from year to year due to periodic maintenance dredging requirements, however, the general trend should be for this budget to increase.
Yes, indeed…all the way to the annual level of user-taxes being paid to keep the channels fully maintained. So far, the trend is in the right direction. Pbea
appropriations, Channels, Dredging, Harbor Maintenance Tax, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, Ports, RAMP
HMTF: RAMP Gets Its Chance
In Congress, Ports on February 14, 2012 at 11:33 am
HR 7, the surface transportation (and energy) bill that was reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the wee hours of February 3, has a wee Water Transportation title whose only provision is hortatory language about full use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
The HMTF, along with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, was left out of the full-funding fixes that the transportation committees muscled through Congress for the highway and transit programs in 1998 (TEA-21) and Airport Improvement Program in 2000 (AIR-21).
Chairman John Mica (R-FL) wanted to do something to remedy that oversight and, for the moment, that something is the "sense of Congress" that the HMTF "is not being used for its intended purpose" and fails "to provide the service for which it was established is unfair and places the National at economic risk." The Administration "should request full use" for channel work and "Congress should fully expend" what is in the fund.
Optimistically, the language is a placeholder for something with a bit more teeth, specifically the text of HR 104, the RAMP Act, that Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) and 171 colleagues sponsored in the hope of prying more out of the trust fund for deep draft channel O&M. RAMP is an opaque acronym for Realize America's Maritime Promise, the coalition that has advanced the issue.
HR 104 is modeled on the point-of-order approach employed in AIR-21 and which has had a role in leveraging substantial funding from the Aviation Trust Fund. However that doesn't mean the procedural remedy would ensure full-funding from the HMTF. There is no guarantee. For that reason HR 104 is thought to have a better chance of winning Hill approval than would, for example, a mandatory spending requirement that is the Hill committee turf battle equivalent of Iraq invading Kuwait for its oil.
The bill is intended to force the hand of the Appropriations Committees. But, you see, appropriators like to protect their prerogative to appropriate when, how much and for what. That explains why appropriations leaders are fighting RAMP. That and the fact that the appropriators have a long and bruised memory of being bested by one of Mica's predecessors, Bud Shuster, in the TEA-21 and AIR-21 "truth in budgeting" fights.
There's another reason. Assume the RAMP Act becomes law. If appropriators were forced to add, say, another $500,000,000 for channel maintenance they would have to do so within the parameters of the annual budget cap established through a separate budget process. If that cap isn't increased by $500,000,000 then the added O&M money would have to come from other program areas. Having to cut a half-billion dollars is when it isn't any fun being on the Appropriations Committee.
Chairman Mica decided on a strategy to add the HR 104 to HR 7 when the latter moved to the House floor for amendments. With 171 co-sponsors and a sustained advocacy effort on the part of ports, dredging contractors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others, an amendment stands a pretty good chance. RAMP advocates also are pressing for the Senate counterpart measure, S. 412, to be added to the MAP-21 surface transportation bill, S. 1816.
On February 1, the Ways and Means Committee held a maritime taxes hearing. Rep. Boustany, who chairs the Oversight Subcommittee of the tax panel, used the hearing to make the case for his bill. He polled witnesses from four ports and Louisiana's agricultural commissioner. All spoke to the economic efficiencies of vessels operating at full capacity when provided sufficient channel depth. When allowed to make the most of a ship's capacity US exports prove to be more competitive on the world market.
On February 3, Ways and Means met on a bill to extend the Highway Trust Fund related taxes, the essential revenue piece for HR 7. Ways and Means Committee does not have jurisdiction over the HMTF even though it does have jurisdiction over the Harbor Maintenance Tax. That didn't prevent Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) from offering an amendment to 1) add the RAMP Act to the bill and, 2) increase eligible uses of the HMTF. Having naturally deep water the ports of Seattle and Tacoma are among a small number that have little need for channel maintenance funding and in that way do not benefit by the cargo tax collected in those ports. (See the fairness discussion in the previous MTSM post.) Rep. McDermott explained that by expanding eligible port uses of the HMTF to include "infrastructure improvements or repairs" Seattle, for example, might obtain funding for a needed seawall project. As noted, the committee had no jurisdiction. The amendment was withdrawn. Rep. Boustany said he would work with Rep. McDermott on the matter.
This week on the House floor Boustany amendment #180 will be offered to HR 7. Rep. McDermott will attempt his amendment #178. And you can watch it all on C-Span. Pbea

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
<?php

/**
 * sfException is the base class for all symfony related exceptions and
 * provides an additional method for printing up a detailed view of an
 * exception.
 *
 * @package    symfony
 * @subpackage exception
 * @author     Fabien Potencier <fabien.potencier@symfony-project.com>
 * @author     Sean Kerr <skerr@mojavi.org>
 * @version    SVN: $Id$
 */
class sfException extends Exception
{
  protected
    $name = null;

  /**
   * Class constructor.
   *
   * @param string The error message
   * @param int    The error code
   */
  public function __construct($message = null, $code = 0)
  {
    if ($this->getName() === null)
    {
      $this->setName('sfException');
    }

    parent::__construct($message, $code);

    if (sfConfig::get('sf_logging_enabled') && $this->getName() != 'sfStopException')
    {
      sfLogger::getInstance()->err('{'.$this->getName().'} '.$message);
    }
  }

  /**
   * Retrieves the name of this exception.
   *
   * @return string This exception's name
   */
  public function getName()
  {
    return $this->name;
  }

  /**
   * Prints the stack trace for this exception.
   *
   * @param Exception An Exception implementation instance
   */
  public function printStackTrace($exception = null)
  {
    if (!$exception)
    {
      $exception = $this;
    }

    // don't print message if it is an sfStopException exception
    if (method_exists($exception, 'getName') && $exception->getName() == 'sfStopException')
    {
      if (!sfConfig::get('sf_test'))
      {
        exit(1);
      }

      return;
    }

    if (class_exists('sfMixer', false))
    {
      foreach (sfMixer::getCallables('sfException:printStackTrace:printStackTrace') as $callable)
      {
        $ret = call_user_func($callable, $this, $exception);
        if ($ret)
        {
          if (!sfConfig::get('sf_test'))
          {
            exit(1);
          }

          return;
        }
      }
    }

    if (!sfConfig::get('sf_test'))
    {
      header('HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error');

      // clean current output buffer
      while (@ob_end_clean());

      ob_start(sfConfig::get('sf_compressed') ? 'ob_gzhandler' : '');
    }

    // send an error 500 if not in debug mode
    if (!sfConfig::get('sf_debug'))
    {
      error_log($exception->getMessage());

      $file = sfConfig::get('sf_web_dir').'/errors/error500.php';
      include(is_readable($file) ? $file : sfConfig::get('sf_symfony_data_dir').'/web/errors/error500.php');

      if (!sfConfig::get('sf_test'))
      {
        exit(1);
      }

      return;
    }

    $message = null !== $exception->getMessage() ? $exception->getMessage() : 'n/a';
    $name    = get_class($exception);
    $format  = 0 == strncasecmp(PHP_SAPI, 'cli', 3) ? 'plain' : 'html';
    $traces  = $this->getTraces($exception, $format);

    // extract error reference from message
    $error_reference = '';
    if (preg_match('/\[(err\d+)\]/', $message, $matches))
    {
      $error_reference = $matches[1];
    }

    // dump main objects values
    $sf_settings = '';
    $settingsTable = $requestTable = $responseTable = $globalsTable = '';
    if (class_exists('sfContext', false) && sfContext::hasInstance())
    {
      $context = sfContext::getInstance();
      $settingsTable = $this->formatArrayAsHtml(sfDebug::settingsAsArray());
      $requestTable  = $this->formatArrayAsHtml(sfDebug::requestAsArray($context->getRequest()));
      $responseTable = $this->formatArrayAsHtml(sfDebug::responseAsArray($context->getResponse()));
      $globalsTable  = $this->formatArrayAsHtml(sfDebug::globalsAsArray());
    }

    include(sfConfig::get('sf_symfony_data_dir').'/data/exception.'.($format == 'html' ? 'php' : 'txt'));

    // if test, do not exit
    if (!sfConfig::get('sf_test'))
    {
      exit(1);
    }
  }

  /**
   * Returns an array of exception traces.
   *
   * @param Exception An Exception implementation instance
   * @param string The trace format (plain or html)
   *
   * @return array An array of traces
   */
  public function getTraces($exception, $format = 'plain')
  {
    $traceData = $exception->getTrace();
    array_unshift($traceData, array(
      'function' => '',
      'file'     => $exception->getFile() != null ? $exception->getFile() : 'n/a',
      'line'     => $exception->getLine() != null ? $exception->getLine() : 'n/a',
      'args'     => array(),
    ));

    $traces = array();
    if ($format == 'html')
    {
      $lineFormat = 'at %s%s%s(%s)
in %s line %s ...

%s
';
    }
    else
    {
      $lineFormat = 'at %s%s%s(%s) in %s line %s';
    }
    for ($i = 0, $count = count($traceData); $i < $count; $i++)
    {
      $line = isset($traceData[$i]['line']) ? $traceData[$i]['line'] : 'n/a';
      $file = isset($traceData[$i]['file']) ? $traceData[$i]['file'] : 'n/a';
      $shortFile = preg_replace(array('#^'.preg_quote(sfConfig::get('sf_root_dir')).'#', '#^'.preg_quote(realpath(sfConfig::get('sf_symfony_lib_dir'))).'#'), array('SF_ROOT_DIR', 'SF_SYMFONY_LIB_DIR'), $file);
      $args = isset($traceData[$i]['args']) ? $traceData[$i]['args'] : array();
      $traces[] = sprintf($lineFormat,
        (isset($traceData[$i]['class']) ? $traceData[$i]['class'] : ''),
        (isset($traceData[$i]['type']) ? $traceData[$i]['type'] : ''),
        $traceData[$i]['function'],
        $this->formatArgs($args, false, $format),
        $shortFile,
        $line,
        'trace_'.$i,
        'trace_'.$i,
        $i == 0 ? 'block' : 'none',
        $this->fileExcerpt($file, $line)
      );
    }

    return $traces;
  }

  /**
   * Returns an HTML version of an array as YAML.
   *
   * @param array The values array
   *
   * @return string An HTML string
   */
  protected function formatArrayAsHtml($values)
  {
    return '
'.@sfYaml::Dump($values).'
';
  }

  /**
   * Returns an excerpt of a code file around the given line number.
   *
   * @param string A file path
   * @param int The selected line number
   *
   * @return string An HTML string
   */
  protected function fileExcerpt($file, $line)
  {
    if (is_readable($file))
    {
      $content = preg_split('#
#', highlight_file($file, true));

      $lines = array();
      for ($i = max($line - 3, 1), $max = min($line + 3, count($content)); $i <= $max; $i++)
      {
        $lines[] = '
'.$content[$i - 1].'
';
      }

      return '
'.implode("\n", $lines).'
';
    }
  }

  /**
   * Formats an array as a string.
   *
   * @param array The argument array
   * @param boolean
   * @param string The format string (html or plain)
   *
   * @return string
   */
  protected function formatArgs($args, $single = false, $format = 'html')
  {
    $result = array();

    $single and $args = array($args);

    foreach ($args as $key => $value)
    {
      if (is_object($value))
      {
        $result[] = ($format == 'html' ? 'object' : 'object').'(\''.get_class($value).'\')';
      }
      else if (is_array($value))
      {
        $result[] = ($format == 'html' ? 'array' : 'array').'('.self::formatArgs($value).')';
      }
      else if ($value === null)
      {
        $result[] = 'null';
      }
      else if (!is_int($key))
      {
        $result[] = "'$key' => '$value'";
      }
      else
      {
        $result[] = "'".$value."'";
      }
    }

    return implode(', ', $result);
  }

  /**
   * Sets the name of this exception.
   *
   * @param string An exception name
   */
  protected function setName($name)
  {
    $this->name = $name;
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
John George Graves (1866–1945) was a successful English entrepreneur and public benefactor. He became Sheffield's Lord Mayor and an Alderman in 1926 and he was given Freedom of the City in 1929. He was born in Lincolnshire in 1866 and died in 1945, having settled in Sheffield.

Early life
Graves was born in Horncastle, Lincolnshire in 1866, the eldest of three children of Thomas and Julia Graves. When he was 8 years old, the family moved to Heckmondwyke, where his father operated a butchers shop.

He attended  Batley Grammar School until the age of fourteen, before moving to Sheffield.

Career
Graves moved to Sheffield to become an apprentice watchmaker. He was apprenticed to  W. Wichman of Gibraltar Street. He then set up one of Britain's first mail order businesses, selling first watches and then a wide range of goods. The company employed, at its peak, 3,000 people in Sheffield and had an annual turnover of £1 million. The company was absorbed by Great Universal Stores after Graves' death.

He married Lucy Dawson on 28 June 1891 in Crookes, Sheffield. They had one daughter, Ruth Julia.

A keen art collector, Graves donated nearly £60,000 towards the development of art galleries in Sheffield, including Sheffield Central Library, the Graves Art Gallery and the Mappin Art Gallery. He also contributed hundreds of pictures from his private collection. Between 1902 and his death in 1945, Graves lived at Riverdale House in the Ranmoor area of Sheffield. In the 1911 census he was living with his wife Lucy and daughter at The Folds, off Abbey Lane, Beauchief, Sheffield.

Graves donated over £1 million to Sheffield, including the establishment of Sheffield University's Student Union.  Part of the Union building is known as the "Graves Building". He also made gifts of land to the city, including Ecclesall Woods, Tinsley playing fields, Concord Park, Blacka Moor and one of the largest plots of land he donated was named after him, Graves Park. He also gifted land known as Cliffe Park to the town of Dronfield, Derbyshire, which is roughly 2.5 miles south of Graves Park in Sheffield.

The J. G. Graves Trust, a charitable trust set up in his name, exists to the present day.

References

External links
JG Graves Charitable Trust

Lord Mayors of Sheffield
1866 births
1945 deaths

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
View cart "Once He Came in Blessing" has been added to your cart.
Cheer, Boys, Cheer! Music of the 26th N.C. Regimental Band, CSA (Volume 2)
SKU: CD - CHEER BOYS Category: Music CDs
American Brass Quintet Brass Band
Among the rarities in the Moravian Music Foundation's collections are the only known complete sets of band books from a confederate band in the American Civil War. These were brought to Salem (now Winston-Salem, North Carolina) because the 26th North Carolina Regimental Band C.S.A. was comprised wholly of Moravian musicians from Salem. This recording, based upon new scholarly editions of the works, reveals new insights into the rich musical heritage of the South, and indeed of the whole nation, in the second half of the 19th century.
This second volume of Civil War-era music was performed by the American Brass Quintet Brass Band, formed in 1980 by the members of the American Brass Quintet to perform and record America's 19th-century brass band music on period instruments. Recorded November 1-4, 2005, at the American Academy of Arts and Letters, New York City.
1. Band Call – Cheer, Boys, Cheer
2. Grand Confederate Quickstep
3. Double Quickstep
4. Serenade Waltz
5. Irish Emigrant's Lament
6. Parting
7. 21st Regiment Quickstep
8. Chorale: Nun danket alle Gott
9. Easter Gallop
10. Screech Owl Gallop
11. Capt. Jones's Waltz
12. Ever of Thee
13. The Mocking Bird Quickstep 14. Chorale: O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden
15. Dead March
16. Dearest, I Think of Thee
17. Scotch Medley
18. Capt. Horton's Waltz
19. Lula is gone
20. Balade aus der Oper Zampa
21. Cast That Shadow From Thy Brow/Ella Leane
22. Chorale: Allein Gott in der Hšh sei Ehr
23. Brightest Eyes
24. Carolina March
Church, Rejoice by the Moravian Lower Brass
Loveliest Immanuel – Moravian Sacred Solos
Parthien 6-9 David Moritz Michael (1751-1827)
Harmonious to Dwell
Moravian Seal Car Magnet
Tapestry – Mission in the Making


text:
guardians of the galaxy 2 last scene
Find all 38 songs in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. You might want to consider one of those theaters with comfy seats. (This post contains spoilers for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. [SPOILERS for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a classic "the gang gets back together for one last heist" scene, with Ravagers reunited in the wake of Yondu's death. Toggle navigation. Here's what they all mean. 2 Soundtrack. 2 (Original Score) was released by Hollywood Records on April 21, 2017, and on vinyl LP on August 11, 2017, as part of a deluxe edition that also includes Awesome Mix Volume 2. 2 has 5 post-credits scenes. Spoiler alert: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
(This post contains spoilers for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. Find all 38 songs in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
'Guardians of the Galaxy 2': What That Name Drop Means for 'Vol.
Although Guardians 2 may be too much set-up for some fans' liking, director James Gunn sets a new standard in placing building blocks for future sequels, spin-offs, or other Avengers showdowns. But James Gunn raised the game with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. tunefind. 2 ahead.]
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. this link is to an external site that may or may not meet accessibility guidelines.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. tunefind
2's post-credits scene teases the arrival of "Adam", aka the long-awaited Adam Warlock. Warning: Spoilers for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. By the time Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
2's post-credits scene teases the arrival of "Adam", aka the long-awaited Adam Warlock. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 Soundtrack, with scene descriptions. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) cast and crew credits, including actors, actresses, directors, writers and more. 2, which hits the audience with not one, not two, but five post-credits scenes ranging from comedy bits and cameos, to … [Warning: The following post spoils, mildly, part of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
Listen to trailer music, OST, original score, and the full list of popular songs in the film. 2 ahead.
2's five post-credits scenes will be discussed here.Many of the scenes directly refer to major plot points in the movie. Here's what they all mean.
Warning: Spoilers for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
2 Soundtrack, with scene descriptions.
2, but it turns out a sixth (since deleted scene) was originally planned.Marvel Studios has made a habit of including one or two credits scenes with all of their movies since the very beginning. Listen to trailer music, OST, original score, and the full list of popular songs in the film. Let's break down what it …
2.). Although Guardians 2 may be too much set-up for some fans' liking, director James Gunn sets a new standard in placing building blocks for future sequels, spin-offs, or other Avengers showdowns.
By the time Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
2.). 2 wraps up, the roster of titular heroes has both expanded and contracted. 2 features what is possibly the best Stan Lee cameo yet - as Rocket and Yondu jet from stargate to stargate trying to get to Ego's planet, they pass by a trio of Watchers listening to the ramblings of the famed Marvel writer and creator of a litany of iconic characters (including Groot).
'Guardians of the Galaxy' End Credits Scene Explained. 2 ahead. 2 had big consequences and a whopping five post-credits scenes to set up what's coming next. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. by Ben Kendrick; Aug 01, 2014; Share Tweet Email.
5 May 2017; 38 songs; Follow. James Gunn just set the record for most mid/post-credits with five attached to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.
Brandon Vera Height, 7777 Meaning Twin Flame, Is Sb 1070 Still In Effect 2020, Bad Days Flaming Lips, The Possession Moth Scene, Addressing Modes In Microprocessor, Lehigh Valley Phantoms Score, Manzanita Tree Wedding, Resolution For Opening Bank Account Partnership Firm, Can You Wear One Earbud While Driving, 2live Nation Tik Tok, Titanite Scale Ds3, Why Do We Believe In One God, That Girl In Texas, Calls The Tune, Museum Of Aviation Georgia, Keto Cheese Loaf, Message To My Girl, Lincoln Memorial Penny, Cherry Street Apartments At Northgate, Condense Meaning In Malayalam, When It Comes To Understanding Families, How Are Structural Functionalists Perspectives Different, Wrist Extension Pain, Spongebob Tattoo Sleeve, Berlin Palace Fire, The Songs In Spanish, Blessing The Jews, Rosy Today Clothing, Accenture Strategy Senior Manager Salary, Pic Interrupt Controller, The Cars Live 1982, Daydreamin Lyrics Jonathan, Tonight Is The Night (le Click), Florida Fire Frogs Stadium, Rohit Sharma Wife Name, Keep The River On Your Right Song, Petty Cash Voucher Entry, You Alone'' Arkansas Mass Choir Chords, Spongebob Full Name, Disturbed Dark Lyrics, Indoor Activities For 14 Month Old,
2020 guardians of the galaxy 2 last scene


text:
Some pointers about sports concussion brain injury
Phones Answered 24 Hours a Day
On behalf of Cranwell & Moore P.L.C., Attorneys at Law posted in Brain Injury on Thursday, September 11, 2014.
Most Virginia residents may have heard of the term sport's concussion, which is actually a brain injury caused by a blow, bump, or a jolt to the head. A concussion may also occur when the body receives a blow, which results in the head moving back and forward. The damage can be serious and may even result in long-term disability. A post from a few weeks back talked about the lawsuit settlement between the National Collegiate Athletic Association and some former players, who suffered on-field concussions.
Most concussions occur without a person losing consciousness. Therefore, it is important to treat such brain injuries in order to prevent more serious consequences. Athletes who do not receive any medical treatment are at risk if they experience symptoms such dizziness and headaches. An athlete must immediately consult a doctor if he has nausea, headache, double vision, irritability, confusion, nervousness, insomnia, difficulty in concentration, and other things. These may be signs of a brain injury.
A concussion can become worse if the injured person continues physical and mental activity. An important treatment of brain injury or any type of concussion is rest. An injured athlete needs to abstain from any kind of injuries that may worsen the symptoms such as reading, driving, playing computer or video games, or any other taxing activities.
The athlete can return to work only after he or she has completely recovered. If any athlete is suspected of sustaining a concussion or brain injury, he or she needs to be immediately removed from the playing field. The athlete should be evaluated by a health care professional. The person's parents should also be consulted. It should be pointed out that between 2001 and 2005, children and youngsters, between the ages of five and 18 accounted for 2.4 million visits to the emergency department, and six percent of the reported cases involved a concussion.
Source: BIAV.net, "Sports Concussion," accessed on Sept.1, 2014
Tags: Brain injury, symptoms
Related Posts: What is cognition?, Motorcycle accident-related brain injuries, How can I speed up my traumatic brain injury recovery process?, Watching your child for symptoms of brain injury
2 people killed in tragic Christmas Eve car crash
Fatal car accident claims life of mother, injures 2 others
You know about emotional eating, but emotional driving?
Tragic multi-vehicle car accident results in woman's death
Subscribe to This Blog's Feed Visit Our Video Center
Your Best Interests Are Our Top Priority — Schedule A Free Consultation
Arrange a no-cost, no-obligation consultation with one of our Roanoke personal injury lawyers today.
Visit Our Office / Follow Us
111 Virginia Avenue West
Vinton, VA 24179
Vinton Law Office Map
© 2020 by Cranwell & Moore P.L.C., Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. Disclaimer


text:
Xysmalobium involucratum är en oleanderväxtart som först beskrevs av Ernst Meyer, och fick sitt nu gällande namn av Joseph Decaisne. Xysmalobium involucratum ingår i släktet Xysmalobium och familjen oleanderväxter. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Oleanderväxter
involucratum


This hammered bathroom copper sink is a beautiful piece of art, the rim is flat (1" wide), allowing it to be under-mounted, the bowl is 15" diameter. From a copper sheet the wise artisan hands transform it into this unique piece. The bathroom copper sink you are looking at has a standard 1.5" diameter hole and it does not have a overflow system. The hammer footprint is very visible. The reddish/oxidized texture is characteristic of natural copper when it is cooled down from red-hot temperature using cold water, technique that the coppersmiths use.
This copper sink was made from one sheet of copper, raised with the artist hammer, there are no one welded joints.
Hammering the red-hot copper is an ancient technique the coppersmiths use, where no sophisticated tools are used, just the furnace to heat the copper and a hammer to give it the shape. We got this bathroom copper sink from the skilled coppersmiths from Santa Clara del Cobre, Mexico. The finish is in a natural-looking copper color. Suitable for your bathroom, it will add a unique home accent making it a very special point of attraction in your bathroom. The copper sheet is 16 gauge (0.05" thickness).