Fischer, Deb Sen

:{===

1 25

Bruce Fischer, husband of third-term GOP Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, dodged Harris' outstretched hand during Friday's swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., offering a mere nod and curt "thank you" in return after his wife took the oath of office.

Critics: Fischer benefits from a 'subsidy'

The Norfolk Daily News

https://norfolkdailynews.com › news › critics-fischer-be...](https://norfolkdailynews.com/news/critics-fischer-benefits-from-a-subsidy/article_380add02-fd3f-11e0-98a8-001a4bcf6878.html)

Oct 23, 2011 — Republican U.S. Senate candidate Deb Fischer and her husband, Bruce, are among a handful of Nebraska ranchers whose cattle graze on federal ...

the “Hammers’ Law,” sponsored by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), aims to challenge the status quo. Named after two victims who lost their lives to a fire on a Peruvian river cruise in 2016, the bill would expand the compensation families can pursue from cruise lines in cases of on-board accidents.

The bill gained support from the American Association for Justice, a group representing trial attorneys across the country. Lobbyists backed by powerful cruise lines, however, have blocked similar efforts for years.}:

:{**Read more**:(style="color:#0000ff;"):}:

==

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/07/25/senator-backed-rail-companies-introduces-new-bill-would-de-regulate-rail-industry

A new bill by one of the rail industry’s favorite senators looks to change how the industry is regulated to allow “market forces to improve rail safety.” In June, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), who happens to chair the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee, introduced the Railroad Advancement of Innovation and Leadership with Safety (RAILS) Act.

In essence, the bill seeks to shift the rail industry toward a self-regulatory — and more difficult to enforce — approach to safety known as “performance-based regulation,” an effort first reported by DeSmog after a Congressional hearing in May.

In that hearing, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) advocated for performance-based regulations for safety, saying that government should “allow the railroad industry to keep more of their profits.” That's what you should expect when moving to a system relying on market forces to improve safety.

Speaking of market forces, it should come as no surprise that the top donor to Senator Fischer’s election campaigns is rail company Union Pacific. Or that four of her top eleven donors are rail companies, which include Berkshire Hathaway (owner of rail company BNSF), Norfolk Southern, and CSX.

That helps explain why she is pushing to allow the industry to self-regulate via performance-based regulations. Even in a pro-industry opinion piece in the publication RailwayAge, written by a former employee of rail lobbying group, the Association of American Railroads, it wasn’t possible to sell the bill without noting that it allows industry to regulate itself:

“…performance-based safety standards mean rather than the [Federal Railroad Administration] prescribing particular actions, such as mileage-based brake tests and specific operations and maintenance procedures, the agency would specify a safety outcome — such as a maximum accident-type rate or component failure rate — and allow each railroad to devise its own cost-effective means of achieving that target.”

What could go wrong if you allow each railroad to devise its own cost-effective means of achieving safety? Let’s take a look at Exhibit A: Lac-Mégantic.

Lac-Mégantic: When 'Market Forces' Regulate Safety

Shortly after the deadly oil-by-rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Canada, a columnist at The Guardian stated, “the explosion in Lac-Mégantic is not merely a tragedy. It is a corporate crime scene.” There is a mountain of evidence to prove how corporate cost-cutting caused the July 2013 accident in the small Quebec town.

The fire on the locomotive that started the whole deadly chain of events was the result of cutting costs for engine repair. A report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canadastated that “This temporary repair had been performed using a polymeric material, which did not have the strength and durability required for this use.”  That was the first mistake due to cost-cutting shortcuts.

The company operating that oil train had also been allowed to run the trains with a single person crew. Another cost-saving measure that railroad labor unions oppose and one that the rail industry in America is lobbying hard to make standard.

And then there was the corporate policy of not using all of the braking systems in order to save time, which we wrote about on DeSmog last year:

What has been overlooked is the corporate policy of not engaging the “automatic brake” when leaving a train on the tracks. Harding [train engineer] set the independent brake and handbrakes but did not set the automatic brake because that was corporate policy.

The brakes he did apply were sufficient to hold the train. But then the locomotive caught fire that night and the fire department cut power to the locomotive, which led to the loss of pressure in the independent brake and the train “running away” down the hill towards Lac-Mégantic.

It would have taken Harding 10 seconds to engage the automatic brake. If this had been done, the train most likely would have remained in place until it was scheduled to continue the next morning. But company policy was to not engage the automatic brake even when parking a loaded train of explosive Bakken oil on a hill above a town. Why not?

Because while it only takes 10 seconds to engage the braking system, it takes between 15 minutes to an hour to disengage the system when the train is restarted the next day. And in the rail industry, time is money.

This is what happens when market forces drive safety precautions. And that is why it is accurate to describe Lac-Mégantic as a corporate crime scene.

'Sound Science' and ECP Braking

The new bill from Sen. Fischer include the section “Sound Science,” which requires that regulations be based on things like “appropriately validated models and formulas.” It does not mention how one goes about “appropriately” validating models and formulas.

This approach of claiming that safety regulations aren’t based on sound science or that the has already proven to be a very effective approach for delaying further safety measures for the rail and oil industries. It has been the main argument allowing the oil industry to continue to transportvia train a dangerous and volatile oil that could easily be stabilized and made safer to ship.

In the RailwayAge opinion piece supporting Fischer's industry-friendly bill, it notes that the industry is particularly interested in rolling back the requirement to have electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on oil trains, saying this regulation was “troubling to railroads and the scientific community.”

When DeSmog asked RailwayAge to provide evidence that the scientific community found the regulations requiring ECPbraking “troubling,” the author of the piece — former Association of American Railroads (AAR) employee Frank Wilner — directed DeSmog to the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. According to its website this organization is “a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads.”

So, scientists on the payroll of the rail industry’s main lobbying group find a proven safety technology “troubling.” What should be more troubling to anyone concerned about rail safety is a bill introduced by a senator taking large amounts of money from the rail industry, a bill which is then promoted by not only the industry's lobbying group but also a former lobbying group employee, claiming in an industry trade magazine that industry-paid scientists are the final word on safety.

As repeatedly noted on DeSmog, there is ample evidence that ECP brakes are safer.

But perhaps the strongest argument for ECP brakes is that they are required on trains hauling nuclear waste. Why would this be required if these brakes offer no safety benefits? In 2004, the AAR gave a presentation on why trains should be allowed to move spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and clearly noted that ECP brakes were important for safety. Yet 13 years later, this group is purporting that it is an unproven technology.

[img]

And that's not all. There's evidence that ECP brakes would have prevented the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

Performance-Based Regulation or Profit-Based Regulation?

“Railroad rules have been written in blood.” This line comes from the annual report of the Commissioner of Railroads for the state of Michigan — in 1901. It implied that safety rules were only implemented when enough blood had been spilled.

One hundred and fifteen years later, in an opinion piece on rail safety for CNN, rail expert Fred Failey essentially said the same thing, opening his piece with the statement, “The rules by which trains operate on American railroads were written in blood.”

Now, with over 100 years of history showing the rail industry's refusal to implement safety measures until enough people have died, the industry is again pushing to regulate itself in order to avoid proven safety technologies for the sake of “keep[ing] more of their profits.” Congress and the anti-regulatory officials now in the Trump administration are working hard to allow this to happen.

The only performance that will improve when implementing performance-based regulations is the performance of railroad stock prices and the fundraising efforts of politicians like Sen. Deb Fischer.

:{

}:

===

:{

}:

Lastly, you’ve got Deb Fischer. The Nebraska Republican was asked during a 2012 campaign debate whether or not she believes in man-made climate change. Her immediate response was, “I certainly don’t support cap-and-trade,” but then added that while she believes the climate is changing, she does not think humans have made a big impact on it.

Sen. Deb Fischer

NE

Asked about man-made climate change, Fischer immediately said, 'I certainly don't support cap-and-trade.' She said she believes in weather change, but she said she does not believe man has a huge impact on the climate. [source]

=

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00033443&newMem=N&cycle=2014

:{

}:

Cycle Fundraising, 2011 - 2014, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC

Raised:	$6,059,340
Spent:	$5,940,651
Cash on Hand:	$121,789
Debts:	$138
Last Report:	Wednesday, December 31, 2014	Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2014, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC

...view more data

Top 5 Industries, 2011 - 2014, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC

==

1	Senate Conservatives Fund				$83,584	$78,584	$5,000
2	Elliott Management				$40,553	$40,553	$0
3	Tenaska Energy				$28,250	$26,250	$2,000
4	Union Pacific Corp				$27,550	$5,050	$22,500
5	Fiat SPA				$25,200	$15,200	$10,000
6	Werner Enterprises				$24,750	$17,250	$7,500
7	Pinnacle Bancorp				$20,750	$5,750	$15,000
8	Susan B Anthony List				$20,215	$15,215	$5,000
9	Hawkins Construction				$20,000	$20,000	$0
9	Norfolk Southern				$20,000	$0	$20,000
11	Mutual of Omaha				$19,750	$8,750	$11,000
12	US Bancorp				$19,000	$7,000	$12,000
13	Blue Cross/Blue Shield				$18,000	$4,500	$13,500
14	National Auto Dealers Assn				$17,500	$0	$17,500
15	Berkshire Hathaway				$15,250	$250	$15,000
16	Deutsche Telekom				$15,000	$0	$15,000
16	National Multi Housing Council				$15,000	$0	$15,000
16	CSX Corp				$15,000	$0	$15,000
16	Northrop Grumman				$15,000	$0	$15,000
16	American Financial Group				$15,000	$15,000	$15,000

==

U.S. Senator

• Sen. Deb Strobel Fischer (43); Communications and Technology Task Force^[7]

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is a conservative women's organization that describes its goal as "helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy."^[1] Mother Jones describes CWA as "a conservative anti-feminist operation,"^[2] while the Southern Poverty Law Center identified CWA as one of the most influential anti-gay groups in the United States.^[3]

CWA was founded by Beverly LaHaye, wife of conservative activist Tim LaHaye, in 1979.^[4]

CWA describes its mission as "to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens -- first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society -- thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation."^[1] According to its website, CWA focuses on seven core issues, which it lists as "sanctity of life," "defense of family," "education," "religious liberty," "national sovereignty," "sexual exploitation," and "support for Israel."^[5]

CWA operates a think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute. It also operates a political action committee, Concerned Women PAC, and a legislative action committee, CWALAC.

2012 Election Cycle

In the 2012 cycle, CWA's PAC reported a total of $295,516 in spending to the FEC. The bulk of the spending, according to CWA's filings, went to "fundraising" (70 percent) and "administrative" (29 percent) expenses.^[18] According to the Washington Post, CWA organized a get-out-the-vote campaign for conservative Christian women.^[6]

CWA also reported direct contributions to four candidates:^[19]

• Robert Aderholt (R-AL): $250
• Deb Fischer (R-NE): $250
• Richard Mourdock (R-IN): $1,000
• Mitt Romney (R): $250

==

clean water

The EPA knew it was stepping onto a battlefield Wednesday when it released its final version of a rule aimed at protecting America’s stream and wetlands, clearing up confusion inherent in the original Clean Water Act and allowing regulators to stop pollution from spreading to the larger waterways on which one in three Americans rely for drinking water.

And the agency was ready for the critics. “The only people with reason to oppose the rule,” White House Senior Advisor Brian Deese told reporters on a press call Wednesday, “are polluters who knowingly threaten our clean water.”

So who are those willful polluters? Congressional Republicans, along with a select group of Democrats from farm and energy-heavy states, who are already pushing legislation aimed at crippling the rule in both Houses. They’re characterizing it, as they do most EPA regulations, as a “power grab” and an overreach, and are vowing to destroy it the same way, presumably, they want to be allowed to destroy waterways.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) summed up the overwrought sentiment nicely in his reaction to the rule’s release. “The administration’s decree to unilaterally expand federal authority is a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs,” he said. “These leaders know firsthand that the rule is being shoved down the throats of hardworking people with no input, and places landowners, small businesses, farmers, and manufacturers on the road to a regulatory and economic hell.”

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.),who is sponsoring a bill with Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) that would overturn the rule, called it “reckless and unwarranted” in a statement, and vowed to “work tirelessly to stop this expansion of federal control.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, in announcing the rule this morning, in fact pointed out that the agency has received over one million public comments on the rule since it was proposed last year. And it was based, she emphasized, on the best available peer-reviewed science.

McCarthy also took care to stress that the rule has been changed from the proposed version to clarify that it does not apply to ditches or groundwater, and that agriculture will continue to be exempted. The rule “does not interfere with private property rights or address land use,” she elaborated. “It does not regulate any ditches unless they function as tributaries. It does not apply to groundwater or shallow subsurface water, copper tile drains or change policy on irrigation or water transfer.”

“Farmers, ranchers, and foresters are all original conservationists, and we recognize that,” McCarthy said.

:{Farmers are nonetheless some of the strongest opponents of the rule, along with other business interests New York Times identifies as “property developers, fertilizer and pesticide makers, oil and gas producers and a national association of golf course owners” — again, polluters that, under the status quo, are getting away with it.

advertisement}:

Those in favor of the rule, on the other hand? Aside from the usual groups interested in protecting the environment, which are all pretty thrilled, it’s backed, per one poll, by 80 percent of voters and, per McCarthy, 80 percent of small business owners. Craft breweries are also big fans: “Beer is about 90 percent water, making local water supply quality and its characteristics, such as pH and mineral content, critical to brewing,” a coalition of beer companies wrote to the EPA in 2014.

:{President Obama, too, stood up for the rule Wednesday, asserting in a statement that it “will provide the clarity and certainty businesses and industry need about which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and it will ensure polluters who knowingly threaten our waters can be held accountable.”

Lindsay Abrams}:

Lindsay Abrams is a staff writer at Salon, reporting on all things sustainable. Follow her on Twitter @readingirl, email labrams@salon.com.

:{

}:

===