South Carolina Motorcycle Rights Association

Another week, another highway bill hearing. The Senate Environment and Public Works held a hearing this week, this one to hear the perspective from owners and operators of highway construction and trucking types. The goal was to determine how a long-term highway bill impacts economic growth and stability. All agreed that the longer the life of the bill the better, think six years of solid funding instead of the 11-18 month patches that has become the new normal. A long-term bill give financial security to large scale projects that have been done in pieces rather than a fell swoop or have just neglected all together.

USDOT Secretary Foxx is in coach mode, demanding a win from the House and the Senate. He is insisting that they do a long-term bill and is determined to keep the whip cracking. Most agree, though that at this point, with the May 31, 2015 funding expiration, it is likely that the Congress will pass a short-term bill sometime near the funding cut off.

Long-term dreams, short-term funding… Last week Congressmen Reid Ribble (R-WI), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Tom Reed (R-NY) and Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) all sent a letter to Boehner and Pelosi urging them to pass a long-term bill. That letter was cosigned by a super majority of 280 bi-partisan members of congress. So the want is there, but the will is not. Ask any of those 280 members how we are going to pay for a long-term bill and the head scratching and hemming and hawing will begin immediately. Some will muster about the idea of "repatriation" - that’s the possible practice of taxing profits stored overseas by corporations at a slightly lower rate than if they had kept the money in the USA. Outside groups are putting on the pressure as well. Forty-two states Chambers of Commerce all sent a letter to congressional leadership urging them to make transportation a priority. Very few of those members will openly support a gas tax increase, and that’s what really needs to happen.

This was a big week for net neutrality. The chairman of the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) held a vote on his net neutrality proposal and it was a straight party line vote with the two republicans voting no and the 3 democrats voting yes. At its core the rules reclassify the internet as a public utility, or a class II entity, like phone companies. Proponents of the new rule claim it will keep providers (ISP), like Comcast, from slowing down, prioritizing, or just eliminating content. Critics call it a regulatory overreach that will result in more fees, taxes and regulatory burden, therefore stifling innovation and raising the cost of internet at the same time. The proposed rule gathered much attention with over four million submitted public comments. This is not the end of the road though; a judicial review is expected and many lawsuits will be in play. The opponents of the rule are also expected to seek a stay of order on the new rule. Why is the MRF even looking at this telecom issue? Part of the debate surrounding net neutrality is the fear that the new regulation would force them to seek additional sources of revenue to pay for the directive. One of those ideas was to charge more for internet use for groups like the MRF that regularly send out thousands of emails at a time. The claim was that we are chewing up bandwidth at an exponential rate compared to the average internet user. That still may happen, which is why we monitor this closely.