Thread: Obama’s new Interior Secretary nominee received Obamacare waiver for her company

Obama’s new Interior Secretary nominee received Obamacare waiver for her company

02/07/2013

Vince Coglianese
Senior Online Editor

President Barack Obama’s newly-named nominee to run the Department of the Interior, REI CEO Sally Jewell, sought and received a waiver from Obamacare requirements for her outdoor clothing and equipment company in 2011.

The Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering dug up the revelation Thursday, noting that Obama welcomed Jewell to the White House in 2009 to jointly argue for the passage of Obamacare.

Obama held REI up as a model company. “And then REI, which has to be fit since they’re a fitness company,” Obama joked during the White House meeting on May 12, 2009, “has been doing work that allows them to provide health care coverage, health insurance, not only to their full-time employees but also their part-time employees.

Every single employee is covered, but part of the reason they’re able to do it is because they put a big emphasis on prevention and wellness.”

Two years later, Jewell secured an exemption from the law for REI.

REI received an Obamacare waiver around the same time that nearly 20 percent of the businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district received waivers.

Read more: Obama Interior nominee received Obamacare waiver for REI | The Daily Caller

They don't even want to be included in the overpriced health insurance we all get stuck with..
What happened to "Americans will have the same insurance as politicans"?
I thought the Obama care would include every citizen...now there are exception?
Can this be a true law with exceptions?

Jewell in the Rough

Interior secretary nominee serves on board of group that sued Interior Department

Barack Obama, Sally Jewell / AP

BY: CJ Ciaramella
February 8, 2013 11:16 am
Interior secretary nominee Sally Jewell previously served on the board of an environmental group that has filed dozens of lawsuits against the federal government, including against the Department of Interior.

Jewell, who was nominated by President Barack Obama Wednesday, joined the board of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in 2004 and currently serves as one of the group’s vice-chairs.

The NPCA has filed numerous lawsuits against the federal government to limit public access and other activities in national parks and has recouped hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in settlements.

For example, the NPCA filed a lawsuit to strike down a federal regulation allowing concealed firearms in national parks. It also has sued theEnvironmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, Duke Energy (a major Obama donor), and the EPA again.

The NPCA often recoups its legal costs at the expense of taxpayers using the Equal Access to Justice Act, a common tactic among environmental groups.

The NPCA sued the Interior Department in 2007 over its decision, known as the Winter Use Plan, to allow more snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. The district court for the District of Columbia vacated the use plan, and the federal government settled with the group for $150,996 in 2010.

While Jewell’s nomination has been well-received by Democrats, environmental groups, and even industry associations—Jewell began her career at Mobil Oil Corp—her association with the NPCA has raised concerns among some Republicans that she will pursue the group’s left-wing agenda.

Critics say the NPCA lawsuits killed jobs, costs taxpayers money, drained agency resources, and limited the general public’s access to federal lands.

“I have some reservations about President Obama’s selection of Sally Jewell,” Rep. Rob Bishop (R., Utah) said in a statement.

“While I certainly respect her business expertise, the president had other options who possessed extensive experience with public policy in the west and the impacts of so much federally-owned land,” Bishop continued. “Additionally, her company has intimately supported several special interest groups and subsequently helped to advance their radical political agendas.”

The NPCA also spent more than $300,000 lobbying in 2012 in addition to suing the government, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The NPCA “has a long reach and a lot of tentacles into the Hill and the administration,” one Republican aide said.

The NPCA caught the attention of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2009 for its lobbying activity on the stimulus bill.

More than $2 billion was steered toward national parks through the stimulus, which was double the park system’s annual appropriations. The NPCA’s lead lobbyist was Craig Obey, whose father, Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.), was chair of the House Appropriations Committee at the time.

The NPCA and Rep. Obey denied that any inappropriate lobbying took place.
Jewell is also the CEO of the outdoor gear company REI. That company has an active lobbying presence on Capitol Hill and has partnered with the Obama administration on some of its environmental initiatives.

REI spent $610,000 lobbying the federal government between 2009 and 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Much of that money went toward lobbying for expansion of national wilderness areas.

“They’re basically like a for-profit environmental group,” the Republican aide said.
Jewell participated in a panel touting the Obama administration’s “America’s Great Outdoors” initiative.

Rep. Steve Pearce (R., N.M.) said he has “some concerns about Ms. Jewell but hopes that our senators will voice New Mexico’s needs during the confirmation process.”

“In New Mexico, our jobs and hundreds of millions in state funding for education, roads, and public safety are at stake because of the Department of the Interior’s policy of choosing radical agendas over our state’s needs,” Pearce continued in a statement to the Free Beacon. “Both as a representative of New Mexico and as chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, I look forward to working with the new interior secretary to change this trend and bring Washington’s attention to the land use and regulatory issues vital to western states.”

Senate Republicans are approaching Jewell with caution.

“I look forward to hearing about the qualifications Ms. Jewell has that make her a suitable candidate to run such an important agency and how she plans to restore balance to the Interior Department,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), one of the most vocal advocates for increasing U.S. oil and gas production, said in a statement Wednesday.

However, industry groups have reacted favorably to Jewell’s nomination thanks to her work in the private sector.

“The Department of the Interior is key to the future of American energy policy,” said Jack Gerard, the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. “We look forward to learning how Sally Jewell’s business background and experience in the oil and natural gas industry will shape her approach to the game-changing prospects before us in energy development.”

Jewell would be in charge of managing 500 million acres of public land as well as overseeing the nation’s oil and gas development, national parks, and endangered species protection if confirmed by the Senate. She will also handle decisions on hotly debated issues such as offshore drilling and fracking.

Environmental groups have applauded the nomination.

The NPCA did not immediately return a request for comment but released a statement yesterday.

“The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) applauds President Obama’s nomination of Sally Jewell, president and chief executive of Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI), as secretary of the Department of the Interior,” the organization said. “Sally Jewell is an outstanding business leader, advocate for outdoor recreation, and national parks supporter and will make a top notch member of the president’s cabinet.”

Interior sec nominee liked suing Interior Department | Washington Free Beacon

Environmental groups collecting millions from federal agencies they sue, studies show

By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published May 08, 2012
FoxNews.com

• 
  In this 1999 photograph, the Wyoming Range is seen. The state's largest roadless area had been targeted for oil and gas leasing, but those efforts were withdrawn due to Congressional action. (Courtesy: Biodiversity Conservation Alliance)

Deep-pocketed environmental groups are collecting millions of dollars from the federal agencies they regularly sue under a little-known federal law, and the government is not even keeping track of the payouts, according to two new studies.


Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA — which was signed into law by President Carter in 1980 to help the little guy stand up to federal agencies — litigants with modest means who successfully show government agencies wronged them can get their legal fees back from the taxpayer.


But the act also covers 501(c)(3) nonprofits, including environmental groups that aggressively sue the feds to enforce land-use laws, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts and laws protecting endangered species. Their lawyers are getting reimbursed at rates as high as $750 an hour, sources tell FoxNews.com.


“It was intended for helping our nation's veterans, seniors and small business owners, but environmental groups have hijacked the so-called Equal Access to Justice Act and abused it to fund their own agenda,” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told FoxNews.com. “Then you have small businesses and the American taxpayers left to foot the bill.”


Environmental groups, however, argue that the act is an important tool in their efforts to protect the public's interest in conservation, fighting pollution and ensuring the federal government follows its own rules.


“Litigation is not a moneymaker, and the litigation is being done to make a difference and make the world a better place,” Erik Molvar, executive director of the Wyoming-based Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, told FoxNews.com.


The exact taxpayer cost of the Equal Access to Justice Act remains unclear. The General Accounting Office, or GAO, tracked 525 legal fee reimbursements that totaled $44.4 million from 2001 through 2010, but found that only 10 of 75 agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior could provide data on cases and attorney fee reimbursements.


“As a result, there was no way to readily determine who made claims, the total amount each department paid or awarded in attorney fees, who received the payments or statutes under which the cases were brought for the claims [for fiscal years 2000 through 2010],” the GAO report reads.


Barrasso fears that is only the tip of the iceberg.


“You’re talking about millions and millions of dollars,” Barrasso said. “There is a pressing need for more accountability and transparency. Even the government doesn’t know how much it's paying out — it’s disturbing.”

“You’re talking about millions and millions of dollars ... Even the government doesn’t know how much it’s paying out — it’s disturbing.”

- Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.



A recent Notre Dame Journal of Legislation article said the law had a noble purpose once, but has produced an “incalculable waste of taxpayer money.”


“It is among the most wide-reaching statutes in the U.S. Code, and what it attempts to do is as complex in execution as it is simple in concept: to aid those who would otherwise be truly hurt by fighting the government when it acts without justification,” wrote Lowell Baier, author of the article and president of the Boone and Crockett Club, a Montana-based conservationist group. “But it is clear that EAJA is in need of reform.”
Critics say the act needs to be reformed in order to serve its original purpose. Baier calls for limiting it to small businesses and individuals and withholding or at least limiting payments where plaintiffs prevail on “process instead of substance.”


In May, Barrasso and Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., jointly introduced the Government Litigation Savings Act to reform the Equal Access to Justice Act. If passed, the bill would cap reimbursements at $200 per hour. It would also limit repetitive lawsuits and require full accounting of payments authorized by the Equal Access law, the GAO report found.


“Obviously it’s a David and Goliath situation when a senior citizen, small business or veteran takes on the federal government,” Lummis told FoxNews.com. “When money is being spent trying to practice the equivalent of defensive medicine, the money is not going to the environment — it’s just going to lawyers. And that was never the intent of those dollars.”


But environmental groups say the law is working just fine, and proving the government’s position was not "substantially justified" — the standard for reimbursement — can be difficult. They say the reimbursements don't come close to covering their expenses, much less provide incentive to bring frivolous cases.


Molvar, of the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, told FoxNews.com that his organization, which has a $250,000 annual budget, received an average of $1,000 in Equal Access reimbursements in each of the past five years.


“And that was unusually high compared to previous years,” Molvar said. “We have spent far more litigating than we have gotten back."


Molvar said it’s important to remember that his organization — which he characterized as one of the more litigious conservation groups in the country — only receives funds if it wins.


“You only get them when you win and prove that the federal government has broken the law,” he said.


Aggressive reforms could wind up preventing parties — environmental groups included — from challenging unjust decisions made by the federal government or enforcing laws that benefit the public, according to a July 2011 analysis of the bill by the Brennan Center for Justice


Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said in statement issued in October that environmental groups collect only a small portion of overall fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. He said his own group receives only a tiny fraction — less than 0.5 percent, on average — of its annual revenue of about $8 million from those attorney fees recovered.


“No one’s getting rich by making the government follow the law,” Suckling said in the written statement. He declined to be interviewed for this article. “Republicans are using this bill as a back-door attack on environmental laws they don’t like. The end result will be restricting citizen access to the court system and a federal government that’s less accountable to the people.”





Read more: Environmental groups collecting millions from federal agencies they sue, studies show | Fox News