January 2, 2018
Fast Facts
Bringing Business Up to Speed
Federal Issues

Senate committee rejects Garrett's nomination to serve as U.S. Export-Import Bank president

The Senate Banking Committee on Dec. 19 rejected former U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to serve as the next president and chairman of the U.S. Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank. The embattled Garrett was opposed by business groups across the nation, including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the Association of Washington Business and others.

AWB President Kris Johnson said of Garrett in a column in The Seattle Times last August, “Like the National Association of Manufacturers, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, the Association of Washington Business is deeply concerned with the president’s nomination of Garrett to head the bank. He was one of a handful of members of Congress who outwardly expressed his desire to dismantle the Ex-Im Bank, a move that would leave hundreds of thousands of America’s small manufacturers to compete with foreign companies that have access to Ex-Im-type government loans and services within their countries.”

In a column published in The Hill, Linda Dempsey, vice president of international economic affairs for NAM, praised the Senate committee for scuttling Garrett from the list of nominees and urged Congress to act to restore a quorum on the bank’s board and finish the process of choosing the next leader of the bank.

The committee also approved the president’s other four nominations to round out the bank’s board of directors: Kimberly Reed, Spencer Bachus, Judith Delzoppo Pryor and Claudia Slacik.

The next round of hearings on Ex-Im Bank board nominees and those nominated to fill the bank’s top position have not yet been announced.

For more information on federal issues, contact AWB Government Affairs Director Amy Anderson at 360.943.1600.

« Back to Main
Rule of Law Matters

Washington's carbon overreach

By The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

Washington Governor Jay Inslee calls climate change an "existential threat," and he has channeled President Obama in using executive powers to impose his policy response. But like Mr. Obama he suffered a major blow this month when a Washington court ruled that he exceeded his authority under state law.

Washington lawmakers have declined to pass Mr. Inslee's signature cap-and-trade legislation, and in 2016 voters rejected a carbon-tax ballot measure. So "now we have to do it administratively," the Sierra Club's Doug Howell said last year.

Mr. Inslee suddenly discovered authority to act unilaterally under the Washington Clean Air Act and a 2008 law that required greenhouse gas reductions...

And in a Dec. 15 oral ruling, Thurston County Superior Court Judge James Dixon found that the Inslee Administration lacked the legal authority to regulate indirect emitters.

The decision is a victory for the rule of law and another rebuke to progressives who try to ignore democratic consent to impose their climate agenda by regulatory fiat.

Read the full editorial in The Wall Street Journal
Innovation is Key to Carbon Reductions

Washington can have energy independence without economic damage of carbon tax

By State Rep. Drew MacEwen, R-Union

Here in the United States, Washington is the leading producer of hydroelectric power, contributing nearly one quarter of the nation's total hydro generation. We rank only behind California in terms of the amount of renewable energy we produce each year.

That is why it is so critical that as we continue to debate the merits of a carbon tax, we be mindful of the steps we have already taken toward establishing a greener economy. Proposing a carbon tax to fund education or increase general fund spending is the wrong approach.

I truly believe Washington can achieve energy independence one day, but we must be strategic in how we get there. Causing self-inflicted economic hardship along the way would be foolish.

Read the full column in The Olympian
Upcoming Events