Scientific information is essential for making sound public policy decisions, particularly those related to health, safety and the environment. Yet the acrimony surrounding many decisions, with accusations of “politicized science” and “junk science,” hinders informed discussion and achievement of policy goals. Recent reports from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Keystone Group have offered recommendations for improving the use of science for public policy, and the Administrative Conference of the United States is currently developing recommendations for steps agencies could take to improve their procedures for incorporating science inputs in regulatory decisions. On this previously recorded conference call, our experts explore the most significant challenges facing how science is used to inform public policy and what can be done to overcome them.

Featuring:

• Prof. E. Donald Elliott, Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School
• Mr. David Goldston, Director, Government Affairs Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Prof. Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
• Moderator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director of the Regulatory Studies Center and Research Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University
• Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

On Friday, April 19, the Office of Management and Budget quietly released its draft 2013 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Regulations, covering all regulatory activity through the end of fiscal year 2012. By the administration’s own estimates, the rules it issued in FY2012 imposed more costs on the economy than all the rules issued during the entire first terms of Presidents Bush and Clinton, combined. On this previously held conference call, the speakers critically examine the report and the manner in which it was produced and answer questions from callers.

Featuring:

• Mr. Randall E. Davis, Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, P.C.
• Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director of the Regulatory Studies Center and Research Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University
• Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

With the enormous growth in Internet retail sales, U.S. policymakers are considering the Marketplace Fairness Act, a bill sponsored by Senator Mike Enzi (WY) that would authorize states to require remote sellers to collect state sales tax.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 (Quill Corp. v. North Dakota) that states could not require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes in states where they have no “nexus,” but the Court also said that Congress could grant such power to the states.  The issue has split conservative groups, with some arguing that the Quill decision rightly employed the dormant commerce clause to prohibit states from requiring remote sellers to collect, and other conservatives arguing that the Quill decision simply referred the issue to Congress and that Congress should act to prevent federal policy from picking winners and losers in the marketplace.  Last month in a non-binding test vote, the Senate voted 75 to 24 in support of Sen. Enzi’s Marketplace Fairness Act.  If enacted, Sen. Enzi’s bill would require participating states to implement a system for tax collection, either by adopting minimum simplification requirements or being a Member State of the Streamlined Sales and Use TaxAgreement.  On this previously recorded live conference call, Paul Misener, Amazon.com’s VP for Global Public Policy, and Joseph Henchman, VP for Legal and State Projects at the Tax Foundation, discuss whether Congress should act, and if so, how.

Featuring:

• Mr. Joseph Henchman, Vice President of Legal & State Project, Tax Foundation
• Mr. Paul Misener, Vice President for Global Public Policy, Amazon.com
• Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

An increase in Federal executive branch regulatory activity – whether through executive order, formal or informal administrative agency action – has been noted by many across the country. In launching the Executive Branch Review Project, the Practice Groups of the Federalist Society seek to prompt a national debate about whether there has been an uptick in such regulatory activity, and, if so, with what consequence. The project will provide objective resources that identify major government activity, and will provide a forum for debate and discussion about whether such regulation constitutes a form of legal and regulatory overreach. The first component of this project is a new blog dedicated to highlighting action or inaction by the executive branch, http://www.executivebranchproject.com/.

To kickoff this new endeavor, U.S. Senator Michael S. Lee (Utah) and Federalist Society founder and Vice Chairman David M. McIntosh discussed the project and provided their perspectives on the use of executive power.

Featuring:

• Hon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
• Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society
• Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]