News You Can Use

RTA NEWS YOU CAN USE
January 26,2015

TIA's Weekly Legislative Update

WE POST COPIES OF TIA'S WEEKLY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE WHENEVER WE CAN. WE MAY MISS SOME WEEKS BUT WE WILL KEEP TRYING AND THE REASON WE DO IS BECAUSE THE WEEKLY MESSAGES FROM ROY LITTLEFIELD ARE TIMELY AND VERY MUCH WORTH READING IF YOU WISH TO KEEP ABREAST WITH THE GOINGS ON IN WASHINGTON, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE TIRE RELATED. WE HOPE YOU ENJOY THE FOLLOWING.

January 26, 2015

PRESIDENT TO PUSH DOMESTIC PLAN
 
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama proposed to raise $320 billion over the next 10 years in new taxes.
 
Specifically, the President is proposing to raise the capital gains tax and dividend tax rates to 28%, impose a fee on the liabilities of large financial institutions, repeal LIFO and greatly increase the estate tax.
 
TIA will oppose an increase in the capital gains, dividend, and estate tax rates; and will oppose the repeal of LIFO.
 
To offset the tax increases on business and "wealthy" individuals, the President will seek additional reforms that will aid middle class and working families, including:
Propose a new, simple tax credit to two-earner families. The President will propose a new $500 second earner credit to help cover the additional costs faced by families in which both spouses work - benefiting 24 million couples.
Streamline child care tax incentives to give middle-class families with young children a tax cut of up to $3,000 per child. The President's proposal would streamline and dramatically expand child care tax benefits, helping 5.1 million families cover child care costs for 6.7 million children. The proposal will complement major new investments in the President's Budget to improve child care quality, access, and affordability for working families.
Simplify, consolidate, and expand education tax benefits to improve college affordability. The President's plan will consolidate six overlapping education provisions into just two, while improving the American Opportunity Tax Credit to provide more students up to $2,500 each year over five years as they work toward a college degree - cutting taxes for 8.5 million families and students and simplifying taxes for the more than 25 million families and students that claim education tax benefits.
Make it easy and automatic for workers to save for retirement. The President will put forward a retirement tax reform plan that gives 30 million additional workers the opportunity to easily save for retirement through their employer.
These new policies build on longstanding proposals to extend important tax credit improvements for working families, expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, provide quality preschool for all four-year-olds, and raise revenue to reduce the deficit by curbing inefficient tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy. In addition, the President has put forward a framework for fixing the business tax system on a revenue-neutral basis and using the transition revenue to pay for investments in infrastructure.
 
The Estate Tax proposal drew immediate opposition from both Republicans and Democrats who recently worked on legislation, signed into law by the President, to increase the amount of money exempt from inheritance taxes, commonly referred to as "death taxes".
 
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) responded, "President Obama is asking Congress to reverse bipartisan tax relief that he signed into law."
 
On January 21, TIA and the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition released the following joint statement on response to the President's tax proposal:
"The new capital gains tax regime proposed by President Obama radically departs from the bipartisan agreement that he signed into law in 2010 and reaffirmed in 2012.  Make no mistake - this proposal would harm small businesses and family farms, introduce massive new complexity into the tax code, and effectively create a second tax at death on top of the already punitive estate tax.  Going forward, we encourage Congress to reject this misguided proposal, and instead build on the bipartisan progress made in recent years to permanently repeal the estate tax once and for all."

THE 114TH CONGRESS
 
The 114th Congress has been sworn in and is off to a quick and exciting start.  With ambitious agendas being rolled out on both sides of the Hill, it is clear that the Republicans intend to waste no time in   utilizing their majorities in each chamber to act on a number of high profile issues.
 
While the Republicans control both the House and Senate, they do not have enough votes in either chamber to break a presidential veto without bi-partisan support.  In the House, the Republicans would need the support of all of their members plus forty-eight Democratic members to reach the veto breaking supermajority, while in the Senate the Republicans would need all their members plus thirteen additional votes from either Democratic or Independent members (both Independent Senators currently caucus with the Democrats).  While there are sure to be times when certain Democratic members vote against the President, the occasions on which Republicans, particularly in the Senate, will be able to rally enough Democratic votes to override a Presidential veto are likely to be very rare indeed, if any.  Of the forty-four Senate Democrats, only a handful of them are considered to be true moderates who may be more inclined than their more liberal colleagues to cross the aisle and vote against the President.  Additionally, there are only ten Senate Democrats who will be up for reelection in 2016, every one of them in states that President Obama won in 2012, thus significantly minimizing pending electoral pressures as impetus for crossing party lines.     
 
With the White House already threatening vetoes of a number of bills currently in the Congressional pipelines, it remains to be seen whether 2015 will be another year of gridlock or whether the leadership on both sides of the aisle, as well as on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, will be able to find some areas of consensus to move forward on.
 
With a number of essential items that must be addressed in some form this year - including, funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the debt limit, and the Highway Trust Fund - we expect to see things fall somewhere in the middle.
 
Changing the Rules
 
The Republican leadership in the House kicked off the first day of the legislative session by adopting, by resolution (H. Res. 5), a rule change which could have important implications for the tax reform debate that sits clearly on the horizon.   The resolution directs the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which are responsible for performing legislative analyses, to begin to use what is known as "dynamic scoring."
 
Traditionally, the JCT and CBO have used what is known as "static scoring," a method which calculates the fiscal impact of a piece of legislation, for example a change to the tax code, by looking only at its direct and known impact.  In other words, static scoring generally does not attempt to predict, and makes limited assumptions about, whether a piece of legislation will have any secondary impact on economic behavior.  Dynamic scoring, on the other hand, includes in its calculations likely changes that the legislation will have on economic behavior.  Suppose, for example, that the government taxes all widget sales at 10% and in doing so raises $20 million in revenue.  Congressman X introduces legislation to reduce the tax on widget sales to 5%.  Simplifying things a bit, using static scoring, this legislation would be predicted to cost the government $10 million - cut the tax rate in half, cut the revenue in half.  Using dynamic scoring the legislation would be calculated as costing the government the difference between $10 million and the additional revenue that will be raised based on changes that the legislation will have on economic behavior - such as the additional taxes that will be brought in if the cut in taxes causes an overall increase in widget sales.
 
The House vote on H. Res. 5 split clearly along party lines.  One of the primary reasons for the partisan divide is that, as enacted by the House, the dynamic scoring rule will only apply to "major" pieces of legislation which are defined pieces of legislation that are expected to have an economic impact of more than .24 percent of the estimated annual GDP.   The Democrats argue that only a comprehensive tax reform bill would meet this threshold and that Republicans are promoting this dynamic scoring method as a means of making their tax reform proposals, which, based on traditional party principals, are expected to involve numerous tax cuts, look more favorable (and less expensive).
 
Tax Reform
 
Between the House rule change and direct statements by leadership, neither party has made it a secret that tax reform is one of their top priorities this year.  The consensus that something needs to be done on the tax code is not new.  Unfortunately, in past years, despite this general interest in action, the parties have been unable to overcome the significant ideological divide that comes into play with tax reform.  It is yet uncertain whether the parties are still too far apart and unwilling to compromise on key issues as would be necessary to accomplish any meaningful reform this year.
                              
Fueled in part by concerns of corporate inversions, the President has called for an overhaul of the tax code.  In the few days leading up to last night's State of the Union, the President began to articulate specifics about what some of these reforms might look like.  Stay tuned for another report which will discuss these proposals as well as other issues raised by the President during the State of the Union.  
 
The President is not the only one focusing on the corporate side of the tax code.  While House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) initially began the new session indicating his interest in full scale reform of the tax code, in the past few days, he has stated that he and his committee members will be considering the option of pursuing a corporate-only tax reform plan.
It will be interesting to see how Chairman Ryan will resolve the concern, previously raised by his party, that corporate-only tax reform would leave out many small businesses that are taxed at the individual level since they are pass-through entities.  One possible solution to this issue has already been presented this session by Ways and Means Committee member Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA).  Congressman Nunes' draft legislation, which mirrors a proposal he previously made in 2012, would replace the corporate tax system, including all credits and deductions, and simply set a 25% tax rate for all businesses, regardless of their organizational structure.
 
House democrats have also begun to move forward in promoting their own ideas on tax reform spearheaded by House Budget Committee Ranking Member Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).  Earlier this week, Congressman Van Hollen rolled out his "Action Plan to Grow the Checks of All, Not Just the Wealth of a Few."  Among other things, the action plan includes proposals to:
 
implement a tax credit of $1,000 per worker per year, phased out at an individual income of $100,000, to offset the preferential treatment of capital gains and other non-wage earnings;
 
introduce a "Saver's Bonus" providing a bonus of $250 for each individual who contributes at least half their Earned Income Tax Credit  (of $1,000) to a tax preferred savings account;
 
continue to promote the principles set forth in CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by Congressman Van Hollen in 2014, which would tie a publically traded corporation's ability to claim a deduction for compensation paid to executives to the pay of its non-executive employees;
 
provide tax credits to incentivize businesses to establish job training or apprenticeship programs; and introduce a 20% tax deduction on income up to $60,000 for second earners in a family with dependents.
At this point, Congressman Van Hollen's action plan remains just that and has not yet been introduced in the form of a bill or bills this session.
 
While, in the House, Republicans and Democrats have gone their separate ways in preparing their initial tax reform proposals, a different approach seems to be taking form in the Senate. On January 15, 2015, Finance Committee Chair Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced that they will be forming five bi-partisan tax reform working groups in the Committee to assess current tax issues and the potential for reform.  These five working groups will be focused on 1) Individual Income Tax; 2) Business Income Tax; 3) Savings & Investment; 4) International Tax; and 5) Community Development & Infrastructure.
 
Recent attempts by the House Ways and Means Committee to use bi-partisan working groups to develop tax reform proposals have had a limited result.  However, the good working relationship that Senators Hatch and Wyden appear to have developed, as well as the Senate's reputation as the more measured and deliberative body, gives some promise to the Finance Committee's efforts.  While past working groups have moved at a relatively slow pace, any bi-partisan recommendations coming out of the Senate Finance Committee are sure to receive serious considerations on both sides of the aisle as well as both sides of the Hill.
 
Listening to Senator Hatch as he delivered a major speech yesterday at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it seemed clear that tax reform will be a major priority for both the Senator and the Finance Committee.  In his speech, the Senator reviewed the major goals that tax reform must achieve, including revenue neutrality, permanence, simplicity, promotion of savings and investments, a broadening of the tax base in order to lower the tax rates, and increasing American competitiveness.  The Senator mentioned that he believes that bipartisan, bicameral tax reform could be achieved, but mentioned that tax reform is so important that if the Republicans have to go it alone then they would do so. The Senator also mentioned that he was very interested in getting his retirement plan legislation out of the Finance Committee this year.  Finally, the Senator noted that he is committed to finding a solution to the problem of finding funding for rebuilding our infrastructure, but that he thought a gas tax increase would be highly unlikely.
 
Overall, it is clear that tax reform will be a central issue this year.  However, the odds of success still appear lower than we would like.

Extender Items
 
Unfortunately, the broader focus on comprehensive tax reform has drawn attention away from the specific tax provisions that expired at the end of 2014 (many of which actually expired at the end of 2013, and were extended through the end of 2014 just a few weeks before the end of the year).
 
Large scale tax reform could theoretically resolve each of these extender items by either extending them, making them permanent or eliminating them.  However, as discussed above, comprehensive tax reform is a very lofty, and perhaps unattainable, goal for this Congress and President, and will certainly not be a swift process.  Thus, we are concerned that, taxpayers, including small businesses, will face another year of uncertainty and be forced to make important decision without certainty as to what will happen with these expired provisions.
 
The Keystone Pipeline:
 
While there will inevitably be partisan splits in the future, at this point, tax reform is perhaps the least controversial of the major issues that have already been raised in the new Congress.  On the other side of the spectrum, the Keystone pipeline issue, which was raised on the first day of session, kicked off serious disagreement that is continuing to occupy congressional attention.  While the pipeline's direct impact on most small businesses seems to be limited, the growing dynamic between Congress and the White House on this high profile issue is sure to influence the tone of debate on other issues being considered contemporaneously.
 
On the first day of the new session, bills were introduced in both the Senate (S.1) and the House (H.3) to authorize the building of the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline.
 
The pipeline is not a new issue, as it has been under consideration for six years.  However, recent developments have swiftly moved it to the forefront of political debate.
 
Almost a year ago, on January 31, 2014, the State Department published its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the pipeline concluding, in short, that the pipeline would not have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions because, without the pipeline, the oil would be transported by other means.   However, in May 2014, the State Department suspended its broader review of the pipeline pending the resolution of a lawsuit making its way through the Nebraska courts.
 
On January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided the case at issue by overturning a lower court ruling and holding that legislation passed by the Nebraska legislature allowing for the construction of the pipeline through the state was not unconstitutional.  In other words, the Nebraska Supreme Court decision cleared a major hurdle for the proposed developers of the pipeline.
 
Just hours after the decision was handed down, the House passed H.3., the third time in six months that it has passed a bill authorizing the pipeline.  The bill passed the House with the votes of nearly all of the Republican members and 28 Democrats.  The issue now moves to the Senate which began debate on amendments to S.1 yesterday.   Given the support that the pipeline received during the lame-duck session in November 2014 (falling one vote short of the 60 needed) and the current partisan breakdown of the chamber, the bill is expected to pass the Senate.  However, the White House has already pledged that the President will veto such a bill.  It appears that the Administration will not respond to Congressional pressures and will instead continue to move forward with the administrative review process, the timing of which is currently uncertain.   If the bill does pass the Senate and is vetoed by the President, it seems unlikely there will be enough votes in Congress (given the results of the House vote) to override the veto - though the issue could be close.
 
This face off, straight out of the gate, between the Republican majority in Congress and the White House, has made two things clear: first, congressional leaders are not going to be concerned with niceties and will not hesitate to promote their agenda even in the face of presidential opposition; and second, that the White House has clearly recognized, and will not hesitate to act on, the math problem that the Republicans have in overcoming a presidential veto.  With no elections for a year and a half and no re-election for the President to worry about, at the moment, both parties appear less concerned with being saddled with the blame for legislative inaction than they were leading up to 2014 mid-term election.  Unfortunately, this may translate into both parties being less willing to compromise and establishing an early dynamic of gridlock that will be hard to step back from.   
 
Homeland Security Funding and Immigration
 
Another area where the White House and the Republicans are already facing off is funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  The compromise spending bill that was passed in December 2014 came with one major caveat - the bill only funds the DHS through February 27, 2015, while funding the rest of the government through September 2015.  This point of compromise reflected the Republican's goals at the time of avoiding a fast approaching government shutdown while forestalling a final decision on how the party will respond to the Executive Actions on Immigration announced by the President on November 20, 2014.
 
On January 14, 2015, the House passed H.R. 240 which would fund the Department of Homeland security.  However, to the legislation were added a number of amendments which would, among other things, reverse the President's November Executive Action as well as prior Presidential immigration directives.  The amendments also eliminate funding for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program which provides individuals under age 35 who were brought to the U.S. illegally before the age of 16 and who have lived in the U.S. continually for five years (often referred to as "DREAMers") protection from deportation and the opportunity to apply for work permits and social security numbers.  Clearly these amendments have met with immediate opposition from Congressional Democrats and the White House.
 
This issue will continue to be drawn out and remain unresolved over the course of the next few weeks as the bill moves to the Senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has stated that he does not intend for the Senate to consider the bill until February.   Particularly in the wake of last week's terrorist attack in France, funding for homeland security programs is a top issue (and public relations priority) for both Democrats and Republicans.  The President will be very reluctant to accept such major changes to his immigration policy, particularly without any alternative proposals for immigration reform currently on the table.  With the Senate's consideration of the funding bill in February, Republicans will be faced with the question of whether using DHS funding as the vehicle to face off with the President on immigration is worth the potential risk of being painted as the party playing politics with funding for a crucial agency.
 
Affordable Care Act
 
As expected, taking aim at another area near and dear to the President, the Republican Congress has also hit the ground running with efforts to amend and scale back the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
 
First, on January 8, 2014, the House passed the Save American Workers Act (H.R. 30) which would change the ACA's definition of "full time" from an employee who works at least 30 hours per week to one who works at least 40 hours per week.  The House bill received support from 12 Democratic members.  A similar bill (S.30) has also been introduced in the Senate by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelley (D-IN), however, no timing has yet been announced for its consideration.
 
While it was previously a matter of speculation as to how receptive the President might be to a reform of the full time definition, the White House made it clear last week that the President will veto this bill if it makes its way to his desk.  A new report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which states that the 30 hour to 40 hour change would increase the deficit by $53 billion over the next 10 years may also impact the likelihood of the bill receiving sufficient bi-partisan support in the face of a presidential veto. Thus, unless the President changes his mind about vetoing the bill or the 30 hour to 40 hour amendment comes into play as a bargaining chip in some other debate, both of which are quite unlikely, we think it unlikely that we will see the ACA's full time definition changing this year.
 
Another pair of proposed changes to the ACA, much more likely to make their way into law, were passed unanimously by the House on January 6, 2014 and January 12, 2014.  The first, H.R. 22 would exclude veterans who receive health coverage through programs administered by the Department of Defense from the definition of full-time employees for the purposes of calculating whether an employer is covered by the ACA's employer mandate.  The second bill, H.R. 30 would also exclude volunteer fire fighters from the definition of full-time employees, meaning that these volunteers would not be counted in determining whether government or non-profit fire departments are subject to the ACA's employer mandate.  H.R. 30 is similar to a bill that was passed in the House last year but that was then stalled in the Senate after Democrats attempted to attach an amendment dealing unemployment insurance to the bill.  With Republicans in control of the Senate now, we expect that, if put forth in the form passed by the House and kept clean of controversial amendments, both of these bills will pass the Senate with little resistance.  The White House has not indicated whether the President would veto the bills, however, depending on how the votes in the Senate come down, it may not be worth the President's political capital to veto as it is clear that, at least in the House, where 412 members voted for H.R. 22 and 410 members voted for H.R. 30, a veto will not prevent this bill from becoming law.  
 
The next big ACA issue currently cuing up in the House is an effort to repeal the ACA's medical device tax.  On January 6, 2015, Congressman Erik Paulson (R-MN) introduced the Protect Medical Innovations Act of 2015 (H.R. 160) which would repeal the 2.3% tax on the sale of medical devices.  While the idea of repealing the medical device tax may have some bi-partisan support, the big question that remains is how (and if) to offset the $30 billion cost to the government that would result from a repeal.  As currently drafted, H.R. 160 does not include an offset.  At this stage, the President has not yet indicated whether he would be willing to consider a repeal of the medical device tax either with or without an offset.  As the medical device tax is currently the key revenue raiser in the ACA, it seems unlikely that the President would be willing to accept its repeal without any offset.
 
As expected, on the first day of the Congressional session, a bill (H.R. 132) was introduced in the House to repeal the ACA.  However, at this point it is clear that such an effort has virtually no chance of success with the current Congress and President.  Instead, the mainstream debate on ACA has been centered on reforms instead of repeal, which we expect to be a continuing theme throughout the 114th congress.
 
Doc Fix
 
Also in the area of health care, there is an important issue that Congress, despite its divide ,will have to come together to address sooner than later.  This issue is the Medicare physician payment system for which the temporary "doc fix" that we reported on last spring is set to expire on March 31, 2015.
 
Since the 1990s, Medicare reimbursements have been calculated using the "sustainable growth rate" (SGR) method - at least in theory.  In fact, although the goal of the SGR was to curb Medicare costs, the pay cuts to doctors caused by the SGR are so dramatic that Congress has annually (or even semi-annually) voted to appropriate additional funds to maintain Medicare reimbursement rates (what we have come to known as the "doc-fixes").
 
There was some optimism last year that legislation would be passed to eliminate the SGR and replace it with a value-based payment system, which proponents have emphasized will move Medicare away from a fee-for-service model and promote better health results.  Unfortunately, no long term compromise was reached and a temporary fix was passed instead, kicking the issue down the proverbial road where we now find ourselves today.  Members on both sides of the aisle recognize that, once again, some action will need to be taken to address this issue.  House Republicans have indicated that they will seek to pass a permanent fix by April 1, 2015.  However, similar goals were set last year and the parties were still unable to come together on anything other than a short term fix.
 
This is sure to be an interesting year with lots to watch in Congress, though whether high action and partisan ping-pong will translate into tangible legislative achievements is questionable.

LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER FOR FEDERAL LOBBY DAY!
STAND UP FOR THE INDUSTRY!
 
Without Congressional action, the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money by the end of May, 2015. This could potentially have a huge impact on the tire industry!
 
TIA members from across the nation are invited to Washington, DC to meet and speak directly with members of Congress and Committee staff about this important topic at our Federal Lobby Day on February 5th.
 
Whether Congress passes another short-term bill or a much needed long-term solution, many funding options are being proposed that could have a detrimental impact on us. Although everyone agrees on the need for a long-term bill, few agree on how it should be funded.
 
A variety of options have been proposed including, increasing the motor fuel tax by $.15-$2.00 per gallon, reinstating the Federal Excise Tax on passenger tires, increasing the Federal Excise Tax on truck tires by 10%, reinstating the Federal Excise Tax by $.05-$.15 per pound on tread rubber used in the retread process, increasing the Federal Excise Tax on trucks and truck parts by 10%, and dozens of others.
 
Today, revenues from the excise tax on tires provide less than 2% of the Highway Trust Fund receipts, and this could increase drastically!
 
With so many proposals on the table, TIA is sticking firm with two positions.
 
First, we advocate that Congress eliminate diversion. We are approaching 30% of the funds collected for the Highway Trust Fund diverted for non-highway purposes. With Obama now proposing that the "Highway Trust Fund" be changed to a "Transportation Trust Fund," this would triple the current funding levels for mass transit. Our roads are falling apart and we must educate members of Congress on the importance of dedicated highway funds.
 
Second, TIA is asking members of Congress to engage creatively in future highway funding. We oppose tax increases that would be harmful to our industry. We were an early supporter of legislation introduced by Congressman John Delany (D-MD) "The Partnership to Build America Act" (H.R. 2084). This act is a bipartisan effort to find new funding for roads, bridges, and transit. The act could essentially solve two problems in one. With companies stashing an estimated $1.45 trillion overseas, this act would allow for a means to fund transportation while bringing money from abroad back into the United States economy.
 
TIA's Federal Lobby Day will include a luncheon with Congressional leaders in the Caucus Room of the Cannon House Office Building, meetings with members of Congress and Committee staff from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, followed by a reception on Capitol Hill.
 
FREE transportation will be provided on February 5th, as well as a FREE lunch, FREE cocktail reception, and most importantly the PRICELESS opportunity to have your voice heard in the halls of Congress.
 
PLEASE SEE THE SCHEDULE AND FILL OUT THE REGISTRATION FORM! LAST CHANCE!!

TIA, EAC CHAIRMAN DICK GUST PARTICIPATES IN 2015 TIRES STEWARDSHIP DIALOGUE MEETING
 
On January 21-22, TIA participated in the Tires Stewardship Dialogue Meeting in Hartford, CT. Roy Littlefield and Roy Littlefield IV were in attendance and TIA board member Dick Gust gave a presentation on behalf of stakeholder's perspectives and lessons learned from existing tire programs. The meeting was hosted by the Product Stewardship Institute and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The meeting explored current regional and national issues affecting tire recycling and explored possible solutions to improve the northeast region.
 
Dick Gust provided attendees with a summary of TIA in addition to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). Dick also spoke on behalf of Liberty Tire outlining who they are, their commitments, goals, and how "end of life" tires are managed. Dick explained that these tires can be used in a variety of ways including: rubberized asphalt for highways, landscaping mulch, athletic fields, and more. The presentation also focused on today's tire industry and scrap tires. Dick mentioned growth in the markets, management, environmental practices, and successes. In addition, he pointed to theft as the biggest reason for illegally dumped tires.
 
TIA will continue to monitor the progress and successes of scrap tire and recycling programs around the country.  

REPUBLICANS COULD USE HIGHWAY BILL TO PASS KEYSTONE XL
 
With President Obama standing clear in his message that he would veto the Keystone project if it were to end up on his desk, Republicans now have a backup plan for approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline if Obama vetoes the bill now moving through the Senate. House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) is suggesting the GOP could have other ways to secure a veto-proof majority for the pipeline. This would include adding Keystone XL approval legislation through a series of amendments to a federal highway bill. With the trust fund soon to run out of money again, Congress will have to pass another short term bill or an anticipated long term bill. Either version, could include an amendment that would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. We will continue to update you on this issue.

ABOLISH THE GAS TAX
   
As Congress considers options (including a substantial increase in the motor fuel tax) to fund a long-term transportation bill, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial urged Republicans in Congress to eliminate completely the gas tax.
 
The gas tax is a regressive tax that hits hardest on low income families, who drive older cars with lower miles per gallon.
 
Agreeing with TIA testimony, position papers, and lobbying, the Wall Street Journal noted that since the 1990s we have seen more and more diversion of highway funds for programs such as street cars, ferries, sidewalks, bike lanes, hiking trails, mass transit, airports, and ports.
 
Diversion has increased by 38% since 2008. In his transportation proposal, President Obama would like to triple the budget for mass transit.
 
While the gas tax is regressive on lower income Americans, non-highway projects being funded tend to be used by upper class citizens who are not paying for the projects. Trolley riders, for example, contribute nothing to the Highway Trust Fund.
 
Spending money on highways which were collected for highway use, would make the Highway Trust Fund 98% solvent for the next 10 years, with no tax increase.

"FULL TIME" EMPLOYMENT
 
While repealing Obamacare is politically a long-shot, TIA and other small business associations are pushing for legislation to change the definition of "full time employment" under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
 
U.S. Congressman Todd Young (R-IN), and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), with the support of Senate colleagues Pete Olson (R-TX), Mike Kelly (R-PA), and Time Walberg (R-MI), introduced H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015.
 
If enacted, H.R. 30 would repeal the ACA's 30 hour definition of "full time employment" and change it to a more 40 hour definition.
 
ACA stipulates that employers with more than 50 full time employees are required to provide employees with a basic level of health insurance or potentially face a penalty.
 
ACA defines a full time employee as an individual who works an average of at least 30 hours a week. This requirement has created an incentive for employers to cut workers' hours to less than 30 hours a week to avoid the insurance requirement and the potential fine.

TIA's Legislative Update is written by:
Roy Littlefield, TIA Executive Vice President

Contact:  301.430.7280 ext. 108
rlittlefield@tireindustry.org

•     •     •
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

" 'Kindness' covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier,
and something to make ourselves a little happier,
 that is about the best we can do.

To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts.
We must try to contribute joy to the world.
 
That is true no matter what our problems,
our health, our circumstances. We must try.

I didn't always know this and am happy
I lived long enough to find out."

~ Roger Ebert (1942-2013