Federal Issues Update
Following the Independence Day recess, lawmakers returned to the
nation’s capital the week of July 6 to pick up where they left
off on the fiscal year 2016 appropriations process. House
appropriators continued to consider their funding measures at a
record pace, unveiling on July 8 a $39.3 billion Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill. In total, the legislation
would provide $337 million less than current spending and $2.1
billion less than President Obama’s budget request.
Notably, the legislation includes controversial language that
would block implementation of President Obama’s November 2014
Executive Order on immigration. While funding for the executive
action is currently being withheld under a court injunction, the
House bill would further bar officials from accessing funds for
the duration of the legal proceedings.
In other appropriations-related developments, the lower chamber
this week began consideration of its fiscal year 2016 Interior
and Environment spending bill (HR 2822). House leaders were
forced to pull the measure from the floor, however, amidst
controversy over an amendment regarding the display of the
Confederate flag on federal lands.
In total, HR 2822 would provide just over $30 billion in
discretionary spending – $246 million less than current levels -
for the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Forest Service, and related agencies. Of
particular interest to California’s counties, the bill would
provide $452 million to fully fund the Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes
(PILT) program in fiscal year 2016.
Aside from the divisive Confederate flag provision, HR 2822 also
includes a number of other extraneous policy riders that are
designed to hamper the White House’s environmental agenda. For
example, the bill includes a provision that would bar the Obama
administration from implementing its final “Waters of the U.S.”
(WOTUS) rule. In addition, the measure would prohibit EPA from
spending any funds on its planned rule to limit carbon emissions
from new and existing power plants.
As of this writing, it remains unclear when or if Republican
leaders will bring the Interior-Environment bill back up for
consideration. As expected, the road to a final budget has become
more challenging as lawmakers delve into some of the more
contentious funding measures.
Across Capitol Hill, the upper chamber has yet to pass a single
fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill as Senate Democrats remain
united in their vow to prevent any bill from reaching the floor
until Republicans agree to negotiate a new budget deal. Even if
Republicans manage to overcome Democratic procedural roadblocks
and are eventually able to pass their spending measures,
President Obama has threatened to veto any bill that does not
provide resources beyond the levels prescribed in the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (PL 112-25).
Federal Land Management
On July 9, the House approved a forest management bill – the
Resilient Federal Forests Act (HR 2647) – that aims to reduce the
risk of wildfires on federal lands by expediting the
environmental review process for certain projects. In addition to
shortening the review period, the legislation would require
individuals or groups that want to challenge approved forest
projects to post a bond. If the Forest Service succeeds in court,
the agency would use the bond to cover legal fees and expenses.
It should be noted that the bond would only be returned to the
plaintiff if they prevail on all causes of action.
HR 2647 also aims to address the issue of “fire borrowing” by
enabling the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to
request emergency funds from FEMA, once appropriated fire
suppression funds are nearly exhausted.
With regard to the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program, the
measure would expand eligibility under Title III to include law
enforcement patrols, training, and equipment purchases as
eligible expenses. In addition, the bill would repeal the
requirement that 50 percent of Title II funds be spent on stream
and watershed restoration or road maintenance. Instead, the
legislation would call for 50 percent of Title II funding to be
spent on stewardship projects that include the sale of timber,
among other things.
House Democrats and the Obama administration have expressed
serious concerns with HR 2647. In their view, the environmental
exemptions are too broad, and the restrictions on judicial review
are too extreme. In a Statement of Administration Policy, the
White House expressed its strong opposition to the legislation
arguing that it falls short of fixing the fire budget problem,
undermines environmental safeguards, and severely diminishes
public participation. It should be noted that the House rejected
an amendment – offered by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) -
that would remove the bond requirement, as well as the
prohibition on restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions.
For its part, CSAC – in partnership with RCRC – sent a letter to
the California congressional delegation expressing support for a
number of the bill’s provisions. The letter also acknowledges
that there is room for improvement. For example, the two
associations believe that the structure found in the Wildfire
Disaster Funding Act (HR 167; S 235) would be a more fiscally
responsible model to address the fire borrowing issue, rather
than the provision included in HR 2647. As the bill moves through
the legislative process, CSAC and RCRC will be working with
members of the California congressional delegation in an effort
to make improvements to federal land management policy.