Update from Washington, D.C. 07/12/2013
Following the Fourth of July recess, lawmakers returned to the
nation’s capital to tackle a number of issues, including the
fiscal year 2014 budget and a revised Farm Bill. On July 11, the
House passed its fiscal year 2014 Energy-Water (E&W) spending
measure, which would provide $30.4 billion for programs under the
purview of the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers,
and the Bureau of Reclamation. The proposed funding level is $2.9
billion less than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $4.3
billion less than competing legislation (S 1245) in the
Senate.
It should be noted that the House and Senate bills include report
language relative to the Corps’ levee vegetation policy.
Specifically, the House language highlights the policy’s
potential conflicts with requirements under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). It also encourages the Corps to maximize
collaboration with non-federal interests, including project
sponsors and the agricultural community, and to give serious
consideration to their concerns and proposals regarding
flexibility, regional considerations, financial impacts, and
decision criteria.
The Senate measure states that the Corps’ initial research
indicates that minimal data exists on the scientific relationship
between woody vegetation and levees. The language also urges the
Corps to continue to conduct additional research on the topic and
encourages the agency to clarify how it will apply ESA
considerations in its final vegetation policy. Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA), who chairs the Senate E&W Appropriations
Subcommittee, championed the aforementioned language.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees also approved the
week of June 24 their respective fiscal year 2014
Transportation-Housing and Urban Development (T-HUD)
Appropriations bill. The House legislation (HR 2610), in total,
would provide $44.1 billion in discretionary spending, or a
reduction of $7.7 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted
level. The Senate bill (S 1243), on the other hand, would provide
$54 billion for T-HUD programs, or $2.3 billion more than the
fiscal year 2013 enacted level.
The federal-aid highway program obligation level provided one
area of agreement for the two chambers, as both bills would fund
the program at $41 billion, or the same level of funding
authorized under MAP-21. This represents an increase of $557
million over the fiscal year 2013 level.
The Senate bill also would provide $550 million for the TIGER
grant program, which is designed to support significant
transportation projects in a wide variety of modes, including
highways and bridges, public transportation, passenger and
freight railroads, and port infrastructure. The House version of
the legislation, on the other hand, does not include funding for
TIGER grants and would rescind $237 million in fiscal year 2013
funds.
In addition, the Senate bill includes $500 million for bridge
projects across the country. The funding would be distributed
through a competitive process, with the Department of
Transportation required to ensure an equitable geographic
distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing
the needs of urban and rural areas.
In the area of housing and community development, the bill would
cut a number of programs, including the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) formula program. The House measure would fund
the program at $1.64 billion, or a $1.31 billion cut. The
proposed funding level represents a roughly 45 percent reduction
in CDBG spending. In contrast, the Senate bill would boost
funding for CDBG by nearly seven percent to $3.15 billion.
The House has now approved four of its 12 fiscal year 2014
spending measures, and the Appropriations Committee has advanced
six of the bills. Across Capitol Hill, the full Senate has yet to
consider any of the 12 measures, but the Appropriations Committee
has approved six of the spending bills for the next fiscal
year.
In other news, House Republicans met this week to discuss next
steps on immigration reform now that the Senate has passed
comprehensive legislation (S 744). GOP leaders have essentially
declared the Senate bill dead on arrival, and Speaker John
Boehner (R-OH) has made it clear on a number of occasions that
the House will not consider the upper chamber’s bill..
Furthermore, the speaker has indicated that the House will abide
by the so-called “Hastert Rule,” meaning that any potential
legislation will not be considered unless it has the support of
more than half the GOP conference.
For its part, the House Judiciary Committee has approved a series
of individual bills that tackle different issues in the
immigration debate including legislation (HR 1773) that would
create a new temporary agricultural guest-worker program, a bill
(HR 1772) that would expand E-Verify nationwide, and another
measure (HR 2131) that would increase the number of visas
available for high-skilled workers. Additionally, and as
previously reported, the committee on June 18 approved along
party lines legislation (HR 2278) that would give local
governments more authority over immigration enforcement.
On the Farm Bill reauthorization front, the House on July 11
narrowly passed a revised package (HR 2642) that mirrors the
legislation that the full House amended in late June, but
excludes all of the nutrition programs that many Republicans
oppose. GOP leaders have pledged to put the nutrition title,
including provisions relative to the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, in a separate bill; however, it is unclear
when the House would take action on it. It should be noted that
the revised agriculture title does not include an expiration
date, so these provisions would become the new permanent law.
Finally, 138 bipartisan lawmakers – including 23 members of the
California delegation – sent a letter this week to House
leadership expressing opposition to any proposal that would cap
or eliminate the deduction for municipal bond interest. It should
be noted that there is currently no legislation pending in
Congress that would change the tax treatment of municipal bonds.
However, as lawmakers continue to search for ways to reduce the
deficit, the correspondence requests that municipal bonds be
taken off the table.