Update from Washington, D.C. 07/22/2011
It’s a typical July in Washington, D.C., with the summer recess
on the horizon and lawmakers anxious to escape the heat and
humidity of the capital city. Standing between lawmakers and
their August break, however, is the need to come to an agreement
to raise the federal debt limit by the fast-approaching deadline.
With little time remaining to work out a compromise package,
Congress may need to defer part of its recess in order to settle
on a new long-term plan that would reduce the deficit and raise
the debt limit.
On July 19, the House passed a so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance”
measure by a vote of 234-190. The bill (HR 2560) would require a
balanced-budget constitutional amendment as a prerequisite for
approval of a debt limit increase. It also would set fiscal year
2012 discretionary spending at $1.019 trillion and cap annual
spending at 19.9 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by
fiscal year 2021.
The passage of “Cut, Cap and Balance” is seen largely as a
symbolic vote allowing House GOP members to go on record opposing
Democrats’ reluctance to reduce spending. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-NV) is expected to schedule a vote on the bill,
even though it has little chance of winning favor in the upper
chamber. The president is likely to veto any debt reduction plan
tied to a balanced budget amendment.
In other debt-related matters, Majority Leader Reid and Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are putting pressure on their
Senate colleagues to support their blueprint for a short-term
debt limit solution. Although the compromise package has yet to
be formally unveiled, the outline reveals that the deal would
authorize the president to raise the debt limit in three stages
over the next year and a half. However, the McConnell-Reid plan
does not require spending cuts that would balance out the debt
limit increase, which House Republicans have been strongly
advocating.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, as well as President
Obama, have opposed the idea of a short-term deal in the past.
Nevertheless, it appears that they might be warming to the
proposal with a caveat that the plan would be a stepping stone
toward a long-term solution. With the August 2 default deadline
just 11 days away, many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle
are becoming a bit antsy.
On a related matter, a plan to reduce the growing national
deficit has recently gained momentum as the so-called “Gang of
Six,” Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike
Crapo (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Tom
Coburn (R-OK), unveiled their bipartisan package earlier this
week. The plan, which encompasses many of the recommendations
made by the president’s debt commission last year, would
implement immediate cuts of $500 billion and require Senate
committees to identify and cut $3.7 trillion over the next 10
years by significant spending reductions in entitlement programs
and discretionary spending; it also proposed a series of revenue
increases. The gang’s plan would also create a new committee
aimed at reducing the deficit.
It should be noted that the plan would cut $116 billion in health
care spending over the next decade by overhauling the Medicare
physician payment system, eliminating a provision in the health
care reform law that pays for long-term care, modifying medical
malpractice liability laws, and synchronizing health care
spending to the GDP.
Although the unveiling of the “Gang of Six” plan coincides with
the debt limit deadline, it is unlikely that it will be part of a
finalized debt limit deal. Lawmakers would be hard-pressed to
incorporate the Senate plan into the debt package. House GOP
leadership are treading lightly with their reviews of the plan,
cautiously offering positive remarks and noting that the plan
appears to be a good start to a long-term deficit reduction
solution.
In other news, the House passed its fiscal year 2012 Energy and
Water appropriations bill on July 15. Overall, the measure (HR
2354) would provide $30.6 billion for the Department of Energy,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and other energy and water entities.
The spending bill is around $5.7 billion less than the
president’s request. Under the bill, renewable energy and
energy-efficiency programs take the biggest hit, receiving $1.3
billion in funding, or 59 percent below the administration’s
request.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, the Senate passed its first
appropriations measure of the season. Their $144 billion Military
Construction and Veteran Affairs spending bill received
overwhelming bipartisan support with a vote of 97-2. The measure
would provide $72.5 billion for discretionary programs, $69.5
billion for mandatory programs, and includes a $52.5 billion
advance for fiscal year 2013 spending for the Department of
Veterans Affairs’ medical care program. The largely
non-controversial bill is similar to the House-passed bill and
will likely be completed soon.
In transportation news, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held a
hearing on transportation reauthorization on July 21. The hearing
came on the heels of a bill outline that was released a few days
earlier by the committee. It was clear that a bipartisan
consensus had been reached, but specific details of the plan are
still not public. Boxer said her committee hopes to mark up at
least the highway portion of the transportation bill before
senators leave for the August recess.
CSAC Representative Testifies on Capitol Hill on Need for Fee-to-Trust Reform
On Tuesday, July 12, the House Natural Resources Committee’s
Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee held a hearing on
legislation (HR 1291/HR 1234) that would provide the secretary of
the Department of Interior with authority to take land into trust
for all Indian tribes. The bills, sponsored by Representatives
Tom Cole (R-OK) and Dale Kildee (D-MI), would reverse the U.S.
Supreme Court’s ruling in Carcieri v. Salazar. In Carcieri, the
Court ruled that the secretary’s trust land acquisition authority
is limited to those tribes that were under federal jurisdiction
at the time of the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934.
Testifying at the hearing on behalf of CSAC and the National
Association of Counties (NACo) was Susan Adams, President of the
Marin County Board of Supervisors. In her remarks to the
subcommittee, Supervisor Adams stated that a simple Carcieri fix,
such as those embodied in HR 1291/HR 1234, would do nothing to
repair the underlying problems in the Bureau of Indian Affairs’
fee-to-trust process. Under current law and regulations, tribes
are not required to engage in good faith discussions regarding
mitigation of impacts of tribal development or enter into
enforceable mitigation agreements with local governments.
Additionally, Adams stated that the Department of Interior does
not provide sufficient notice regarding fee-to-trust applications
and does not notify counties of requests for Indian lands
determinations, which is a critical component of a gaming
application.
Instead of advancing the narrowly constructed Cole/Kildee
measures, Supervisor Adams called upon the subcommittee to work
with California counties and counties from across the nation to
develop a new fee-to-trust process that is founded on mutual
respect and encourages local governments and tribes to work
together on a government-to-government basis. Adams recommended
that legislation provide the secretary of Interior clear
direction to: 1) provide adequate notice to local government, 2)
consult with local governments, 3) provide incentives for tribes
and local governments to work together, and 4) provide for
cooperating agreements that are enforceable.
Also testifying at the hearing was Cheryl Schmit, the founder and
director of Stand Up for California, a statewide organization
with a focus on gambling issues. Like Supervisor Adams, Ms.
Schmit advocated for a programmatic fee-to-trust policy that
includes objective standards.
For his part, Donald Mitchell, an attorney from Anchorage, AK,
provided his expert legal and policy analysis of the pending
legislation and related issues to the subcommittee. Among his
recommendations, Mitchell stated that the subcommittee should
take no action on HR 1291/HR 1234 until the Department of
Interior provides to House Natural Resources Committee Chairman
Doc Hastings (R-WA) information that Hastings requested two years
ago. In 2009, Representative Hastings requested Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar to provide the Committee with information
regarding the consequences of the Carcieri v. Salazar decision;
that information has not been furnished.
Mr. Donald Laverdure, principal deputy assistant secretary of
Indian Affairs for the Department of Interior also testified at
the hearing. Along with Mr. Laverdure, several tribal
representatives urged Congress to pass Carcieri “fix” legislation
as expeditiously as possible in order to provide assurances to
Indian country regarding the trust status of land, to avoid
costly litigation over tribal status, and to provide certainty
with regard to the fee-to-trust process.
The full text of CSAC’s written testimony can be accessed by
clicking here.
To view the hearing in its entirety, including Supervisor Adam’s
oral presentation to the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs
Subcommittee, please click here.
Property Assessed Clean Energy program
Representatives Nan Hayworth (R-NY), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Dan
Lungren (R-CA) unveiled legislation this past week to restart
stalled Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs in
California and across the country. Their bill – called the PACE
Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 2599) – was formally announced to
the press via conference call Wednesday afternoon. The three lead
sponsors were joined on the call by Sonoma County Supervisor and
Past President of NACo Valerie Brown, as well as Cliff Staton
from a PACE advocacy organization known as PACENow.
The PACE Protection Act of 2011 would force the Federal Housing
Finance Agency (FHFA) to rescind the guidance they sent out that
blocked PACE, thus allowing counties and other local governments
to once again offer PACE programs. It also defines PACE programs
as property tax assessments rather than loans, as the regulators
contend. Meanwhile, other provisions of the bill would limit or,
in some cases, even eliminate any risk to Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac.
The budgetary impact of the PACE bill is not yet available;
however the sponsors predict that the measure will have no impact
on the federal budget. In fact, it may even register as a cost
savings to the federal government. For now, the FHFA continues to
maintain its reservations about PACE, and according to the bill
sponsors, the agency has been unwilling to negotiate any type of
agreement.
It is unclear when the House of Representatives will consider the
legislation. As far as next steps, Hayworth, Thompson, and
Lungren will now embark upon an “education campaign” among their
colleagues in the House to counter expected resistance from the
FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. While there is currently no
established timeframe, the sponsors of the legislation are
hopeful there will be movement before the end of the year. Right
now, they are concentrating on shoring up sponsorships from other
members of the House, as well as support from local governments,
home builders, and local chambers of commerce.
Eleven additional congressional representatives agreed to add
their names as cosponsors, including the following California
Democrats: Representatives Lois Capps, Doris Matsui, and Lynn
Woolsey.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
On July 13, the House Appropriations Committee cleared by voice
vote its draft Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) Appropriations
bill. Overall, the legislation would cut federal spending for CJS
programs by six percent, or a $3.1 billion reduction from the
fiscal year 2011 funding level.
As expected, one of the first items of discussion among members
during committee markup was the fact that the bill would
eliminate funding for several local law enforcement and
justice-related grant programs, including the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). Several members of the
California congressional delegation who serve on the
Appropriations Committee spoke out in strong support of SCAAP,
including Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA).
For his part, Representative Mike Honda (D-CA), who had readied a
SCAAP restoration amendment, indicated that he was withdrawing
his amendment based on assurances by CJS Appropriations
Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) that SCAAP would be
“addressed” in the bill. Representative John Carter (R-TX) also
withdrew his SCAAP restoration amendment based on Wolf’s stated
commitment to working with members to fund the program.
Looking ahead, restoring funding for SCAAP is going to come down
to members working out an agreement – particularly with regard to
finding an offset to pay for SCAAP spending – prior to the CJS
bill reaching the House floor. As of this writing, House
leadership is attempting to ready the legislation for floor
consideration the week of August 1, which is the final week of
legislative activity before Congress is slated to begin its
month-long summer recess.
Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization
The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands held a hearing on July 14 to discuss continuation of
payments authorized under the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Act.
Paul Pearce, who chairs the Skamania County (WA) Board of
Commissioners, was called upon to give testimony on behalf of
NACo and the Partnership for Rural America Campaign. He made
clear in his testimony that a long-term solution is needed to
continue the county payments program. On the other side of the
spectrum, Anna Morrison from Oregon Women in Timber, urged
legislators not to authorize the county payments, and instead
pass legislation to restore active management of forests.
During the hearing, it appeared that Republicans and Democrats
both agreed that county payments should be extended, however the
two parties differed in their opinion of how to move forward.
House Republicans pushed for new land-use regulations that would
expand logging, but this will be a major point of contention
among environmentalists, not to mention Democrats in the House
and Senate.
While it is still unclear if the House will be able to come up
with a plan that can be approved, the Senate is reportedly
considering a short-term extension that would give lawmakers more
time to work out a deal. The program is currently set to expire
on September 30, 2011.