McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies Advisory: This Week in Washington -- June 19, 2015

Fast-track back on track

Last week, opponents of President Obama's trade agenda thought they had scored a decisive victory when they brought down the legislative package in the House. This week, however, trade proponents gave the trade effort new life.

On Thursday, by a 218-208 vote, the House approved Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), better known as fast-track, on its own, decoupled from Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), an aid measure that Democrats struck down last week to block TPA. The bill was backed by 28 Democrats on Thursday, while 50 Republicans voted against it. The Senate is expected to take it up next week with the goal—supporters hope—of delivering the whole package to Obama's desk before the July 4 recess.

Still, it might only take a handful of less-convinced pro-trade Democrats to derail TPA before it gets there. They have received assurances from House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that TAA will get a quick vote. But there has been no indication from the 14 Senate Democrats who backed the TPA/TAA package that they're on board with the plan.

Whatever happens in the Senate, some trade supporters believe this is Obama's last chance to pass TPA.

Meanwhile, pressure has yet to relent off the Hill. Outside groups on both sides have blasted members who support TPA. "Republicans weren't given majorities so they could cede control to Democrats," said Michael Needham, the CEO of the conservative group Heritage Action. "They need to listen to the people, stop passing the same policies that are failing our country, and embrace an agenda built on the principle of opportunity for all and favoritism to none."

Progressives are equally combative. "Any Democrat in Congress who trusts John Boehner or Mitch McConnell to pass Trade Adjustment Assistance, that will actually help working families, deserves to lose their job," Democracy for America Chair Jim Dean said.

But the conservative economic group Club for Growth backs TPA and announced it would score Thursday's tally as a "key vote."

Regardless of the result, some House Democrats were unhappy with the process and the way it has divided the party.

The Senate vs. the EPA

President Obama has been unable to persuade a Republican-controlled Congress to advance almost any of his legislative priorities. As a result, the president has relied heavily on executive action— an end around Congress. Now Congress is fighting back.

The fiscal 2016 spending bill passed by the Senate Interior and Environment Subcommittee on Tuesday includes language that would bar federal enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules limiting greenhouse-gas emissions for existing power plants. That would allow states to opt out of the rule without fear of the EPA stepping in with a federal implementation plan.

The rider on the EPA's power-plant rule is a significant push back to President Obama's climate plan by giving states the opportunity to sit out rather than crafting an individual plan to clean up its power plants and improve energy efficiency.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell earlier this year wrote to all 50 governors telling them to sit out the EPA rule, saying the plan was "already on shaky legal grounds" and that the EPA was out of bounds in requiring states to write plans to cut their emissions. So far only one governor, Oklahoma's Mary Fallin, has said publicly she would opt out, although Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, an expected presidential candidate, has indicated he would opt out as well.

Overall, the $30.01 billion bill would cut $539 million from the EPA compared to the fiscal 2015 enacted levels, for a total funding level of $7.6 billion. That's also well below President Obama's request of $8.6 billion.

The bill seeks to cut $75 million as well from EPA clean-air and clean-water programs and cuts $7.5 million from civil and criminal enforcement at the agency.

The spending bill also looks to block several other landmark EPA rules, like the agency's clarification of its Clean Water Act authority. Republicans have long argued that the so-called Waters of the United States rule is a regulatory overreach and would give the EPA too much power over agriculture and construction interests.

Another rider would bar the EPA from lowering the standard for ground-level ozone, or smog, until 85 percent of counties that currently do not meet the standard come into compliance. It would also block EPA from regulating lead fishing and tackle, and block a rule requiring companies to make financial plans to clean up hazardous-waste contaminations, which Democrats say would leave taxpayers on the hook.

Another rider in the bill would stop a White House guidance instructing federal agencies to consider climate-change impacts when they conduct National Environmental Policy Act reviews for major infrastructure projects.

The bill also contains a provision that would block a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule setting rules for hydraulic fracturing on public lands.

Overall, the bill would provide $11.05 billion for the Interior Department, $1.18 billion for BLM (a $65.5 million increase over fiscal 2015), and $2.73 billion for the National Park Service (a $112 million increase).

Heading into what's projected to be an above-average fire season, the bill also offers $3.61 billion overall to fight wildfires, reflecting the average amount spent over the last 10 years. The spending bill includes $1.05 billion in emergency spending and lifts the fire cap adjustment, ensuring that extra spending on wildfires does not come out of other federal programs.

The House moved its own environment and interior spending bill Tuesday, with the Appropriations Committee voting through its $30.17 billion spending bill along party lines. Democrats were unsuccessful in stripping the riders from that chamber's bill, which largely lined up with what was included in the Senate bill.

House GOP leadership cracks down

Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team are cracking down on House Republicans who defied leadership last week during a contentious trade debate.

Reps. Cynthia Lummis, Steve Pearce, and Trent Franks have been removed from the whip team after they sided with GOP rebels to vote against a rule governing debate on a trade bill, according to sources close to the team.

Lummis, a deputy whip and a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, was perhaps the whip team's highest-ranking bridge to the conference's most intransigent members. Pearce and Franks also are very close to House conservatives.

But House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said earlier in the year that he would not tolerate members voting against rules and already has removed two other members close to the conservative movement.

"In the beginning of the year," Scalise spokesman Chris Bond said, "Whip Scalise reaffirmed the long-standing policy, also held by his predecessors, that while whip team members are free to vote their conscience on underlying bills, they are expected to vote as a team on procedural matters such as last week's rule vote."

The behind-the-scenes GOP infighting is playing out as Republicans place the blame on the failure to pass Trade Adjustment Assistance on President Obama and the House Democrats who abandoned him. But it makes clear that Republicans have their own problems, which are hampering their ability to legislate.

Those close to Speaker John Boehner have long pushed their leaders to drop the hammer on members who do not act as team players, a fight that has gone back to the beginning of the year, when two dozen members voted against Boehner for speaker.

But Boehner has by and large shied away from public displays of disunity, choosing instead to exact subtle retribution behind closed doors. Those members say they have found it harder to get their bills considered and have received less fundraising help from the party infrastructure.

Conservative members in the House are angry that Boehner negotiated with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi rather than acquiescing to demands from the Freedom Caucus, who wanted some assurances on the trade-bill process and others relating to an upcoming vote on the Export-Import Bank in exchange for their votes on Trade Promotion Authority.

A leadership aide said that GOP leaders met and tried to work with members of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, but found their demands unworkable.

Members have pushed committee chairs to remove the disloyal members from subcommittee chairmanships as well. On Tuesday, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy met with his chairmen and the topic came up, but as of yet, no members have been stripped of their gavels.

Latest on the federal-employee data breach

The federal-employee data breach is now even larger than the scope of the first—and second—reports, ensnaring some legislative-branch staffers in its net.

Current and former House and Senate staffers received notice from the Office of Personnel Management stating their personnel records are among the millions of current and former federal employees whose information may have been compromised.

Many congressional aides' personal information isn't handled by OPM. But when a staffer stops working in the House or Senate, OPM is forwarded their individual retirement records.

OPM Director Katherine Archuleta defended the office's expanded cybersecurity and partly punted the blame on the lack of funding for information technology at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Congressional members said cybersecurity is of the utmost concern—especially because the House and Senate are obvious targets.

House looks to increase funding for CDC

In this era of lean budgets, few agencies are enjoying the increase in funding that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) appears headed for.

House appropriators are proposing to give the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention an additional $108 million next fiscal year for outbreak preparation and response and for other medical emergencies.

Last year's Ebola crisis was the largest in history and left more than 11,000 people dead worldwide. The vast majority of those were in western Africa, but it was the four Ebola cases—and one death—in the United States that caused many to ask whether the federal government was doing enough. The CDC's funding was cut by almost $600 million from 2010 to 2014, and its leaders warned that the cuts had "eroded our ability to respond" to the epidemic.

Now, it appears lawmakers want to reverse the trend. The House appropriations bill released Tuesday would give the CDC $7 billion in funding in fiscal 2016, a $150 million boost from 2015 and the amount that Obama had requested. It injects an additional $108 billion into the agency's Public Health Preparedness and Response office, which is tasked with planning for and reacting to pandemics and bioterror attacks. That would be a 7.2 percent increase, which would give the office nearly $1.6 billion to do its work next year.

Obama's budget had requested an almost identical figure—$110 million—to better prepare the country for health emergencies, citing Ebola as one of the rationales. The CDC didn't respond to a request for comment on the House bill.

There is likely to still be plenty of division between the parties over the House's proposed appropriations for the entire Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the CDC money. Republicans want to defund the Affordable Care Act and place restrictions on the National Labor Relations Board, both of which are sure to draw Democratic opposition.

But the CDC funding plan is expected to enjoy broad support—from Democrats as well as fiscal conservatives who ordinarily might bristle at new government spending.

FDA moves to ban artificial trans fats

Executive action has become the most important weapon in President Obama's policy arsenal, and not just when it comes to issues like immigration or the environment. This week the Obama administration's healthy lifestyle initiatives, led by First Lady Michelle Obama, got a boost from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA announced that it will require companies to phase out the partially hydrogenated oils almost entirely over the course of three years, calling them not "generally recognized as safe." The action comes a year and a half after the FDA first made that determination, in 2013.

"The FDA's action on this major source of artificial trans fat demonstrates the agency's commitment to the heart health of all Americans," Stephen Ostroff, the agency's acting commissioner, said. "This action is expected to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year."

Though most trans fats have already been replaced by other oils over the past 10 years, the FDA said the ones that remain are a serious public health concern. This latest action will lower heart disease and prevent thousands of heart attacks each year, the administration said.

The fats, which are created when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil to make it more solid, are often used by food companies to improve texture, shelf life, and flavor. But they can raise cholesterol levels and cause heart disease, and scientists say there are no health benefits to their use. 

Transportation in Focus

Senate Pushing for Long-Term Highway Bill

Over the last year and a half, the highway trust fund has operated on a series of short-term extensions - the latest extension bought legislators until July 31 to come up with a fix. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, hopes that this time they can craft a long-term legislative fix, saying that a six-year transportation funding bill was a "great goal" and that he is "committed to working to get us as close to that goal as possible." 

Even though a long-term funding bill is widely supported by almost all of the interest groups, the challenges to actually getting one to the president's desk are immense, which is why Congress hasn't passed more than a two-year highway bill since 2005.

First and foremost among those challenges is how to pay for what is estimated to be a $16 billion per year shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. The longer the length of the extension, the higher the overall cost.

The transportation funding bill has traditionally been paid for by the federal gas tax. Unfortunately for lawmakers, the 18.4 cents per gallon tax, which hasn't been raised since 1993, brings in only $34 billion per year in revenue. Outlays from the transportation bill are closer to $50 billion per year.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will take an additional $100 million to fully pay for a six-year extension, and increasing the gas tax has been a political non-starter for many in Washington including most Congressional Republicans and the Obama White House.

 

  

 Steven C. LaTourette, President | 202.559.2600

McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies LLC
101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 600 East, Washington, D.C. 20001 

www.mhgsdc.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

Although McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies LLC is owned by the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC, McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies is not a law firm and does not provide legal services. Accordingly, the retention of McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies does not create a client-lawyer relationship and the protections of the client-lawyer relationship, such as attorney-client privilege and the ethics rules pertaining to conduct by lawyers, do not apply.