Government Strategies Advisory: This Week in Washington -- September 11, 2015

Remembering Sept. 11

“Today’s Week in Review comes out on the 14th anniversary of the horrible events of Sept. 11, 2001. As someone who was in his office on Capitol Hill when the planes started hitting their targets, it is a day I shall never forget. It was a day that changed the world forever, and ended for me singing and holding hands with my colleagues while we sang ‘God Bless America’. I hope you will join in taking a minute today in remembering that day, its many heroes and the great resilience of our country.” – Former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH), President of McDonald Hopkins Government Strategies

Messy September for Congress

August recess may prove to be the calm before the storm for Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate. Leaders in both chambers are facing an array of divisive issues, unhappiness with the rank and file, and a looming date with a possible government shutdown.

And as dissatisfaction with their leadership peaks on the right, it remains unclear what consequences could arise for top Republicans if they fail to deliver on sought-after conservative demands, particularly stripping Planned Parenthood of roughly $500 million in annual federal funding.

Republican leaders have signaled they’re willing to push off defunding Planned Parenthood until there’s a president who won’t veto that plan. (Mitch McConnell called it “an issue that awaits a new president.”) But Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan have indicated they’ll dig in their heels on the issue, insisting on a spending plan that defunds the group. If there’s no agreement by the end of September, Congress will have another government shutdown on its hands.

Conservatives are also pressing to stop the president’s nuclear deal with Iran, but given the number of supporters of the bill in the Senate, any effort to stop it looks doomed from the start. Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised a lengthy floor debate beginning next week, in which members of the Senate will be required to hold their seats on the floor while colleagues debate a bill whose fate appears to be decided already. The deadline for opponents to pass a resolution disapproving of the deal is Sept. 17.

Meanwhile, the fight over Planned Parenthood was delayed by the August recess, but is likely to come to a head again as Congress debates how to prevent a shutdown on Oct. 1, when the government’s funding expires. Neither chamber has a funding plan in place (though a short-term continuing resolution appears likely) and conservative leaders are still seething over undercover videos that allege that the organization illegally sold fetal tissue, allegations the group vigorously denies.

Senate leaders remain highly skeptical of plans to couple the two issues, particularly after a bill to defund Planned Parenthood failed to pass the upper chamber just before members broke for the August recess. Leaders have pledged repeatedly to keep the government’s doors open at the end of September, regardless of conservative plans to hold funding hostage to a Planned Parenthood vote.

Still, Republican leaders are not ignoring the issue entirely. McConnell and Cornyn have emphasized repeatedly that their committee chairmen, including Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, are conducting investigations into the matter. In the House, leaders have pledged a vote on the issue, perhaps in the form of a bill from Rep. Diane Black that strips the funding but is not tied to the appropriations process.

But more may be at stake, particularly for House leadership, this time around. Before the recess, Rep. Mark Meadows offered a resolution to strip Speaker John Boehner of his title and force a vote for another speaker. His stated grievances included that Boehner governed by crisis and has not been inclusive of conservative viewpoints. It was set aside for the time being, but if members are jilted by the fall’s agenda, he or someone else could bring the resolution in a privileged way, meaning it would force a vote to dispose of Boehner.

Meadows, for his part, said in an interview that he is “certainly not foreclosing the possibility, if things do not change, that the motion could be brought up in a privileged way.” Though actually ditching Boehner would be a long shot, the ordeal would be embarrassing and time consuming for leaders.

Obama’s Iran deal is safe

This week, conservatives—led by Ted Cruz and Donald Trump—held a rally against the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. Ironically, as thousands gathered on the mall to urge Congress to reject the deal, President Obama had already secured the support necessary to all but guarantee its implementation.

On Tuesday morning, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Gary Peters of Michigan all came out in favor of the deal, giving the president the 41 senators necessary to filibuster a bill to stop implementation of the deal. Later that day, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington also came out in favor of the deal, bringing the total to 42.

Republicans in both chambers were pushing a resolution of disapproval, which would imperil the deal by barring the Obama administration from lifting congressional sanctions.

Over the August recess, supporters of the Iran deal had secured enough votes to protect against an override of a veto by President Obama, but this week he was able to rally enough Democrats in the Senate to avoid needing a presidential veto.

On Thursday night, the Senate voted on the resolution of disapproval and came up two votes short, giving the president a much-needed win and the ability to begin implementing the Iran deal.

Republicans eye Social Security changes

In late 2016, the Social Security disability insurance trust fund is expected to lack the funds necessary to pay full benefits, resulting in a potential 20 percent cut to nine million disabled workers and their families.

Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is promising to push reforms to the Social Security program that will avert those cuts, but as is almost always the case when it comes to Social Security, those reforms could become a political lightning rod in Congress.

Under discussion is a plan to gradually phase out benefits, sources said, while allowing disabled workers to earn more money than they currently can. But if the proposal hits those making the least amount of money, as some fear it might, Democrats are expected to balk.

Ryan’s office is emphasizing that nothing has been finalized and that negotiations are on-going.

If changes aren't made before the insurance trust fund becomes insolvent, money would likely need to be moved from the general Social Security trust fund as a loan. Republicans, however, insist that changes should be made before agreeing to such a move. Indeed, House Republicans passed a rule in January stipulating that they must improve Social Security’s overall solvency before agreeing to shift any funds around.

The general idea behind the Ryan proposal would be to increase the amount of money that disabled workers can make without risking the loss of their Social Security benefits. The current threshold is $1,090 per month, and Republicans have criticized the so-called cliff as a disincentive to work. (The average Social Security check for disabled workers is $1,165 per month.)

But a straight increase in the cap would cost the federal government money because more people would receive disability insurance. The proposal under discussion would help off-set the costs by introducing a tiered system. At the bottom threshold, people would start to lose some of their benefits, but beneficiaries would be able to keep receiving at least a small disability check while making more than the current $1,090 cutoff. The benefit losses would progress on a gradual scale up the income ladder.

21st Century Cures bill stalled in Senate

The 21st Century Cures bill, championed by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) in the House, looked like it was on the fast-track to President Obama's desk after a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation. The bill soared through Upton’s Energy and Commerce Committee with a 51-0 vote. It then moved to the House floor, where a last-minute hiccup over funding cost it 70 votes from Upton’s fellow Republicans, but it ultimately overwhelmingly passed with 344 votes.

The bill's future, however, now looks much more perilous.

House budget hawks balked at the price tag for the bill—upwards of $8.75 billion—something that Senate budget hawks are also concerned about. It's not just the cost of the bill that now imperils its future, but also the proposed pay-fors.

In particular, the single largest pay-for—revenue generated by tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)—may not end up being available when all is said and done. SPR cash was included in the Senate version of highway legislation right before recess. Although the House passed its own short-term version of the highway measure, the issue will have to be litigated again in the fall.

Additionally, the Senate committee working on medical innovation—Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—has said it will take up its own medical-innovation bill in the fall. Outside of the committee, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin has an alternative medical innovation bill substantially different than Cures in several ways, including the amount of funding it gives to the National Institutes of Health ($26.6 billion over the next five years versus Cures’s $8.75 billion).

While the Upton bill may be in peril, the Energy and Commerce committee remains optimistic about passing some type of medical innovation bill.

Senate HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander has said all along that the Senate is on a “parallel track” with the House, and he hopes to get his committee’s version of the bill done before the end of the year.

But Alexander has also been clear that the Senate is not just going to take up the House version, allowing for differences between the two bills and guaranteeing a conference over the two different versions. It is Senate Republicans’ preference that the funding remains discretionary, rather than mandatory.

While going to conference is usually a difficult process, it may actually work to the advantage of the Upton bill. By pushing back an implementation date of the bill to 2017, the bill may find a more flexible funding environment on the Hill, particularly if spending caps have been increased between now and then.

Organized labor keeps pressure on Dems on trade

AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka has a message for Democrats, who regularly rely on union support come election time: organized labor has no plans on backing down when it comes to trade deals.

In particular, Trumka and others in the labor movement intend to continue fighting against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal, despite a high profile loss on the issue earlier this summer.

During debate over Trade Promotion Authority(TPA)—so called "Fast Track" authority, which was seen as an essential step for final passage of TPP—organized labor threatened to spend big money in primary campaigns against supporters of the measure. Ultimately, TPA passed with the support of 28 Democrats in the House and 13 Democrats in the Senate.

While President Obama has said he will fight to include measures in the Pacific trade deal that are important to labor, like currency manipulation, Trumka said he doubts the changes will be made to make the deal pro-worker—setting up another showdown between labor and the Obama administration.

Transportation in focus

Bikes: The new front in the transportation war

There is a new front in the fight over the highway bill. Democrats in the House are pledging to fight any effort by Republicans to cut funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as part of the transportation re-authorization.

The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which funds bicycle and pedestrian projects, has long been a target for Republicans looking for ways to cut spending, particularly as the highway trust fund has become less and less solvent.

This week, Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, led by Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA), made it clear that they will fight to protect TAP funding and that funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects is key to winning over Democratic support for any transportation bill.

Supporters of the program say that it funds projects that provide lower-cost transportation options, reduce road congestion, improve safety, and boost the quality of life for communities.

Republican opponents of TAP say that the program is wasteful, particularly when the highway trust fund already faces an existential funding crisis. They point out that the federal government spends roughly $50 billion a year on transportation projects but the highway trust fund—which comes from an 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax—only brings in $34 billion a year.

Congress has until Oct. 29 to act before the temporary extension that they passed in July expires. However, lawmakers' transfer of $8.1 billion into the Highway Trust Fund in July will keep the fund solvent until June 2016 according to a new estimate by the Department of Transportation.

 

  

 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.