Update from Washington, D.C. 06/15/2012
With the House in recess the week of June 11, the focus on
Capitol Hill was on the upper chamber, where members of the
Senate spent the majority of their time debating a five-year Farm
Bill reauthorization package (S 3240). By week’s end, senators
had filed over 250 amendments, with most proposals focused on
farming and agricultural-related issues. Republican leaders,
however, also were attempting to force votes on a series of
regulatory issues that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
indicated were non-relevant and non-germane to the
legislation.
Despite several attempts this past week aimed at reaching an
agreement on the number and scope of amendments that will be
considered on the floor, Senate leaders have been unable to
settle the matter. Absent a bipartisan deal, the Farm Bill will
remain in a holding pattern.
For her part, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has introduced an
amendment to the Farm Bill that would restore a $4.5 billion cut
to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly
known as Food Stamps. The amendment also would require a $500
million annual investment over ten years in the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Snack program, which promotes the consumption of fresh
fruits and vegetables in elementary schools.
The effect of the Senate bill’s SNAP cut would be to place
further restrictions on the “Heat and Eat” program, which
coordinates SNAP and the Low-Income Household Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) by providing small cash LIHEAP benefits directly
to SNAP households. Fourteen states already take advantage of the
option, with California planning to implement the program next
year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the SNAP cut
would mean that an estimated 500,000 households a year would lose
$90 per month in benefits.
It should be noted that the Senate did manage to consider several
amendments this past week, including a proposal by Senator Rand
Paul (R-KY) to block grant SNAP. The amendment failed on a 65-33
vote.
Looking ahead, much of the policy debate on the Senate floor will
likely revolve around regional differences in how the
reauthorization bill treats different crops grown in various
parts of the country. Senators representing southern states, in
particular, oppose how the bill would affect rice and peanut
growers.
On the fiscal year 2013 budget front, the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved on Thursday, June 14 its spending measure for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and
Education. While the legislation would cut funding for the
Department of Labor by roughly $200 million, it would increase
funding for the Departments of HHS and Education by $1.38 billion
and $400 million, respectively.
To date, the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved eight
of the 12 annual spending bills, though none of the measures has
advanced to the floor of the Senate. In the House, the
Appropriations Committee has cleared seven fiscal year 2013
funding bills, with five measures approved by the full House.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) recently announced a policy change that will have a
significant, detrimental impact on California counties’ State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) awards. As part of the
fiscal year 2012 SCAAP application cycle, BJA announced that the
Agency will no longer provide jurisdictions with reimbursement
for inmates whose immigration status is “unknown.”
Since 1996, BJA has provided variable SCAAP reimbursement amounts
to states and counties for inmates whose immigration statuses are
both “known” and “unknown” to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). An “unknown” inmate is an individual who has had no prior
contact with the federal immigration system and whose identity
therefore cannot be confirmed by DHS.
According to BJA, the practice of providing partial reimbursement
credit for unknown inmates was a recognition that some of these
individuals could have been undocumented if they had entered the
United States illegally and never came into contact with federal
immigration authorities. Because there would have been no contact
with the federal government, DHS would not be able to confirm the
inmate’s status (that is, as undocumented) for eligibility of a
SCAAP payment.
Ironically, for the 2011 SCAAP payment cycle, BJA actually
increased the SCAAP reimbursement percentage to counties for the
cost of unknown inmate days. Last year’s decision to increase
these payments was based on a DHS review of recent unknown inmate
data which showed that of the records that were updated,
reviewed, and came back with a known inmate status, 86 percent
were attributable to inmates in county facilities. BJA’s 2011
decision was clear acknowledgement that an extremely high
percentage of “unknown” inmates are, in fact, undocumented
immigrants.
While BJA’s rationale for its new policy is to “make better use
of limited SCAAP funding and to ensure jurisdictions are
reimbursed only for known undocumented criminal aliens,” the
effect of the policy is to shift dollars from counties to states
since counties generally have a higher percentage of “unknown”
inmates in their correctional facilities. Accordingly, under the
new policy, counties would see a dramatic drop in their SCAAP
payments, while states would see large gains. By way of
illustration, if BJA’s new reimbursement policy had been in
effect for the 2010 Solicitation Year, California counties’ SCAAP
allocations would have been cut by over $18.8 million – from
$40.8 million to $21.9 million, a decrease of over 46
percent.
There are several efforts underway to compel the Department of
Justice to reverse its decision. For starters, counties, county
government associations, and sheriff’s departments have written
to DOJ and BJA to register their strong opposition to the policy
change. CSAC has been and remains a leader in opposing this
ill-advised change.
In Congress, a number of lawmakers have written to Attorney
General Eric Holder to express their concern and opposition to
the new policy. Recently, Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA) joined
forces with Congressman John Carter (R-TX) to spearhead a Dear
Colleague letter to the attorney general urging the Department of
Justice to reconsider its decision. Senator Boxer also has sent a
letter to the attorney general on this important matter.
Transportation Reauthorization
This week, 42 bipartisan members of the House wrote to House and
Senate transportation committee leaders in support of dedicated
federal funding for off-system bridges. The letter, spearheaded
by Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), and
Glenn Thompson (R-PA), urges committee leaders to retain in the
final transportation reauthorization bill a provision from the
Senate highway measure (S 1813) that would require minimum
funding levels for bridges not on Federal-aid Highways. The House
version of the legislation (HR 4348) is silent on the issue.
It should be noted that CSAC worked closely with Representatives
Mike Thompson and Capps, as well as the National Association of
Counties (NACo), to develop and promote the bipartisan
correspondence. Of the members signing onto the letter, nearly
half are from the State of California.
The federal Highway Bridge Program has required states to spend
at least 15 percent of their annual apportioned bridge funding on
bridges located on public roads other than those on a Federal-aid
highway. The requirement, which has been in place since 1978, has
allowed local governments to improve and replace local off-system
bridges.
In California, local bridges comprise an integral part of the
local streets and roads infrastructure. Currently, California has
4,428 bridges on the Eligible Bridge List (bridges that are
classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and
fail to meet the requisite Sufficiency Rating); 2,776 of these
bridges are locally owned and operated. The California Statewide
Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that, based solely
upon projects identified by local agencies and approved by
Caltrans for future federal funding, the local streets and roads
bridge needs total $2.6 billion.
Prospects for a new transportation reauthorization bill remain
uncertain. With the most recent extension of current law set to
lapse at the end of June, lawmakers are under increasing pressure
to approve a long-term reauthorization package.
For his part, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has told
negotiators that if they do not finish their work before the
current authorization lapses, he would support a six-month
extension of current law. Such a move would defer action on a new
transportation measure until after the November elections.
Incidentally, there are still a number of issues that will need
to be ironed out before a final measure is sent to the president,
including the question of how to pay for a new bill. Lawmakers
are trying to develop a package of revenue offsets that would
fill the gap between Highway Trust Fund tax receipts and
authorized spending levels. Additionally, negotiators sill have
not settled on how to address the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which
is included in the House version of the reauthorization
legislation. The White House has threatened to veto the bill if
the pipeline provision is included.