Update from Washington, D.C. 12/07/2012
After a one-week break to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday,
lawmakers returned to the nation’s capital to continue their
“fiscal cliff” discussions. While congressional leaders on both
sides of the aisle have signaled a willingness to forge an
agreement to avert the across-the-board spending cuts and tax
increases that threaten to plunge the nation’s economy back into
recession, a compromise has been elusive.
For his part, President Obama has offered a proposal that calls
for $1.6 trillion in tax increases, $400 billion in entitlement
program savings, an extension of both the payroll tax holiday and
unemployment assistance, and $50 billion in new stimulus
spending. The president also is seeking to permanently limit the
ability of Congress to block an increase in the debt ceiling.
While the president’s opening bid was praised by progressives, it
was blasted by Republicans who accused the White House of taking
a step backward in the negotiations.
House GOP leaders have countered the president’s plan with a
proposal to cut $2.2 trillion from the deficit with a combination
of spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and $800 billion in new
tax revenue. It should be noted that the Republican counteroffer
does not include an increase in the debt ceiling, but the party
is reportedly open to negotiating additional borrowing authority
for the Treasury before the end of the year. Democrats have
criticized the Republican plan, saying that the proposal is not
balanced and would hurt the middle class.
While the odds of a “grand bargain” during the lame duck session
appear to be dwindling, it is not completely out of the realm of
possibility. At this point, the more likely scenario is that
lawmakers will agree to a “fiscal bridge” of sorts that would
postpone most of the major budgetary decisions until sometime in
early 2013, including how to address the impending sequestration.
The scheduled budget sequester will affect the vast majority of
discretionary and mandatory spending accounts in the federal
budget, including most programs of direct interest to
California’s counties.
Meanwhile, the prospects for a multi-year farm bill remain
uncertain, though discussions continue regarding how to advance
the stalled legislation. House Republican leaders do not believe
they have the votes to advance a measure (HR 6083) approved by
the Agriculture Committee, as there continues to be disagreement
among those in the GOP caucus over the $16 billion in cuts to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Cuts to crop
subsidies has also been a point of contention. With a separate
floor vote unlikely, congressional leaders and White House
officials may opt to include the House farm bill, its Senate
counterpart (S 3240), or a compromise measure in a potential
year-end fiscal cliff package.
On the transportation front, there was a hearing on December 6 in
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee entitled
“Update on the High Speed Rail and Intercity Passenger Rail
Program: Mistakes Made and Lessons Learned.” Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood was among those invited to testify before
the committee. As expected, he reaffirmed the administration’s
support for high speed rail and addressed concerns regarding the
viability of the proposed California project. The hearing also
featured testimony from California lawmakers Kevin McCarthy
(R-CA) and Janice Hahn (D-CA). For his part, McCarthy criticized
the California project as too costly and unrealistic. Hahn, on
the other hand, defended the project and called on Congress to
support additional transportation investments in the future.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also provided an
update on its review of the California high speed rail project.
GAO was specifically asked to study the reliability of the
project’s costs and financing sources; the reasonableness of the
passenger traffic and revenue estimates; and, the
comprehensiveness of estimates of economic impacts, including
those on adjacent landowners, associated with the project. The
full report is expected to be completed by February 2013.
On the Indian affairs front, there was a recent attempt by the
chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Daniel Akaka
(D-HI), to move legislation that would overturn the Supreme
Court’s Carcieri v. Salazar decision. In Carcieri, the
Court ruled that the secretary of the Interior’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 (IRA) of 1934.
Akaka’s move, which was strongly supported by the National
Congress of American Indians and most tribes, was turned back
after it was clear that there were not enough votes on the floor
of the Senate to approve the bill. CSAC, in coordination with
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), worked to oppose Akaka’s effort.
The association continues to work with Senator Feinstein in an
effort to ensure that meaningful reforms in the Indian
fee-to-trust process are part of any Carcieri “fix” legislation.