Skip to content
News and updates

Category: Legislation

FY2016 Labor-HHS Bill Moves Through Subcommittee

Posted on

The House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee approved its FY2016 spending bill by voice vote, with all Democrats voting against the proposal. The panel earlier had rejected a dozen amendments in a series of voice votes, with partisan splits apparent over family planning and the implementation of the 2010 health law. However, members of both parties made it clear that they would like to see a new law passed to ease the cap now in place on most federal spending. The measure will be considered by the full appropriations committee next week.

Given the return of sequestration in full force for FY2016, the Labor-HHS panel may have little room to do more than tweak budget accounts. The current budget caps for discretionary spending will make it difficult to reward favored programs without making deep reductions elsewhere.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill may be the one bill that thwarts the Republicans’ goal of moving all 12 appropriations measures by the end of the federal fiscal year (September 30th). Because of the politically-contentious policies carried out through the bill – such as abortion, labor issues, and the Affordable Care Act – there are strong doubts that even GOP control of both the House and Senate can get Congress back in the habit of considering it beyond an omnibus spending package.

But there is a bit of a new dynamic this year, since the Labor-HHS bill funds agencies charged with facing some of the nation’s most pressing issues, including the lingering threat of Ebola, a resurgence of measles, and calls to move ‘cures’ through clinical trials faster. There’s interest in both parties in the budget and operations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.

Next week’s full committee mark-up of the Labor-HHS bill will likely be a repeat of yesterday’s subcommittee mark-up. We will see lots of amendments fall along party lines, and the underlying bill will remain largely unchanged from its current draft. And while the full House will likely approve the measure, action in the Senate is still in doubt as Democrats have vowed to block all FY2016 spending measures until a new budget deal is agreed on that will lift the spending caps.

White House Signals Concerns with FY16 House’s Financial Services and Senate’s Defense Funding Bills

Posted on

Continuing its theme, the White House, though the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shaun Donovan, signaled concerns with two more Congressional appropriations bills. Donovan wrote the House Appropriators about the FY16 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill and Senate Appropriators about the FY16 Defense appropriations bill.

The White House warned that the House’s FY16 Financial Services spending bill, scheduled to be marked up today, would jeopardize the independence of financial regulators, cost billions of dollars in lost tax revenue and hinder implementation of the 2010 health care overhaul.

Similar to previous warnings about the House and Senate NDAA bills and the House’s FY16 Defense spending bill,  Donovan warned that, “The president’s senior advisers would recommend he veto any legislation that implements the current Republican budget framework.” According to the OMB, the Senate’s legislation would implement a “gimmick” by shifting money to war accounts, the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding,  from core budget lines. He also criticized the Senate Appropriations measure’s proposal for “unnecessary” funding of a National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account. ​

The White House and Congressional Democrats have been very vocal on a need for Congress to collectively come to the table and cut another deal, similar to the one Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) cut in 2013 in 2013 (Murray-Ryan), to avoid the cuts as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011(sequester). The House is crafting all bills, legislative and appropriations, under the financial caps and resrtaints set by the Budget Control Act, which was binding until 2021.

Read the the letter to House Appropriators about the House’s FY16 Financial Services bill here. 

Read the letter to Senate Appropriators about the Senate’s FY16 Defense bill here. 

OMB Signals Concerns on House FY16 Interior Bill

Posted on

Due to be marked up today, the White House signaled concerns to House Appropriators about their $30.2 billion FY16 Interior-Environment spending bill. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  Director Shaun Donovan criticized the measure for the proposed cuts to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as riders to block implementation of various air and water rules.

The Interior-Environment appropriations bill funds the EPA, U.S. Forest Service, Interior Department, the Smithsonian, and Indian Health Service. Donovan criticized the measure for its “misplaced priorities” and funding levels that fall 9 percent below the President’s request as well as cuts to the Indian Health Service and Interior’s climate resilience, land management and conservation efforts.

This letter from Donovan is not the first effort the Administration has used to signal displeasure with House Appropriations bills. Donovan wrote similar letter about the House CJS measure, and the White House has issued veto threats on the NDAA and House Defense appropriations bills.

Read the OMB letter to House Appropriations here. 

House Passes FY16 Defense Appropriations Bill

Posted on

Today, the House  approved the $578.6 billion FY15 Defense appropriations bill despite Democratic objections, both from the House and White House, to using the war accounts, known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, to bridge the gap between stringent BCA budget caps and the Pentagon’s spending request. The measure totals $800 million above the Administration’s request, thanks to the additional war funds.

The largely party line vote of 278 to 149 on the typically bipartisan measure (HR 2685) underscores the divide over the use of the Overseas Contingency Operations fund.

In addition, AAU has issued a statement against the measure due to the proposed cuts in basic research.

Senate Moves to Attach Cyber Legislation to NDAA

Posted on

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed for cloture on a cybersecurity amendment, a move that would fold the threat-sharing information legislation into the annual defense policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) received consent to modify an already pending amendment related to background checks for military child care providers by including the cyber bill (S 754), sponsored by Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC).

Senate Democratic leaders wrote to McConnell, urging him to separate the cybersecurity battle from the overall fight on the NDAA. Democrats do not support the defense authorization bill because, they say it uses a budget gimmick to boost defense funding. The increase in funding to the Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding as a means to increase defense funding but stay within the BAC Budgetary caps has drawn the ire of House Democrats and the White House. The White House has issued veto threats on House NDAA and FY16 Defense appropriations legislation that used the same mechanisms.

As a piece of standalone legislation, the measure advanced through the Intelligence Committee in a 14-1 vote during a markup held in March. The bill aims to encourage companies to share information they have about cyber threats with the government, and is largely modeled after legislation approved by the panel during the 113th Congress.

The Senate has been considering the NDAA for the bulk of the week.

Senate Democrats are being described as “very angry” and have threatened to filibuster the normally noncontroversial, must-pass legislation. Additionally, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is running for president, has also come out against the bill due to the lack of privacy protections.