Sequestration Update
Before the March 1 sequester deadline, lawmakers in both the Senate and House of Representatives were quick to put forward legislation that would either repeal or minimize the impact of the across-the-board cuts to government spending. Several sequester-related bills have been introduced in the past month. Yesterday, there was discussion on the Senate floor about three specific plans.
- S.16 – “A bill to provide for a sequester replacement” was introduced by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Pat Toomey (R-ID). This bill would halt the current sequester plan and instead require the President to make the same level of spending reductions ($85 billion) to specific programs and departments rather than arbitrary, across-the-board cuts. The plan from the president would be due March 15, and legislators in Congress could overrule the president’s recommendations with a two-thirds majority vote. The bill did not survive a filibuster effort. The Senate voted not to proceed to consideration of the bill by a 38 to 62 vote.
- S.388 – “American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013” was the Democratic plan for sequester replacement introduced by Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). It calls for increasing revenue by closing tax loopholes, and by cutting $27.5 billion from domestic spending and $27.5 billion from defense spending. This bill was also filibustered. S.388 received only 51 of the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate and move forward with consideration of the bill.
- S.18 – “Sequester Replacement and Spending Reduction Act of 2013” was introduced by Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) on February 27. This bill would repeal the sequester and, the discretionary caps for fiscal year 2013 with specified cuts to federal programs (for more information, please visit Senator Ayotte’s webpage). This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance; it was not granted a vote in the Senate, despite Ayotte’s request.
- H.R. 505 – “Balancing Act” was introduced by Keith Ellison (D-MN) earlier in February. This bill would simply repeal Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which would in turn repeal sequestration. The bill would compensate for the cuts by closing tax loopholes. Referred to the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- S.278 – “Job Preservation and Sequester Replacement Act of 2013” was introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). This bill, much like Ellison’s, would repeal the sequester and compensate through closing tax loopholes for high-income Americans. This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
President Obama will sign a formal sequestration order today. HUD is currently preparing letter to stakeholders, including governors, grantees, and contractors to explain how sequestration will affect them. NAHMA expects that HUD will also issues letters explaining sequestration’s impact on project-based Section 8 in greater detail. At this time, NAHMA’s best information indicates HUD will continue to fund Section 8 contracts and renewals, but contracts will be short funded (i.e. have less than 12 months of obligated funding).
Please see Wednesday’s NAHMAnalysis on sequestration for more information.
House easily passes Senate’s Violence Against Women bill
The House of Representatives has passed S.47, the Senate’s version of the Violence Against Women Act with a recorded vote of 286 to 138. The bill will now head to President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign it into law. The legislation expands VAWA’s existing provisions to additional housing programs, which now include Section 8 voucher and project-based programs, low-income housing tax credit properties, and a variety of elderly, disabled and rural housing programs.
NAHMA’s preferred language towards emergency transfers was included in a proposed amendment to the bill, but these changes did not make it into the final legislation that was agreed upon.
To read the final legislation text, please click:
VAWA
Senate Hearing on FHA Solvency and Challenges
On Thursday, February 28, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing addressing the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA’s) financial condition and the challenges faced in the wake of the 2008 recession and housing collapse. The witnesses were leaders in housing finance policies, including:
- Gary Thomas – President – National Association of Realtors;
- Peter Bell – President – National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association;
- Phillip L. Swagel – Professor of International Economic Policy – University of Maryland;
- Sarah Rosen Wartell – President – Urban Institute;
- Teresa Bryce Bazemore – President – Radian Guaranty Incorporated; and
- David H. Stevens – President & CEO – Mortgage Bankers Association.
The FHA’s solvency has come under question and, according to witnesses, it is likely that the program will have to draw funds from the Treasury in order to maintain the 30-year reserve to fully fund open claims. Through 2007-09, the FHA gained a larger share of the mortgage-credit market as large, private financial institutions either folded or denied lending to buyers.
While much of the testimony focused on single family mortgages, multifamily mortgages were mentioned in passing. Witness Sarah Wartell acknowledged that the FHA also plays a valuable role in the multifamily finance market. The FHA helps preserve housing units as affordable and finances parts of the market that tend to be underserved (such as financing for apartments for low-income households).
Mr. Phillip Swagel stated that it is noteworthy that the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC)Housing Commission calls for loan limits for government-backed loans to be set at $275,000 in order to focus public support on families most in need, such as increased spending to support affordable housing for both owner-occupied and rentals. Another Witness, David H. Stevens, noted that the FHA’s multifamily rental programs, which are supported by HUD’s General and Special Risk Insurance Fund, are fiscally sound as compared to the MMI fund for single-family housing, which has a negative capital ratio.
To view the testimony from the Senate Banking Committee, please click:
hearing
Hearing on Federal Employee’s Travels to Conferences
On February 27, the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform held a hearing addressing federal employee travels and agency conferences.
In response to the now infamous 2010 GSA Las Vegas conference, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo on new policies and procedures for federal travel to conferences and events in response to the public outcry. The goal of the OMB was to instruct the heads of federal agencies to spend at least 30 percent less on employee travels for FY 2013. The hearing focused in on the success of the policies and what other actions can be taken in order to reduce travel spending.
Outside of the OMB, Senator Tom Coburn had introduced amendments to legislation that specifically targeted federal employee travel to association conferences, limiting the number of federal attendees to one per conference. While his proposals have not become law, they could be reintroduced in the 113th Congress.
The American Society of Association Executives submitted testimony to the hearing, reaffirming the benefits that face-to-face meetings with federal employees bring to association operations and leadership. The ASAE plans on presenting further information to the OMB directly next month, detailing the specific communication created when federal employees attend association conferences.
While NAHMA understands the need to reign in wasteful spending, we remain concerned that overbearing restrictions to federal employee travel will undermine the advocacy process. It is most important to note that the GSA scandal involved their own conference, and not that of another agency or advocacy group. However, the response made by the OMB and Congress could impact all non-federal conference activities and cripple the communications between federal employees and association advocates.
To read the testimony of the witnesses and to view a video of the hearing, please click:
The Road Less Traveled
To view the testimony of ASAE, please click:
here
