U.S. Fast-Track Trade Bill Gains Dem Ally As House Vote Looms

The U.S. House of Representatives starts debate over crucial legislation to renew Trade Promotion Authority, with one Democratic lawmaker breaking from his party’s core ranks on Wednesday to back the bill.

Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., is one of just a handful of Democrats in the lower chamber calling for passage of the bill to reinstate TPA, also known as fast-track, which he touted as a benefit both for his constituency and the nation more broadly.

The U.S. Senate comfortably passed the TPA bill on Friday after a fairly even-keeled debate that saw the defeat of a handful of amendments, including a controversial proposal to beef up the legislation’s language on currency manipulation by trading partners.

But the true test has always been in the House; drawn lines on the bill have thus far revealed an uncertain future.

In departing with his fellow Democrats, Larsen said he felt the bill tackled his colleagues’ primary concerns about the White House’s trade agenda, specifically their fears about the effect of massive regional trade pacts on rules governing labor and the environment. (Credit AP).

“In terms of protections for workers and the environment, I strongly believe any trade agreements the U.S. makes with other countries must uphold these core values,” he said. “The 2015 TPA bill puts these values front and center in the administration’s trade negotiations by requiring trading partners to put in place and enforce labor and environmental standards.” (Credit AP).

In exchange for allowing Congress to set negotiating objectives, TPA calls for lawmakers to hold amendment-free votes on trade agreements once they are completed, a provision that has long roiled opponents who feel the process is a subversion of core Democratic values.

But like many of the legislation’s champions, Larsen said that while lawmakers still won’t be able to amend trade agreements on the floor, there are provisions for turning off fast-track protection for deals that aren’t up to snuff in the eyes of Congress. (Credit AP).

“I think there are other mechanisms in the 2015 TPA bill that give Congress necessary oversight to hold the administration accountable,” he said. “TPA contains an off-switch. If Congress is not satisfied the administration is upholding our core values to protect workers and the environment, then members can vote to make an agreement ineligible for TPA.” (Credit AP).

NJ Out-of-Network Consumer Protection Act

The “Out-of-Network Consumer Protection, Transparency, Cost Containment, and Accountability Act.” [(Senator Joseph Vitale (D-19), Assemblyman Gary Schaer (D-36), Assemblyman Troy Singleton (D-7), and Assemblyman Graig Coughlin (D-19)] would implement sweeping legislation to reform various aspects of the New Jersey health care delivery system by: increasing transparency in pricing for health care services; enhancing consumer protections; creating an arbitration system to resolve certain health billing disputes; containing rising costs associated with out-of-network healthcare services; and, measuring success accordingly.

The  legislation would enhance employee rights and protections as patients and save an estimated $1.0 billion according to the sponsors. Others, including the New Jersey Association of Counties, (NJAC) are concerned that the measure may initially increase the costs of health benefits plans as the bill would impose an annual surcharge on all plans to fund operation and administrative expenses of a Healthcare Price Index (HPI). In summary, the HPI would: identify and electronically publish the list of median in-network paid commercial claims for the payment range as established under the bill; and, make healthcare data available to the State to improve healthcare quality, reduce healthcare costs, and increase pricing transparency.  Although in general it appears that the bill does directly apply to counties enrolled in the State Health Benefits Plan (Atlantic, Camden, Gloucester, Hudson, Mercer, Ocean, Salem, Sussex, and Warren), the annual surcharge imposed by the legislation would in fact impact all health benefit plans and counties.

Hence several recommendations have been put forth:  1) use an existing federal database on medical care to eliminate the need for a New Jersey specific HPI and corresponding surcharge; or, 2) establish  a New Jersey specific HPI as called for under the bill, but eliminate the surcharge, allocate a one-time State appropriation to establish the Health Price Index Fund, and dedicate monies collected from violations of the Act to the Fund for operation and administrative expenses.  NJAC is further seeking a clarification on whether the surcharge would impact health benefit plan expenses under the looming “Cadillac Tax” for high-cost employer-sponsored health benefits coverage set to begin 2018 at $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500.000 for all other coverage tiers.

Bipartisanship Breaks Out

For a Congress best known for years of rancor, the extent of cooperation surrounding the he 21st Century Cures Act — coming on the heels of the bipartisan “doc fix” — suggests that Capitol Hill may really be focusing on legislating. Last Thursday’s  51-0 vote to advance the Cures Act to the full U.S. House of Representatives was an important milestone for a fast-evolving bill.

“This really kind of blows your mind considering all the angst and animosity and other kinds of … engagements that we have,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., who labeled Thursday’s hearing a “lovefest.” (Creddit AP).

Moreover, a 49-page amendment approved as part of Thursday’s vote at the Energy & Commerce Committee addressed a key concern by earmarking $550 million over five years to help the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fulfill new duties created by the bill. Those include development of new “biomarkers” to gauge drug effectiveness, enhanced incorporation of patient perspective into approval decisions, and grants to study so-called continuous drug manufacturing that could reduce production costs.

In addition, the amendment would exempt from budget sequestration the user fees paid by drug and device makers to support FDA reviews and inspections. Sequestration only kicks in if spending caps are exceeded, but the Cures bill now provides peace of mind for companies that complained about private money being locked away in 2013 because of political spending fights.

“FDA user fees were never intended, I think, to be part of the sequester,” Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said on Thursday. (Credit AP).

Other substantive provisions were notable for their omission, including possible changes to dial back use of the 340B drug discount program by hospitals and clinics. Any such change could have alienated Democrats and jeopardized bipartisan support, and the provision’s absence won praise.

One provision would delay so-called reinsurance subsidies that go to health insurance plans in Medicare Part D in order to partly offset the costs of unusually expensive policyholders. The proposal stems from a 2013 inspector general’s report that found delays of certain advance payments would allow Medicare to generate more interest income — roughly $110 million in 2009 alone.

The current financial impact of that step is not yet public, but trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans reacted angrily on Thursday, saying that it “strongly opposes” the idea. Elsewhere, a new section starting in 2020 would cap Medicaid reimbursement for durable medical equipment at the amount paid under Medicare’s new competitive bidding program. The section is based on a provision in next year’s budget blueprint for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which predicted $4.3 billion in savings over 10 years.

Nevertheless, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, suggested that the vote was historic against any backdrop, and perhaps unprecedented in his nearly three decades on the Energy & Commerce Committee.

“I don’t think we’ve ever had a major bill — major bill — that didn’t have somebody … that voted no,” Barton said. “This is a real achievement.” (Credit AP).

Senate Moves One Step Closer To ‘Fast-Track’ Passage

The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to set an end to debate on a bill to revive the White House’s Trade Promotion Authority, following a hold-up mainly caused by disputes on proposed amendments regarding foreign currency manipulation and Export-Import Bank reauthorization, setting up a possible final vote for Friday.

Senators voted 62-38 on cloture for the bill, H.R.1314 — a previously unrelated House bill used by the Senate as a vehicle for the trade legislation — after a potential delay on the vote failed to come to pass, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., ending a filibuster regarding the renewal of the NSA’s domestic surveillance program just before midnight on Wednesday.

The bill would restore TPA, or “fast-track” authority, which last expired in 2007, allowing lawmakers to help craft the administration’s trade negotiating objectives in exchange for the White House receiving an amendment-free, up-or-down vote from Congress once any trade deal is struck.

Senators from both parties had voted 65-33 to move forward with formal debate on the bill on May 14, after Democratic lawmakers lifted an ongoing filibuster related to concerns that their other trade priorities would be left behind when party leaders struck a deal for the Senate to also consider other trade legislation alongside the TPA bill.

These other bills, regarding preferential tariff treatment for developing countries and enhancements for the government’s customs and trade remedy enforcement efforts — including controversial language on foreign currency manipulation — easily passed.

As debate on the TPA legislation has continued, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has come in for criticism over the amendment process. More than 200 amendments have been put forward by senators, but only a limited number have been put on the Senate calendar, with just two receiving a vote so far.

These included a proposal to provide $575 million in additional funding for Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, a cluster of federal programs providing benefits to trade-displaced workers that are also up for renewal in the TPA bill. That amendment was rejected, while another requiring the U.S. to consider a potential trade partner’s religious tolerance when negotiating deals passed.

Nine amendments are currently pending, including further proposals regarding currency manipulation, a proposal to eliminate TAA from the bill entirely, and another seeking a waiver of the TPA on any trade deal with an investor-state dispute clause, among others.

Hatch has also moved to put several other proposed amendments on the Senate calendar, while other proposals, such as the disputed clause reauthorizing the U.S. Export-Import Bank, also continue to float around.

The TPA bill has been supported by an unusual coalition of lawmakers from both parties, as well as the White House, which has been steadily pressing for fast-track protection in order to swiftly pass the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership accord. It described the authority in a policy statement as a “vital tool” for the passage of such deals, which the administration argued will “expand economic opportunities,” among other benefits.

Thursday’s cloture vote allows for up to 30 further hours of debate, meaning a vote on final passage will most likely occur on Friday afternoon. Senators are then scheduled to take a week-long recess for Memorial Day, but McConnell has signaled they could also be in over the weekend to take votes on a number of other pending bills.

Virginia May Publicly Finance Highway Expansion

Virginia may elect to publicly finance the expansion of a heavily traveled interstate in metropolitan Washington, D.C., and keep the toll revenue to be used for other regional transportation projects. An analysis released this week shows that the state could save up to $500 million in upfront costs by expanding Interstate 66 via a design-build contract while retaining the estimated $200 million to $500 million in toll revenue over 40 years, reported The Washington Post.

Virginia’s  Public-Private Transportation Act became law in late March.

“As we work to get taxpayers the greatest value for every dollar they spend on this project, this analysis shows that there is merit to considering moving forward with a design-build contract,” Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said. “Our administration would welcome a private partner on I-66, but they must propose the best deal for Virginia. Until we receive a better private proposal, these preliminary numbers indicate that a public finance option may be in the best interest of Virginia taxpayers.” (Credit AP).

Layne said the figures were generated by leading  public- and private-sector financial analysts using the same rigor he uses investing his own money. He said he’s confident the numbers are solid but thinks it’s important to “throw them out there for everybody to take shots. … If you’ve got a better deal, we’d like to hear about it.” (Credit AP).

The proposed expansion project, which Layne described as probably the most important transportation project in the state, would feature new toll and carpool lanes 25 miles west of the Capital Beltway.

Layne said keeping the project under state control would not be without risks. First, approval from the state’s General Assembly would be needed in some variations of the plan. Second, state leaders would have to budget $400 million to $600 million in upfront public funding. Estimates peg the state’s upfront cost at $900 million to $1 billion if a P3 is initiated.

Virginia has long been hospitable to handing over public transportation projects to private companies, like it did with new toll lanes on Interstate 95 and the Beltway, and a tunnel being built in Hampton Roads.

Layne said the state has had a good partnership on P3s that developed a network of Northern Virginia toll and carpool lanes, though there are some long-term risks. For instance, under certain circumstances, the state would have to pay the contractor if too many people carpool.

Del. S. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk), chair of the House appropriations committee, praised the secretary’s approach toward the highway expansion. “He’s taking the right approach. The P3 process was always supposed to compare what the public option would cost versus the private option,” he said. “The objective is to make sure that we get the best value for the taxpayers’ investment. Whether that’s going the P3 route or the state doing it on its own, I’m agnostic in that regard. ”

Jones championed legislation this year that establishes the requirements for a finding of public interest and requires such a finding prior to an initiation of a P3 procurement. The bill also establishes the Transportation Public-Private Partnership Advisory Committee to determine whether a highway or rail project meets the finding of public interest. According to a VDOT announcement, Layne has requested the advisory committee hold a meeting to review and consider procurement options within the next 45 days.

$579 billion draft Defense budget draft.

A House panel issued its $579 billion draft Defense budget earlier this week, that includes pay raises for troops, saving the A-10 Warthog and billions of dollars in wartime funding to circumvent sequestration caps.

Those measures, along with increased funding for research and acquisitions such as the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, go against President Barack Obama’s request, particularly the subcommittee’s use of $88.4 billion in wartime funding. In using those funds to get around the sequestration cap, the $579 billion budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 is a $24.2 billion increase over this year and $800 million above the administration’s request.

House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., said in a statement that the panel’s bill would meet the needs of the American military in the next year. The bill heads for a closed-doors markup on Wednesday.

“This legislation recognizes that it is an increasingly dangerous world and we must guarantee that our military and intelligence community have the strength and capability to meet the rise of Islamic terror groups and other emerging threats and deter would-be aggressors like Iran, China and Russia and North Korea,” Frelinghuysen said. “I am proud that we have kept faith with the brave men and women, and their families, who selflessly serve our country.” (Credit AP).

The bill tees up fights over the specifics passed in the broader National Defense Authorization Act passed last week. Representatives voted 269-151 for the bill, H.R. 1735, which sets out broad funding limits and priorities for the DOD and certain programs at the U.S. Departments of Energy and State for fiscal year 2016.

The House’s passage of the broader NDAA came in the face of a veto threat from the Obama  and the subcommittee’s draft contains many of the same provisions for the DOD.

Among other clauses, the bill would revive funding for the A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft, the intended retirement of which has been a perennial source of fighting between the administration and Congress in recent years.

The bill would also give troops a 2.3 percent pay raise, higher than the 1.3 percent requested by the administration.

In addition to the increases, the draft language would cut outlays for foreign currency fluctuations, as well as health programs. The statement accompanying the bill’s release said that the funding for those programs, $31.7 billion, would be sufficient.

“While below the current year, this level is sufficient to meet the entire scope of all estimated needs and requirements in the next fiscal year,” the statement said, explaining the cut to health programs. (Credit AP).

House Passes Iran Nuclear Deal Review Bill

The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed legislation allowing Congress to review any nuclear agreement reached between the executive branch and Iran, as well as a bill to impose sanctions on any financial institution that does business with terrorist group Hezbollah.

Lawmakers easily agreed to both bills, voting 400-25 in favor of H.R. 1191, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and passing H.R. 2297, the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act, in a 423-0 vote, with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., describing the Review Act as a way to keep pressure on Iran as nuclear negotiations continue.

“This legislation [will] ensure that Congress is positioned to effectively and decisively judge and constrain President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, should a bad deal be struck,” Royce said on the House floor Thursday. (Credit AP).

Under the terms of the review bill, first passed by the Senate on May 7 — with senators using an unrelated bill previously passed by the House as a legislative vehicle — Congress would have 30 days to review any deal reached between Iran and the administration regarding Iran’s nuclear program and then pass a resolution either approving or rejecting the deal.

The bill would also require the White House to keep Congress in the loop regarding Iran’s ongoing activities, including regular reports on the country’s support of terrorist groups, among other issues. President Barack Obama would retain veto power over any resolution that Congress reaches.

The legislation had stalled in the Senate amid opposition led by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who had previously stated his opposition to any nuclear deal being reached with Iran. Cotton was the only ‘no’ vote in the 98-1 tally in the Senate.

Cotton had held the legislation up with various proposed amendments that he had been a sponsor of, including a clause requiring Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist — an amendment that some House lawmakers had also urged their leaders to consider before the bill was brought to the House floor.

Another proposed Cotton amendment would have required that any nuclear deal be considered a treaty, subject to the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, a stance he reiterated following the bill’s passage in the Senate.

The current proposed framework for a nuclear deal with Iran, which involves several other world powers in addition to the U.S., would see Iran heavily reduce the number of centrifuges in use at its nuclear facilities and make other changes to some of those centrifuges, limiting its ability to make weapons-grade nuclear material.

In exchange, some current U.S. and European Union sanctions on the country would be lifted, subject to continued compliance with the deal.

Under the Hezbollah Financing Prevention Act that also passed the House on Thursday, banks and other financial companies that knowingly do business with the Islamist militant and political group — officially considered by the U.S. and several other countries to be a terrorist group — its television station al-Manar TV, or any agent acting on its behalf would be subject to U.S. sanctions, among other provisions.

Although Hezbollah is based in Lebanon, Iran has been a major funding source for the group since its inception in the 1980s, with Royce describing the country as a “radical state sponsor of terrorism” on Thursday.

NJ Assembly Publicly Rejects $225M ExxonMobil Deal

The New Jersey Assembly on Thursday passed a resolution rejecting the state’s $225 million settlement with Exxon Mobile Corp., over refinery pollution.

The Assembly voted 45-16-9 to give approval to a resolution by Assemblyman John McKeon, D- Essex/Morris, denouncing Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s April proposal to resolve claims over hazardous discharges from Exxon refinery sites in Linden and Bayonne that impacted 1,500 acres of wetlands.

“About $50 million is going to go to attorney fees, but $175 million won’t even go to try to restore the ecological treasures that were destroyed,” McKeon said while testifying at a quorum meeting.

The proposed agreement, first publicly announced in March, would resolve the oil giant’s liability for alleged natural resource damages at refinery sites, with the exception of surface water claims. It also covers 16 other Exxon sites, including terminals and small airports, as well as Exxon retail gas stations in the state that had been cited in other natural resource damages claims.

The agreement is currently undergoing a 60-day public comment period.

McKeon’s resolution, AR-242, opposes the settlement and demands that the governor “obtain the maximum compensation possible for the devastating environmental damage incurred by Exxon.”

McKeon, citing decades of contamination, accuses Exxon of improperly disposing of “millions of gallons of crude oil and refined products, seven to 17 feet thick in some cases, and containing hazardous substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chromium and arsenic” at Linden and Bayonne facilities since the 19th century.

The resolution was borne of hearings, consultations with environmental scientists and other experts and perusal of 56 days of trial transcripts, McKeon said.

“We used to think of what was destroyed there, the wetlands, as things that just supported biology. But we now know how important they are as a barrier against storm surges after Superstorm Sandy,” he said, calling the state’s de facto forfeit of the surface water claims “unacceptable.”

The Christie administration, according to McKeon’s resolution, hasn’t justified settling the case for approximately 3 percent of the $8.9 billion calculated by the Department of Environmental Protection as the value of the natural resource damages, and offered “no verifiable rationale” for including the 16 Exxon sites and the approximately 1,700 retail service stations unrelated to the litigation in the settlement.

The $225 million figure doesn’t cover the cleanup, and though the area can be “cleaned on some level, it can never be restored,” McKeon told the Assembly.

The resolution also blasts Christie in its historical account of the state DEP’s efforts to address more than 4,000 potential natural resource damages claims since 2001. Since Christie took office in 2010, only one such claim has been made, the resolution said.

A Christie spokesman reached on Thursday said to refer to the governor’s previous statements on the issue. The governor said in a March town hall meeting that the settlement has been misrepresented to the public and that Exxon would have to pay whatever price was necessary to “fix everything that they polluted up to state standards.”

The resolution drew opposition from Assemblywoman Holly T. Schepisi, R-Bergen, who questioned the appropriateness of lawmakers’ interventions and warned that legislators weren’t “part and parcel” to all the nuances of the settlement.

“We have never once won a case similar to this. The fact is, this could go on for another 10 years. We could potentially see zero dollars at the end of it,” Schepisi said.

“The administration was trying to defend the indefensible, which is this dirty deal,” club President Jeff Tittel said in a statement released after the vote.

The Senate passed a similar resoluion in March.

NJ Senate Panel Backs Housing Tax Credit For Atlantic City

A New Jersey Senate committee on Tuesday approved legislation that would create a new tax credit program to encourage the development of owner-occupied housing in Atlantic City as the municipality works to diversify its tax base and recover from a rash of casino closings.

The New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee backed the formation of the Atlantic City Growth Tax Credit Program in a 11-2 vote, though the bill drew concerns from Democrats who suggested projects elsewhere in the state should have a shot at the incentives and Republicans who disagreed with the size of the credits.

The program would fall under the umbrella of the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency and provide developers of nonrental housing in Atlantic City with gross income tax credits of up to 80 percent of their costs for land acquisition, capital improvements, engineering fees and architectural fees.

Projects covered under the bill, S2654, couldn’t be more than eight stores and would have to include at least eight newly constructed residential units. At least 80 percent of the project’s units would have to be owner occupied.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen, said he supported the proposal but added that other New Jersey municipalities such as Paterson and Passaic could also benefit from such a program.

“It should be expanded,” Sarlo said. “We all want to help Atlantic City, but I get frustrated sometimes.” (Credit Bergan Record).

The size of the proposed tax credit didn’t sit well with other lawmakers. State Sen. Sam Thompson, R-Middlesex, called the incentive excessive, while state Sen. Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth, urged her colleagues to take a harder look at the potential cost.

“I think there should be some type of tax credit, but I just feel like that encompasses a very big number and should be revisited,” Beck said. (Credit Bergan Record).

The bill was previously advanced by the Senate Economic Growth Committee in January. Sponsors of the measure include state Sens. Jim Whelan, D-Atlantic, and Robert Singer, R-Ocean.

Nearly three-quarters of Atlantic City’s residents are tenants, according to the bill. Meanwhile, homeowners are facing a serious hardship as the city’s property tax burden shifts from its gaming sector and other commercial businesses, the bill says. Expanding the city’s pool of residential property taxpayers would help lessen that burden, according to the bill.

The HMFA would stop accepting new applications for the program by either Jan. 1, 2020, or when the city’s proportion of homeowners to renters has evened out to at least 50 percent.

Twelve casinos in Atlantic City made up 70 percent of annual property taxes as of 2013, but a flood of closures has left the city with eight operating casinos and a tax base that has fallen from $20.5 billion in 2010 to $7.3 billion, according to a March report from the city’s state-appointed emergency manager, Kevin Lavin.

Casino tax appeals have only added to that strain. The city has taken on $186 million in debt to repay casino tax reassessments for 2010-13, but there were $126 million in resolved tax appeals that didn’t have bonding behind them, the report said.

The House returns this week: What to Expect

The House returns this week from a district work period, set to focus on legislation related to law enforcement, defense and national security matters, while the Senate will begin debate on trade promotion authority.

The House will begin the week on Tuesday by completing consideration of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015, a bill to prevent implementation of the so-called “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulation that would bring within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers a much wider array of property deemed to be wetlands under federal authority than under current regulation. The bill will be sent to the president for signature after House passage.

Members are also scheduled to consider several suspensions related to fallen law enforcement and public safety officials. S. 665, the Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act of 2015, will assist with the establishment of a nationwide Blue Alert system to apprehend violent criminals who have injured or killed police officers. This bill is named in honor of two New York City police detectives who were assassinated while sitting in their police patrol car in December 2014. H.R. 606, Don’t Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt death benefits paid to surviving dependents of public servants who died in the line of duty from being considered taxable gross income. H.R. 723, the Fallen Heroes Flag Act of 2015, would provide Capitol-flown flags to the immediate family of fire fighters, law enforcement officers, and other public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty. Also related to law enforcement and public safety officials is H.R. 2146, which would allow federal law enforcement officers and firefighters to access money in their Thrift Savings Plan accounts without the 10 percent tax penalty when they are eligible to retire.

From Wednesday through the remainder of the week, a bulk of legislative activity is expected to be focused on H.R. 1735, the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is the annual congressional budget authorization for defense activities. Reported out of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on April 30, by a vote of 60-2, the bill contains $612 billion in funding levels and major policy changes and renewals. While the bill does not actually spend any money, it provides authorization for funding levels for later appropriations bills. The President has not gone so far as to issue a veto threat but has stated that it does not support the bill in its current form. Controversy has already erupted over an amendment adopted during HASC markup regarding illegal immigrants and may threaten Republican support necessary for final passage. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., secured enough committee votes to approve his amendment that would encourage the secretary of defense to consider allowing illegal immigrants granted executive amnesty to serve in the military. While the provision would have no force of law, 25 House conservatives have threatened to withdraw support for the entire bill because they view the provision as support for an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

After taking action on the NDAA, the House will then move to consider H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The bill would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This bill was scheduled for consideration by the House in January but pulled from the floor before a vote could take place due to a revolt from members of the Republican caucus, many of them women. The opposition stemmed from language that would permit an exception for victims of rape and incest to have a late-term abortion if they reported the assault to law enforcement authorities. The reporting requirement was removed from the bill and replaced with a provision that allows the victims to have a late-term abortion if the doctor has ensured the individual has received counseling or medical treatment at least 48 hours before the procedure.

Another item on the House agenda is H.R. 2048, the USA Freedom Act, which would make reforms to surveillance programs. The legislation would end the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ communications records, which was largely thought to have been authorized under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The bill also aims to increase transparency and accountability in government surveillance programs. The bill was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee 25-2, and a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. While there is bipartisan support for reform, some lawmakers, including Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., support the program and have called for clean extension of the current authorization. Complicating that notion is a decision last Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which ruled that the NSA bulk collection of phone records is illegal. The panel unanimously ruled that Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize the bulk collection of phone records. In the majority ruling, the judges noted the current legislative debate surrounding the program as well as the looming June 1 expiration date of the program, unless extended by congressional action.

Should the House work through this agenda, there is potential for the consideration of H.R. 1191, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which passed the Senate last Thursday 98-1. The bill ensures a congressional role in the review of any international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. The bill would require the president to submit any such agreement to Congress within five days of its conclusion and would prohibit the administration from lifting any sanctions on Iran for a set amount of time while Congress reviews the agreement. During this period, Congress could approve, disapprove or take no action on the agreement. Enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval (which would be subject to a presidential veto) within the review period would block the president from implementing relief from U.S. sanctions. The language of H.R. 1191 remains unchanged from the version unanimously reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 14, because no amendments were agreed to during Senate debate.

On the Senate side this week, senators will begin consideration of the Hatch-Wyden trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation, which allows for trade deals negotiated by the administration to be submitted to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote within a limited period of time. Last Wednesday, Majority Leader McConnell filed a motion to proceed to the legislative vehicle for the “fast-track” legislation, H.R. 1314, and then filed a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. Press reports indicate that President Obama has been lobbying Democratic members over the last two weeks to encourage their support of the “fast-track” legislation because a majority of Democrats have come out in opposition. Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a vociferous opponent of TPA, has been trying to derail Senate consideration of the bill by lobbying his colleagues to block the measure until the Senate considers two other pressing items: an extension of the surface transportation authorization (which expires May 31) and the USA Freedom Act, the bill to reform and extend intelligence surveillance authorities. Passage of TPA is seen as critical for the Obama administration to expedite the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which would liberalize trade among 12 countries. Japan and other TPP countries have expressed reluctance to close TPP without TPA’s procedural protections and expedited process. The TPA measure includes other trade-related provisions, which include the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and the more controversial Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA), which provides assistance to U.S. workers whose jobs are affected by international trade. While an amendment is likely from Republicans to strike the extension of TAA, if such an amendment were to succeed, Democratic support for the TPA bill would likely evaporate, so expect most opponents of TAA to oppose an amendment to remove it from the bill.

Before adjourning for the Memorial Day recess, scheduled for the week of May 25, in addition to renewing the expiring surveillance authorities, both chambers will need to act on the impending expiration of the authorities under the Highway Trust Fund, most likely through the passage of a short-term extension. As noted, the current authorization for surface transportation and infrastructure funding expires May 31.

This week the Senate Armed Services Subcommittees will continue to mark up their version of the FY 2016 NDAA. The House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on the Dodd-Frank Act. The House Appropriations Committee will take up its fourth appropriations bill of the year when it holds a markup of the FY 2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development spending measure on Wednesday.