BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, January 27, 2017 12:30 p.m. EBRPD – Administrative Headquarters 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605
The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors.
A copy of the background materials concerning these agenda items, including any material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www. ebparks.org), the Headquarters reception desk, and at the meeting.
Public Comment on Agenda Items If you wish to testify on an item on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the recording secretary. Your name will be called when the item is announced for discussion.
Accommodations and Access District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed for you to participate, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 510-544-2020 as soon as possible, but preferably at least three working days prior to the meeting.
AGENDA
TIME ITEM STATUS STAFF
12:30 I. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION Doyle/Pfuehler 1. AB 151 (Burke D-Inglewood) – Extending R the Cap-and-Trade Program 2. SB 18 (Pan D-Sacramento) – Bill of Rights I for Children and Youth in California
B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Governor Brown’s Budget I 2. Park Bond Legislation and Possible I Initiative Update
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION Pfuehler/Doyle 1. H.R. 343 (Sires D-NJ) – Establish a Link R Between Healthy, Economically Vibrant Communities, and Investments in Parks.
B. ISSUES – N/A
III. 2017 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES I Pfuehler/Doyle
IV. 2017 LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS IN I Pfuehler/Doyle WASHINGTON D.C.
V. STRATEGIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE I Pfuehler/Doyle TRACKING INSTRUMENT
VI. ARTICLES I
VII. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT D Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.
VIII. BOARD COMMENTS D
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration Future Meetings: (I) Information January 27 July 21 (D) Discussion February 24 August 25 Legislative Committee Members March 17 September 22 Ellen Corbett (Chair); Beverly Lane; Dennis Waespi April 21 October 20 Ward 7, Alternate May 19 November 17 Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager June 16 December 15
Distribution/Agenda Distribution/Full Packet
District: Public: District: Public: Mimi Waluch Norman LaForce Board Members Pat O’Brien Kristina Kelchner Peter Rauch Robert Doyle Dr. George Manross David Zuckermann Afton Crooks AGMs Doug Houston (via-email) Ira Bletz Stana Hearne Erich Pfuehler Bruce Kern (via-email) Connie Swisher Judi Bank Lisa Baldinger Elissa Robinson (via e-mail) Sharon Clay Michael Kelley Jeff Rasmussen Rick Rickard (via-email) Bruce Beyaert (via e-mail) Tiffany Margulici Peter Umhofer (via-email) Anne Kassebaum Mark Ragatz Sean Dougan Mona Koh Yolande Barial Knight Mark Pearson – Local 2428 Eri Suzuki – Local 2428 Xiaoning Huang – Local 2428 Tyrone Davis – POA Lobby/Receptionist
TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Ellen Corbett, Beverly Lane, Dennis Waespi)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, January 27, 2017 12:30 PM Lunch will be served
WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______
Items to be discussed:
I. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. AB 151 (Burke D-Inglewood) – Extending the Cap-and-Trade Program This legislation is an effort to ensure the cap-and-trade program remains a permanent part of the state’s climate policy. As currently written, it expresses the intent of the legislature to act on extending the cap-and-trade program. The current cap-and-trade program expires in 2020. Assemblymember Autumn Burke introduced the legislation with Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – a leader of the moderate Democratic caucus who are aligned with business interests. This is a good sign there might be votes for a legislative extension. In 2016, Democratic leadership was concerned they did not have the votes and rebuffed Governor Brown’s attempt to include cap-and-trade renewal in SB 32 (which extended the state’s emission reduction targets to 2030). At that time, the Governor floated the possibility of running a 2018 ballot initiative to extend cap-and-trade as a failsafe for legislature’s potential inaction. In the Governor’s budget, he also ties the expenditure of cap-and-trade dollars to extending the program. Introduction of AB 151 is the first step toward seeing if the legislature can build consensus to extend cap-and-trade. The District has a strong interest in seeing cap-and-trade funds directed toward some very specific activities: wildfire fuels management, green transportation, urban greening, wetland creation and coastal resiliency, riparian habitat enhancements and carbon sequestration by grasslands. Given the needs for more resources to carry out these activities, supporting extension of the cap-and-trade program is in the District’s interest.
Staff recommendation: Support
2. SB 18 (Pan D-Sacramento) – Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California Assemblymember Pan introduced this legislation as a response to the Right Start Commission’s report, Rebuilding the California Dream, which has been supported by Common Sense Kids Action, the advocacy arm of Common Sense Media. The report highlights goals for the state to commit to as a “Children’s Bill of Rights.” The bill of rights would include issues such as: high-quality, affordable child care; universal preschool; preventive healthcare; parent education; and family-friendly business policies. Assemblymember Pan was also the author of the state’s mandatory vaccine law in 2015, so SB 18 has drawn the wrath of the
1
groups (both right and left leaning) who opposed the vaccine law. SB 18 is a vague blueprint at this point, but is something to be watched from a parks perspective.
Staff recommendation: Watch
B. ISSUES 1. Governor Brown’s Budget The Governor announced his $179.5 billion budget proposal on Tuesday, January 10. Some of the highlights include: $43 billion for a five-year infrastructure plan. This plan outlines $5.6 billion for 2017/2018 to be spent on critical deferred maintenance such as levees, state parks, universities, community colleges, prisons, state hospitals and other state facilities. $178 million in drought relief to be used for firefighting resources, removal of fuels and well improvements. $2.2 billion for a cap-and-trade expenditure plan inclusive of $127.5 million for carbon sequestration via CAL FIRE’s forestry programs and Natural Resources Agency Urban Greening programs and $100 million for Active Transportation programs. This expenditure plan is contingent on the legislature passing legislation by a 2/3rds vote for the Air Resources Board to administer the cap-and-trade program beyond 2020. An increase in school spending to $15,216 per student, a $394 increase from the 2016/17 budget. $18.1 billion to fund transportation – including a $1 billion cap-and-trade funded Active Transportation Program to be administered by Caltrans to expand the local grant program. $154.6 billion for human services including an $800 million addition to cover the loss of federal funding. The potential repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act is not accounted for within the proposal. $7.9 billion for the state reserve, a $1.2 billion increase.
2. Park Bond Legislation and Possible Initiative Update The General Manager, Park District Legislative Advocate Doug Houston and Government Affairs Manager will provide verbal updates about activities related to AB 18, SB 5 and possible resource-related initiative efforts.
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION I. H.R. 343 (Sires D-N) – Establish a Link Between Healthy, Economically Vibrant Communities, and Investments in Parks This legislation creates a link between healthy, economically vibrant communities and investments in parks and recreation. It would authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to create a program which would leverage resources to address health and economic development concerns by investing in parks, recreational facilities and programs.
Staff recommendation: Support
B. ISSUES – N/A
2
III. 2017 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES Federal Concord Naval Weapons Station Transfer Oakland Army Base Clean Up Land and Water Conservation Fund Wildfire Fuels Management – FEMA Shoreline Resiliency Permitting Infrastructure Package – Include Parks, Active Transportation East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Keeping Public Lands Public Alameda Point Regional Shoreline Anti-Environmental Riders Economic Study Release
State Statewide Park Bond Gun Range Clean Up Funding OHV Reauthorization Endowments Shoreline Resiliency Permitting State Park Transformation Process California State Parks Support Entity – Potrero Group Study Water-related Opportunities Cap and Trade / Climate-related Funding Disadvantaged Communities Definition
Local Measure CC Education Oakland Bay Trail Summit San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Bay Area Toll Authority Toll Increase Measure BB implementation Possible Contra Costa County Transportation Measure Social Media Engagement with City Councils Economic Report Summit
* Red indicates new priority for 2017
A copy of the presentation is attached (see Attachment B)
IV. 2017 LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS IN WAHSINGTON D.C.
V. STRATEGIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRACKING INSTRAMENT
VI. ARTICLES
VII. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT
3
VIII. BOARD COMMENTS
4
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
Trump vs. California: How the battle will be waged
By Melody Gutierrez, San Francisco Chronicle January 15, 2017 Updated: January 16, 2017 5:53pm
Photo: John Blanchard
California lawmakers are bracing for a fight against soon-to-be President Trump and top officials in his administration who have said they will push for policy and legal changes that would threaten several of the state’s progressive laws. From immigration to gun control to environmental protections, the state finds itself at odds with Trump, who will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday. One of the biggest tools the federal government has is control of the purse strings. California is expected to receive $105 billion in federal dollars in the upcoming fiscal year, which includes $78 billion for various health and human services. The new administration, and the Republican- controlled Congress, can reward — and punish — states with the way it distributes federal dollars.
To prepare for any battles, the Legislature has hired a Washington, D.C., law firm headed by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. It’s vetting Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles, to be state attorney general, a role that could be pivotal in any upcoming clashes with the Trump administration. Becerra was confirmed by the Assembly on Friday and is expected to receive final approval from the Senate in the coming weeks.
Golden State prepares for new president California finds itself at odds with Trump on such issues as immigration, gun control and environmental protections. Click on the buttons below to explore the conflicting positions and how the state might oppose federal policies.
Healthcare
What Trump wants
The president-elect wants Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act immediately and offer a replacement plan “very quickly.” Neither he nor congressional Republicans have offered a clear vision for replacement legislation. Previous GOP proposals include halting federal dollars to expand state Medicaid, lifting the mandate to buy insurance, and ending subsidies that help people buy insurance on the health exchanges.
What California has
California is one of the most successful states in expanding health care coverage for its residents under the Affordable Care Act, and stands to lose the most if it is repealed. California has made more progress than other states in lowering the percentage of its population that is uninsured — from 17 percent to 9 percent between 2013 and 2015. The state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, has added 3.8 million people since January 2014, and 1.4 million people are enrolled in health plans through Covered California, the state’s insurance marketplace.
What could happen
People with insurance through Covered California and Medi-Cal should not see their coverage disrupted in 2017. But what happens afterward remains unclear. “I don’t see Covered California being able to function without the federal money,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “The federal dollars in the ACA make coverage more affordable for people and bring healthy people into the market. So the federal dollars keep the market stable and have enabled people to get insurance through Covered California.” If Republicans end federal funding for Medicaid expansion, Medi-Cal could lose $17 billion, a sixth of the program’s $100 billion budget, health care advocates estimate.
Environment
What Trump wants
Trump has said he favors clean air and clean water, but has nominated several Cabinet officers viewed with skepticism by environmentalists. They include former Exxon-Mobil chief Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, and, at the Environmental Protection Agency, former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier who sued the agency over regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration and Congress would have the power, if they chose, to weaken or abandon the Endangered Species Act and remove environmental protections for habitats.
What California has
California has the most ambitious climate regulations of any state, requiring a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. California also has burgeoning electric vehicle, battery and renewable fuel industries that add economic momentum toward reaching that goal. The state also has stronger protections than the U.S. for wildlife and their habitat — it bans lead bullets in hunting, for example, and outlaws coyote-killing contests and commercial trapping of bobcats.
What could happen
States have explicit authority to exceed federal environmental standards, said William Buzbee, a law professor at Georgetown University. “The fact that the proposed administrator for the EPA is likely to try to roll back climate progress doesn’t mean it happens automatically,” Buzbee said. “He would have to make the case based on law and science.” But California stands to lose a vital federal partner in its climate goals. Stanford University law Professor Michael Wara said the Trump administration may try to roll back strict new auto fuel-efficiency standards. If California wants to pursue stricter rules, as it traditionally has done on auto emissions, the state would have to ask the EPA for a waiver, leading to potential conflict with the administration. Environmental groups have repeatedly turned to the courts to strengthen wildlife protections and would probably return to the legal system if the U.S. attempts to weaken protections.
Immigration
What Trump wants
He plans to repeal President Obama’s executive order granting a reprieve from deportation to nearly 750,000 immigrants who entered the United States illegally before age 16. He has said he would cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with immigration agents. He plans to build a wall along the border with Mexico and says Mexico will pay for it. And he has discussed restricting the distribution of H-1B visas for high-skilled foreign workers, widely used in Silicon Valley.
What California has
The state pays for legal representation for children who entered the U.S. unaccompanied by adults. Newly introduced state legislation would fund legal representation for adult immigrants challenging deportation. State law makes driver’s licenses and in-state tuition at public colleges available to California residents regardless of immigration status. Many California cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose, have some type of sanctuary policy. The state law also prevents local governments from holding immigrants in jail for immigration agents. Construction projects in the state, including border walls, must comply with state environmental laws.
What could happen
Although immigration is governed by federal laws, state and local governments have some power “to protect immigrants in the Trump years,” said Stanford law Professor Jayashri Srikantiah. She said California could limit large-scale deportations by paying for legal representation and limiting cooperation with federal agents. Another immigration expert, Bill Ong Hing of the University of San Francisco, said state environmental laws were used a decade ago to slow construction of a border barrier in Texas and could be invoked again in California. Both agreed there’s not much the state can do to preserve H-1B visas, other than to lobby Congress.
Education
What Trump wants
Trump has called for redirecting $20 billion in federal dollars immediately toward creating programs that promote private-school vouchers and school choice to give parents alternatives to assigned public schools. He has not said where that money would come from, only that states would have to create alternative programs, such as magnet and charter schools, to get the dollars. Trump’s first step toward those goals was nominating charter school advocate and billionaire donor Betsy DeVos to be education secretary.
What California has
California’s powerful teachers union has fought the charter school movement, and it has a Legislature controlled by a supermajority of Democratic lawmakers who are union-friendly and not likely to approve public vouchers for students to attend private schools.
What could happen
If the new $20 billion pot takes money away from existing education programs, it could result in less money for schools in states like California that don’t offer vouchers or a robust charter school system. California public schools are expected to receive $7.5 billion in federal funds in fiscal 2017-18. Trump can’t eliminate the Common Core education standards initiative, as he has said he would like to do, because states have control over their academic standards. He could, however, borrow a tactic from the Obama administration, which enticed states to adopt the more rigorous Common Core standards by offering more federal funding. Trump, in turn, could offer federal funding for states to scrap the standards.
Gun control
What Trump wants
The president-elect has said governments have no business restricting types of guns that law-abiding citizens can own. He has also called for a national right-to-carry law that would allow gun owners with permits to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry those firearms legally into any state.
What California has
California has the strictest gun laws in the country, banning a long list of specific assault weapons from being sold or purchased in the state. California law gives county sheriffs and city police chiefs broad discretion when issuing concealed weapons permits.
What could happen
States can enact stricter gun laws than the federal government, but not if Congress passes a law specifically banning those restrictions, said Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. “Whenever Congress acts, it has to point to some power in the Constitution,” he said. If Congress wants to override states’ bans on certain firearms, it would likely point to the power to regulate commerce between states, Chemerinsky said. He said Congress could create a national concealed-carry law claiming the same power to regulate commerce, but he said he wasn’t sure it would withstand a legal challenge. UCLA law Professor Adam Winkler, an expert in constitutional law and Second Amendment rights, said, “We are likely to see legal challenges brought by California against new federal policies on guns.”
Transportation
What Trump wants
Trump pushes an “America’s Infrastructure First” policy that promises big investments in transportation but offers few details. The president-elect has spoken about the need to modernize rail systems and airports and repair crumbling highways. He said he wants to attract private investment to help pay for the work to avoid raising the federal deficit.
What California has
California has big needs. Highways need repairing, and rail systems, like Caltrain, need modernization along with airports and ports. It also needs to finish construction of the nation’s first high-speed rail system.
What could happen
A big test looms in March when Caltrain hopes to win a federal guarantee of $647 million in funding to electrify the commuter railroad that links San Francisco and Silicon Valley. “We’re going to find out quickly whether supporting a project in the San Francisco Bay Area is going to be something the Trump administration will do,” said John Goodwin, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional transportation planning and financing agency. Although Trump is expected to try a private-industry partnership to fund transportation projects, those types of arrangements usually work for things like airports and ports, not mass transit and transportation systems. “Could you rebuild La Guardia airport with private investment? Probably,” said Randy Rentschler, an MTC spokesman. “Can you relieve congestion in the Bay Area? No. Can you help BART? No. Ferries? No.” What California needs, he said, is federal grants of public funds for public projects.
Labor rights
What Trump wants
It’s hard to be sure. On the federal minimum wage alone, he opposed raising it from the current $7.50 an hour, called for boosting it to $10, and suggested dropping it altogether and letting each state set its own mark. Pick one. But Trump has played hardball with labor at some of his hotels, has been quick to pick fights with union leaders and said he might be willing to roll back an Obama administration rule allowing low-paid managers to collect overtime. His proposed labor secretary, Andrew Puzder, is CEO of a fast-food giant opposed to minimum wage boosts, and Trump gets two appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which will give it a GOP majority.
What California has
A law Gov. Jerry Brown signed last year boosted the minimum wage for larger businesses to $10.50 this year and, in stages, to $15 by 2022. Most public school teachers and government workers are unionized.
What could happen
Trump can’t overturn California’s minimum wage, but that doesn’t mean federal rules won’t have an effect, said Raymond Hogler, a professor of management at Colorado State University. A lower federal minimum wage “causes ripples in the economy, with maybe some employers looking to move to lower-wage states,” where the federal minimum is law, he said. And while California, with its labor-friendly Legislature, isn’t going to enact an antiunion right-to-work law as an increasing number of states are doing, “a national right- to-work bill gets introduced in Congress every year,” Hogler said. “One of these days there’s going to be enough support to pass it, and with Republicans in charge, maybe it’s this year.”
Energy
What Trump wants
Trump has promised to rescue the dwindling coal industry and also wants increased oil and gas drilling, making the U.S. independent of foreign oil supplies. He has pledged to back out of last year’s Paris climate accord and scuttle President Obama’s Clean Power Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
What California has
California gets just 6 percent of its electricity from coal, and state regulations effectively forbid utilities from signing new contracts with coal-fired plants. Similarly, California’s target of 50 percent renewable power by 2030 is enshrined in state law. California is home to much of the U.S. solar industry, which has benefited from the state’s climate-change laws and stood to gain business nationwide under the 2015 Clean Power Plan. The state also has 15.2 million acres of land under federal management, and some of that land contains oil. Offshore oil reserves in federal waters along the Southern California coast have been tapped for decades, but opposition from the state and its federal representatives has prevented expansion.
What could happen
Trump could open more federal land in California to oil and gas drilling, although the process takes time and would be hampered by relatively low oil prices. He could also reopen federal waters off the coast to new oil exploration and drilling, but only with a fight. To prevent such a move, Gov. Jerry Brown last month urged President Obama to impose a permanent ban on drilling off the California coast, but Obama has not acted on the request. “California has been careful to make sure our leadership is rooted in strong state legislation,” said Laura Wisland, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “On the electricity side, there isn’t much a Trump administration could change.”
— Catherine Ho • [email protected] • @Cat__Ho
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
Ballot measure could raise bridge tolls to fund transportation
By Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle December 14, 2016 Updated: December 15, 2016 4:27pm Christien Kafton has the report
Media: KTVU
Bay Area transportation officials are eyeing a regional ballot measure that could increase tolls on the Bay Bridge and other state-owned spans by as much as $3 to raise money for transportation projects.
At a workshop meeting Wednesday at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in San Francisco, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission discussed the notion of persuading the state Legislature to create Regional Measure 3 — a ballot measure to increase tolls — for voters’ consideration in 2018.
The ballot measure could also create a discount for drivers who pay their tolls with FasTrak, expand congestion-based tolling, now in use at the Bay Bridge, and charge an additional toll for trucks.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said the potential measure should direct funding to affordable housing, and bicycling advocates argued that it should pay for construction of a bike path on the west span of the Bay Bridge between Yerba Buena Island and San Francisco.
Bay Area transportation officials are eyeing a regional ballot measure that could increase tolls on the Bay Bridge and other state-owned spans by as much as $3.
At this point, Regional Measure 3 is little more than a vision. Unlike sales taxes or bond measures, counties can’t place a toll increase and spending plan on a ballot. That requires action by the Legislature, and the commission hopes to persuade lawmakers to grant them that authority in 2017.
Twice, legislators have allowed the commission to place regional toll measures on the ballot, and both times they’ve been approved by voters. In 1988, Regional Measure 1 raised $2 billion for transportation projects, including the widening or replacement of four toll bridges. In 2004, Regional Measure 2 raised $1.5 billion for projects, including the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore and Oakland Airport Connector, as well as $41 million per year to help cover transit operating costs. Randy Rentschler, MTC spokesman and legislative director, said the staff needs to know what the commission would like from a 2018 toll increase to allow it to lobby legislators in the coming year.
Commissioners took no votes but suggested they’d favor a toll increase of at least $3, perhaps coming in phases or all at once, depending on what polls indicate voters would approve. A $3 toll increase would raise an estimated $5 billion over 25 years compared with $3.3 billion from a $2 increase and $1.7 billion from a $1 boost.
“As much as we can get, as soon as we can get it,” said Commissioner Anne Halsted, echoing the sentiments of several others.
Commissioners also expressed interest in changing the toll rates to allow a FasTrak discount to encourage more drivers to pay tolls electronically. They also suggested expanding congestion tolls, now used at the Bay Bridge, either to other spans or by increasing the existing toll differential, now $2, to encourage more drivers to leave earlier or later or take transit.
Transportation funding, always hard to come by, has become even more scarce in recent years, driving metropolitan areas and transit agencies to come up with their own sources of revenue.
Despite pleas from Gov. Jerry Brown, state lawmakers have been unable to come up with a way to fund transportation improvements. Federal funding has nearly dried up, and with a change in the presidency in January, prospects are uncertain.
Michael Cabanatuan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @ctuan
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
BLOG OUTDOORS LEGISLATION BRIDGES PARTISAN DIVIDES RATE THIS STORY:
10 VOTES SO FAR MARC BEREJKA//DECEMB ER 14, 2016
For more than a month now, the headlines have highlighted the nation’s political rifts and how the divisions are likely to continue into next year despite calls for greater patience and healing. Lost in the noise is the fact that, in its closing weeks, Congress came together with overwhelming bipartisan support to enact two laws that promote outdoor recreation.
In a major milestone for the outdoor industry, Congress has directed the U.S. government to begin tabulating outdoor recreation’s economic impact. Under the so-called REC Act, the Bureau of Economic Analysis will assess how outdoor recreation generates jobs, contributes to GDP and creates other economic benefits across the country. President Obama signed the act into law on Dec. 8, 2016.
In another win for the outdoors, and in one of its last acts before adjourning, Congress also passed the National Park Service Centennial Act. The new law takes important steps toward reducing the National Park Service’s $12 billion maintenance backlog, including the creation of an endowment and a means to fund it. And it makes it easier for volunteers to pitch in with interpretive services and stewardship. REI Co-op Lends a Helping Hand to Advocate for Outdoor Legislation
The Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) launched the first-ever economic impact study in 2006, with support and input from the REI Co-op. OIA repeated the study in 2012, finding that outdoor recreation directly supports over 6 million jobs and generates almost $650B in annual consumer spending. Earlier this year, the Interior Department’s Secretary, Sally Jewell, announced that she had coordinated help from different agencies to run a pilot study from within the U.S. government. Now Congress has made the study mandatory.
REI is proud of our advocacy work in partnership with other outdoor brands, non-governmental organizations and the OIA to help make this happen. Legislating is painstaking, with thousands of bills introduced each year and relatively few passing. It’s particularly uncommon for a bill like the REC Act, which was only introduced last fall, to have been introduced and to unanimously become law just over a year later.
The bill went through without a single opposing vote. It’s a firm testament that the essence of #UnitedOutside rings true–the outdoors provides common ground. Unanimous Support for National Park Service Funding Stream
The National Park Service Centennial Act is another example of the outdoors’ unifying power, as the bill was coaxed along during the last several weeks by legislators working across the aisle, including Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
Here too, there was a good amount of collaborative advocacy on the part of industry, NGO partners and the REI Co-op. Similarly, most gratifying is the fact that, as the Senate wrapped up its work in the early hours of Dec. 10, the Centennial bill passed with unanimous consent.
As we head into 2017, it’s an understatement to say the political environment is unpredictable. Americans of all political stripes love the outdoors. Even in contentious times, the outdoors can bring our legislative ideas and advocacy together in ways that unite us. Any upcoming challenges, we hope, will also create new kinds of opportunities like these.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
US & World GOP pushing 3 bills in Congress to restrain federal regulations
By Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle January 9, 2017 Updated: January 9, 2017 7:14pm
Photo: Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, sits in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2017.
WASHINGTON — Freed from the constraint of a presidential veto, Republicans are moving rapidly on industry-backed legislation that could paralyze the government’s ability to protect the environment, public health and virtually everything else federal agencies regulate.
The onslaught began last week with a trio of House bills — two of them approved and sent to the Senate — that would gut the administrative process used for decades to implement the practical details of such landmark laws as the Food and Drug Act, the Clean Air Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The centerpiece of the Republican action was the REINS Act, which cleared the House on Friday, with an amendment that extended its reach to include all regulations adopted by federal agencies within the past 10 years. Approved on a largely party-line vote, it swiftly drew companion Senate legislation.
The act would require any rule costing industry more than $100 million — a dollar figure that amounts to any significant regulation — to be submitted to Congress. If either chamber fails to approve the rule within 70 days, the rule would die.
The rules could affect everything from food labeling and nutrition requirements for restaurants to performance standards for residential wood stoves and energy efficiency standards in grocery store coolers to banking and public health. One major rule adopted after the financial crisis requires banks to hold larger cash reserves. A 2014 rule cleans up tailpipe emissions from cars. A 2009 rule for the first time allowed regulation of tobacco.
The regulations result from acts of Congress, which approve laws such as the Clean Air Act or the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill, but leave the regulations that serve to implement the laws to experts in the federal agencies. As a practical matter, the Republican bills would shift regulatory power from executive branch agencies bound by scientific and legal protocols to the political realm of Congress.
“It’s really extreme,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, of the REINS Act, which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. “This would have the most profound effect on the environment, on consumer protection, on public health, and on the quality of life and the safety and security of the American people. It basically means it would be impossible for any conceivable regulation to ever take effect.” All but escaping public attention amid the battle over repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the REINS Act and the other two bills were among the first on the House agenda in its first week of what soon will be unified GOP control of the federal government.
The Midnight Rules Relief Act, which passed Thursday, would allow Congress to overturn — in one giant batch — all the regulations made final since May by the Obama administration.
Another, the Regulatory Accountability Act, is on deck for swift House passage this week and would add dozens of hurdles to the regulatory process, potentially grinding all future rule-making by federal agencies to a halt.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, said many regulations “are harmful to the American people, costing us time, money, and, most importantly, jobs.” The three laws are designed to address that by draining “the bureaucratic swamp that undermines the will of the people.”
But Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said academic studies show regulations are often a wash when it comes to jobs. He cited a recent rule limiting methane leaks from natural gas pipelines and other oil and gas operations. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.
“The methane rule is really a jobs bill,” he said. “It requires paying American workers who are essentially plumbers to plug leaks.”
The bills have the support of industry, which tends to chafe under federal regulation, but many environmental and public health groups say they will fight in the Senate to defeat them. They are particularly concerned about the REINS Act.
“It means that one body can completely hold up a safeguard that has been years in the making in response to an earlier law passed by Congress,” said Paul Billings, a top lobbyist for the American Lung Association, a patient advocacy and research group. “It grinds the administrative side of the federal government to a halt ... and completely undermines a process in place for over 200 years.” The amendment that expands the scope of the REINS Act was added by Rep. Steve King, a Tea Party-allied Iowa Republican. It would cover any rule issued by the Obama administration and the final two years of the George W. Bush administration.
Under King’s amendment, Congress would require every federal agency each year to submit 10 percent of its regulations adopted over the past decade. The agencies would have to do this for 10 years, until all their rules have been reviewed by Congress. Unless both chambers approve a rule, it would be discarded. In essence, agencies would face a Solomon’s choice of having to select which of their own rules to discard first.
The conservative Heritage Foundation and the political action committee Club for Growth support the REINS Act, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other industry groups. A prominent supporter is Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, a conservative group tied to Charles and David Koch.
Kerpen wrote in USA Today last month that he had secured a written promise from President-elect Donald Trump during the campaign to sign the act if it reaches his desk. Kerpen called the legislation a “profoundly simple, powerful bill that would require regulators and bureaucrats to get their most expensive rules approved by Congress before they could take effect.”
House Republicans have passed the REINS bill three times since 2011, but President Obama’s veto threat discouraged Senate action. The administration’s official veto statements used strong language to denounce the legislation as “unprecedented” and “radical.”
With Trump having promised in writing to sign such a bill, the Senate now appears much more eager to act. On Thursday, 27 GOP senators, led by Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, introduced a Senate version of the REINS bill.
The methane rule cited by Slesinger, along with a regulation limiting coal-mining companies from removing mountaintops near streams, and another that would extend eligibility for overtime pay to 4 million workers, may be top targets for elimination under the Midnight Rules Relief Act. The Midnight Rules bill would allow Congress to abolish recent rules in one big batch, without threat of a filibuster.
“Rather than having Congress vote on each specific rule, this would allow them to form a big Christmas tree of rules and have one up or down vote,” Billings said. “The whole idea is to obscure what they’re voting against. Rules to reduce pollution from oil and gas or other safeguards are hidden in one big regulatory vote.”
Carolyn Lochhead is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @carolynlochhead
Republican regulatory rollback Hundreds of existing public health, labor, environmental and other regulations could be eliminated, and future ones blocked, under three Republican bills now making their way through Congress.
For example, one of the bills, the Midnight Rules Reform Act, takes aim at three recent rules:
Overtime pay: This new Department of Labor rule would extend overtime pay requirements to 4.2 million American workers. President Obama ordered the department in 2014 to update the overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The new rule was set to take effect last month, but was blocked by a federal judge in Texas. Stream rule: The Interior Department has been working on a rule since 2009 to limit pollution of streams from coal mining that involves the removal of mountaintops. The regulation is set to take effect Jan. 19. The rule requires companies “to avoid mining practices that permanently pollute streams, destroy drinking water sources, increase flood risk, and threaten forests” and mandates restoration of areas already mined. Republicans and Democrats from coal-mining states call the rule part of the “war on coal.” Methane rule: The Environmental Protection Agency released its first-ever rule in May limiting emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, from new oil and gas operations. The agency also set in motion procedures to reduce emissions from existing operations. The goal is to reduce such emissions by 40 to 45 percent by 2012. Widely loathed by the oil and gas industry, the methane rule is a key element of Obama’s climate-change agenda.
Carolyn Lochhead Reporter
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
January 10, 2017
Chris Hoene on the Governor's Proposed Budget: "Federal Uncertainty Looms Large, While State Must Continue to Reinvest Over Long Term"
Earlier today, the California Budget & Policy Center issued the following statement from Executive Director Chris Hoene in response to this morning’s release of Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed 2017-18 budget:
"The deep uncertainty at the federal level looms large in Governor Brown's proposed budget. Although the Governor's proposal assumes that current federal policies, especially the Affordable Care Act, stay in place, this restrained spending plan positions California to respond to potential changes in federal programs and funding, such as for Medi-Cal and CalFresh food assistance, among others.
"Over the next several months, state budget deliberations will take place as the federal policy landscape comes into greater focus. It's critical not only that California's Congressional delegation seek to protect the social safety net, but also that our state lawmakers ensure that California continues to reinvest over the long term in education, child care, affordable housing, and other public services that help all individuals and families to make ends meet and advance economically. This is especially key at a time when millions of Californians continue to face hardship, even amid our state's recent period of economic expansion."
In the coming days, the Budget Center will publish its "first look" analysis of the proposed 2017-18 budget, highlighting key provisions and their implications.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
Obama’s Government Land Grabs Have Been Historic
Posted by Aleister Friday, January 6, 2017 at 7:00am Three times the size of Texas.
Obama’s decision to designate a large area of land in Utah as a national monument generated a small number of headlines last week.
What many people don’t realize is that this has been going on throughout Obama’s presidency and that the amount of land and water he has claimed for the federal government is massive.
MRCTV reports:
Obama Seized Enough Land and Water in 8 Years to Cover Texas Three Times
In a move ignored by the liberal media last week, Obama unilaterally seized more than 1.3 million acres from Utah to establish the Bears Ears Monument, preserving it at the behest of conservationist groups and Native American tribes who claimed the land was sacred. Utah’s state legislature, however, opposed the unilateral land grab across party lines, with many speculating that Obama’s move is the latest in an attempt to limit efforts from incoming President Donald Trump to expand domestic energy production.
Obama also claimed 300,000 acres in Clark County, Nevada, as the Gold Butte National Monument, effectively closing the area off to future development for uranium mining, oil drilling or natural gas production.
While it’s certainly nothing new, Obama’s habit of unilaterally confiscating land has ramped up heading into the final stretch of his presidency. In the eight years he’s been in office, President Obama has seized more than 553 million acres of land and water (roughly 865,000 square miles) and placed it under federal ownership and control – enough square mileage to cover the entire state of Texas more than three times over.
Why isn’t this big news? Is it because the liberal media likes big government and knows if more people knew this they would be alarmed? Possibly. Somehow I have a feeling a Republican president would have been called out for something like this:
Wielding the Antiquities Act of 1906, Obama has seized vast swaths of land and water for the federal government a total of 29 times, claiming more than 260 million acres as federally-protected spaces in 2016 alone (including a more than 100-million-acre plot in Alaska that amounts to the size of New Mexico).
As I mentioned, this is nothing new. In fact, Michelle Malkin has been sounding the alarm bell on this very subject since as early as 2010:
How Obama is locking up our land
Have you heard of the “Great Outdoors Initiative”? Chances are, you haven’t. But across the country, White House officials have been meeting quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land. It’s another stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life.
In April, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his “21st century strategy for America’s great outdoors.” It was addressed to the Interior Secretary, the Agriculture Secretary, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The memo calls on the officials to conduct “listening and learning sessions” with the public to “identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government” to “protect” outdoor spaces. Eighteen of 25 planned sessions have already been held. But there’s much more to the agenda than simply “reconnecting Americans to nature.”
The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly one of every three acres in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region.
Read the rest here.
Going forward, we won’t have the problem of not hearing about things like this.
As they’ve already shown, the media will report everything Trump does with breathless panic.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
How Obama is locking up our land By Michelle Malkin • August 14, 2010 08:44 AM
Waving goodbye to property rights… My column today raises bright red flags about a little-noticed, radical green land grab program underway at the White House called the “Great Outdoors Initiative.” Keep in mind my previous coverage of Obama’s War on the West and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s job destruction. The War on the West is a war on property rights, a war on the economy, and a war on the American way of life. *** How Obama is locking up our land by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2010 Have you heard of the “Great Outdoors Initiative”? Chances are, you haven’t. But across the country, White House officials have been meeting quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land. It’s another stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life. In April, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his “21st century strategy for America’s great outdoors.” It was addressed to the Interior Secretary, the Agriculture Secretary, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The memo calls on the officials to conduct “listening and learning sessions” with the public to “identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government” to “protect” outdoor spaces. Eighteen of 25 planned sessions have already been held. But there’s much more to the agenda than simply “reconnecting Americans to nature.” The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly one of every three acres in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.” Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages. The Democrats have also included a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters, which provoked an outcry from Texas state officials, who sent a letter of protest to Capitol Hill last month: “In light of federal failures, it is incomprehensible that the United States Congress is entertaining proposals that expand federal authority over oil and gas drilling in state water and lands long regulated by states… Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state land and waters not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environmental and economy security of our state’s citizens.” This power grab, masquerading as a feel-good, all-American recreation program, comes on top of a separate, property-usurping initiative exposed by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop and Sen. Jim DeMint earlier this spring. According to an internal, 21-page Obama administration memo, 17 energy-rich areas in 11 states have been targeted as potential federal “monuments.” The lives of coyotes, deer and prairie dogs would be elevated above states’ needs to generate jobs, tourism business and energy solutions. Take my home state of Colorado. The Obama administration is considering locking up some 380,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and private land in Colorado under the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Vermillion Basin and the Alpine Triangle would be shut off to mining, hunting, grazing, oil and gas development and recreational activities. Alan Foutz, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, blasted the administration’s meddling: “Deer and elk populations are thriving, and we in Colorado don’t need help from the federal government in order to manage them effectively.” Indeed, the feds have enough trouble as it is managing the vast amount of land they already control. As the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Limited Government group, which defends private property rights, points out: “The (National Park Service) claims it would need about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs. At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, it doesn’t make sense for the federal government to grab new lands.” The bureaucrats behind Obama’s “Great Outdoors Initiative” plan on wrapping up their public comment solicitation by November 15. The initiative’s taxpayer-funded website has been dominated by left-wing environmental activists proposing human population reduction, private property confiscation, and gun bans, hunting bans and vehicle bans in national parks. It’s time for private property owners to send their own loud, clear message to the land- hungry feds: Take a hike.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
California's budget deficit is back, Gov. Jerry Brown says
Less than four years after declaring California’s budget was balanced for the foreseeable future, Gov. Jerry Brown on Jan. 10 said the state is now projected to run a $1.6-billion deficit by next summer. (Jan. 10, 2017)
John Myers Contact Reporter
Less than four years after declaring California’s budget balanced for the foreseeable future, Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday said the state is projected to run a $1.6-billion deficit by next summer — a noticeable shift in the state’s fiscal stability that could worsen under federal spending cuts championed by President-elect Donald Trump.
“The trajectory of revenue growth is declining,” Brown said in unveiling his $179.5- billion plan for the fiscal year that begins in July.
ADVERTISING
The governor’s sober assessment comes on the heels of several months of lagging tax revenue collections, a change in the state’s fortunes that could stifle his fellow Democrats’ call for additional spending and give fuel to Republican demands for additional cuts.
Brown’s budget advisors lowered the official tax revenue forecast, in part, because of slower than expected growth in wages. They also reduced expectations for sales and corporate taxes because of broader national trends.
Brown proposed to address the deficit primarily by slowing the growth in spending on public schools by $1.7 billion, a change that brings funding down to the minimum required by formulas enshrined in California’s Constitution. The governor also proposed scrapping $1.5 billion worth of spending ideas left over from last year’s budget negotiations, including higher subsidies for child-care programs and awarding new college scholarships to California students from middle-class families.
“To manage unreliability requires prudence,” Brown said of his decisions to address the projected budget shortfall.
The governor’s fiscal blueprint is the ceremonial first pitch in Sacramento’s annual budget writing season, and, as such, the details will shift in coming months to address changing fiscal conditions. That could include any effort by the nation’s ruling Republicans to rethink any of the $105 billion in federal funding promises the state expects to receive for a variety of services.
The most consequential of those is the $16.1-billion subsidy for Medi-Cal, the program offering healthcare to the state’s most needy, provided through the Affordable Care Act. Those funds have helped the state add more than 3.8 million people to the Medi-Cal system, a network of providers that reaches one in every three Californians. Republican leaders in Congress and the president-elect have vowed to repeal the law championed by President Obama, though they have yet to identify when or how that will happen. That uncertainty is why Brown’s new budget plan does not officially lay out a path forward, though the governor made it clear on Tuesday that he thinks GOP leaders should rethink their political promises in regard to Obamacare.
“That’s very bold and, I think, a move that isn’t very consistent with decency,” the governor said Tuesday.
He also offered national leaders some advice as they weigh the merits of various federal subsidies.
“I don’t think this country needs any more divisive kinds of moves that divide the poor and the rich, split the middle class and all those other things that will be the result if the rhetorical thrust, as suggested in the last few weeks, becomes the operational reality in Washington,” Brown said.
Gov. Jerry Brown often gets his way when it comes to tax revenue forecasts, and that's a big deal »
But the governor offered a dash of his own brand of raw politics Tuesday by asking legislators to approve an extension of California’s system for buying and trading greenhouse gas pollution credits. That cap-and-trade program faces an uncertain future beyond 2020, as business groups have challenged its legality in court.
On Tuesday, Brown proposed that the Legislature officially reauthorize the program — which would require a supermajority vote in both houses — and hinted that he might otherwise block the spending of $2.2 billion in proceeds from the auctions of those credits.
"Given the fact that the federal government is going in the opposite direction,” Brown said of the climate change debate, “I would think that Californians want to strengthen their own commitment.”
Advocates for social services, though, saw the budget plan as lacking any new strength for the state’s most needy.
"This is just a very conservative budget that really doesn't do anything to reduce poverty in the state of California,” said Mike Herald of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, who pointed to a lack of new money for welfare assistance efforts or affordable housing.
The governor’s budget also offers less than expected for backers of Proposition 56, last year’s tobacco tax increase earmarked to boost healthcare funding. While Brown pegs the tax’s infusion of new money at $1.2 billion, it is offset by overall sagging tax revenues, and therefore, unlikely to boost the reimbursement rates sought by doctors who treat Medi-Cal patients.
Democrats, in general, sounded positive notes about the governor’s proposal. One key source of early criticism, though, was his plan to phase out the scholarships offered to middle-class students attending University of California and Cal State campuses. The budget proposes to renew scholarships for 37,000 current recipients but offers no new assistance beyond that.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) said the plan, coupled with proposed tuition increases, would be unfair.
“We must work to keep college affordable for California students,” he said, “and I will not support burdening them with higher fees and greater student debt.”
In all, Brown’s budget continues a long trend toward allowing additional spending while restraining the political desires of Democrats to do more. And while it doesn’t spell out a specific need to respond to changes pushed by Trump and congressional Republicans that are on the horizon, the governor made clear that all budget decisions in Sacramento are in some way subject to the national debate.
“That’s why we’re going to have to hold on to our hat here,” he said. “It’s going to be a rough ride.” [email protected]
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
Texas was Obama's chief antagonist. In Trump's America, California is eager for the part
Jazmine Ulloa and Melanie Mason
Contact Reporters
In the early morning hours after Donald Trump became president-elect of the United States, California Senate leader Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon were on the phone grappling with what comes next.
Trump’s upset victory left the two Democrats reeling. They saw the incoming administration as an existential threat to the progressive work they accomplished in the nation’s most populous state. By midday Wednesday, they released a combative statement vowing to defend those strides.
"We are not going to allow one election to reverse generations of progress,” they said.
Other California leaders rushed to join Rendon and De León in setting up the state as a liberal counterweight to Trump, laying the groundwork for four years of battles with Washington.
A forgotten mortgage stimulus program that was passed by Obama to help the middle class Americans reduce their monthly payments by as much as $4,264 each year.
See More Now, the circumstance in which California finds itself recalls that of a perennial rival: Texas playing the role of chief antagonist to President Obama.
That brand of resistance — a barrage of lawsuits seeking to stymie Obama’s priorities, and an elevation of state identity over a national one — may be a model, albeit an imperfect one, for California leaders wondering where the state fits into Trump’s America. But taking a pugnacious posture would be relatively out of character for a state that in recent times has not tended to view federal power with hostility.
“I think it’s important to think about what California will do if this is a systematic and deeply conservative administration, pushing it in directions it doesn’t want to go,” said Cal Jillson, a political analyst and professor at Southern Methodist University. “Taking a lesson from Texas and learning from the Texas strategy when it feels it is going the wrong way could be wise.”
California Gov. Jerry Brown, left, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), center, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount)., (AP)
Trump’s victory immediately put California in a defensive crouch, as leaders took stock of policies that could be threatened under a new administration. A repeal of the Affordable Care Act could put in jeopardy the state’s dramatic rise in residents with coverage. The unprecedented rights extended to immigrants in the country illegally — including deportation relief — is at odds with the president-elect’s vow to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities.
The vast intersection of state and federal policy on healthcare, welfare programs and the environment means the Trump administration’s influence could reverberate throughout California.
Concern over the possible repercussions was particularly acute for Rendon and De León, who as Latinos saw Trump’s win as a personal affront and a danger to the constituents of their immigrant-dense Los Angeles districts.
“These are the big questions that are on the table,” De León said in an interview. “Will there be draconian cuts that impact lunches for senior citizens? That impact quality childcare for single mothers? There are a lot of things that folks have not considered.”
Gov. Jerry Brown, who had joked before the election that California may need a wall built around it in the event of a Trump win, emphasized unity in his first public comments on the election results — complete with a nod to President Abraham Lincoln.
Promising that California will strive to “find common ground wherever possible,” he also pointedly vowed to protect the “precious rights of our people” and to continue to work to combat climate change, which the incoming president has called a hoax.
Other Democratic leaders have struck a more strident note. Secretary of State Alex Padillalambasted Trump advisors Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach as “direct threats to American liberty, multiculturalism and equal opportunity.” California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday called for state-funded colleges and universities to commit to being "sanctuary campuses" to shield students without legal status from deportation.
Rendon said in an interview he was not necessarily spoiling for a fight with the new administration, but relished the prospect of guarding existing state policies.
“If the president tries to inhibit what we've been trying to do, I'm more than happy to be antagonistic toward him,” he said. “I would welcome that.”
Analysis: For reeling Democrats, now what? » The Assembly speaker also said he’s been ruminating on “what it means to be an American versus what it means to be a Californian.”
One presidential election cannot erase our values, ideals, and diversity as a nation — but only if we come together and FIGHT.
The telling distinction echoes the robust sense of identity in Texas, which is heavily invested in its own origin tale as an independent republic skeptical of government overreach.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry famously mused on the prospect of seceding from the nation, although he never endorsed the possibility. In the wake of Trump’s win, a movement for a California secession — termed “Calexit” — enjoyed a burst of publicity.
Just as Californians swiftly signaled opposition to the incoming Trump administration, Texans were once quick to disagree with President Obama.
Republican officials in the Lone Star State took a hard anti-Washington, anti-federal government stance soon after Obama entered office. They blocked polices from what they called an overbearing federal government, unfunded mandates and burdensome regulations, using litigation, legislation and actions by state executive agencies.
It was not uncommon for state officials whose duties were not directly affected by the Obama initiatives to chime in, creating a chorus of opposition.
Leticia Van de Putte, a Democrat and former Texas representative, called it the “‘distrustful loyal’ playbook.”
“It was all sue, stall or absolutely refuse to have the conversation,” Van de Putte said.
Among the most useful tools was the court system: The state of Texas sued the Obama administration more than 45 times on healthcare, immigration, climate change and transgender bathroom policies, among other issues.
Former Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott filed more than 30 of those lawsuits, and boasted about it on the campaign trail for governor.
"I go into the office, I sue the federal government and I go home," he told the Associated Press. “From day one, Greg Abbott started filing lawsuits,” recalled Gilberto Hinojosa, chair of the Texas Democratic party. “He was not always very successful, but in some areas he was.”
The legal challenges often tested when federal laws preempt state laws and the limits of executive power.
The most recent success came this year, when a split U.S. Supreme Court halted an executive order from Obama that would have granted permanent legal status to millions of immigrants brought into the country as children. Texas also made strides against regulations over air quality, greenhouse gases and carbon emissions from power plants.
Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott has been elected governor. (David J. Phillip / Associated Press)
Abbott and Republican leaders billed themselves as defending the rights of Texans and opposed the government at every turn, mobilizing a coalition of Republican attorneys general in other states to oppose the Obama administration.
Earlier this year, in an attempt to fuel a national debate over states’ rights, Abbott also called for a constitutional convention to diminish the federal government’s power over economic regulation and other issues.
“It didn’t really catch fire, and now with a Republican administration those words will never cross his lips ever again,” said Bill Miller, a Republican political consultant in Texas. But if California seeks to emulate the Texas strategy, which the GOP used successfully to rally its base, Miller said, it must follow “a litigation model.” “It is going to be a legal fight, and you need to do it consistently throughout the presidency," he said.
With much of the battle waged in the courts, the extent of California’s combativeness will be determined by who will be the state’s next attorney general. Under Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, the newly elected U.S. senator, the state Department of Justice is currently analyzing how Trump may impact California in immigration, civil rights, healthcare, the environment and consumer protections.
De León has urged the governor, who has the authority to appoint Harris’ successor, to pick a new attorney general that will aggressively protect existing state policies. A spokesman for Brown has said the goal of finding “the best possible candidate” has not changed with the election results.
The state Senate also plans to hire its own outside counsel for guidance on how to fend off unfriendly directives from Trump, according to a legislative source.
But whether California can follow the Texas playbook and lead a mass resistance against the federal government remains to be seen.
“Texas’ approach has been to challenge the federal government so that Texas can go its own way,” said Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler. “What will be interesting to watch is whether California will be seeking to go its own way, or whether California will be seeking to reorientate or guide the policies of the nation.” [email protected] [email protected]
@jazmineulloa
@melmason
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
Interior nominee disputes Trump on climate change
By Matthew Daly January 17, 2017
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s choice to head the Interior Department on Tuesday rejected the president-elect’s claim that climate change is a hoax, saying it is indisputable that environmental changes are affecting the world’s temperature and human activity is a major reason.
“I don’t believe it’s a hoax,” Rep. Ryan Zinke told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at his confirmation hearing.
“The climate is changing; man is an influence,” the Montana Republican said. “I think where there’s debate is what that influence is and what can we do about it.”
Trump has suggested in recent weeks he’s keeping an open mind on the issue and may reconsider a campaign pledge to back away from a 2015 Paris agreement that calls for global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
In contradicting Trump, Zinke cited Glacier National Park in his home state as a prime example of the effects of climate change, noting that glaciers there have receded in his lifetime and even from one visit to the next.
Still, he told Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt., that there is debate about how much humans have influenced the climate.
Likely to win Senate confirmation, Zinke, 55, sketched out a variety of purposes for the nation’s vast federal lands, from hiking, hunting, fishing and camping to harvesting timber and mining for coal and other energy sources. The Interior Department and other U.S. agencies control almost a third of land in the West and even more of the underground “mineral estate” that holds vast amounts of coal, oil and natural gas.
An admirer of President Theodore Roosevelt, Zinke said management of federal lands should be done under a “multiple-use” model set forth by Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
Zinke also pledged to tackle an estimated $12 billion backlog in maintenance and repair at national parks, saying parks and other public lands should be a key part of Trump’s infrastructure improvement plan.
Matthew Daly is an Associated Press writer.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VIII January 27, 2017
Obama’s Southern California legacy: Land preservation efforts may outweigh social reform
By Jeff Horseman, The Press-Enterprise
Posted: 01/17/17, 5:36 PM PST | Updated: 6 hrs ago 0 Comments
President Barack Obama made his mark in Southern California through his presence and policies.
As Obama, America’s 44th president, leaves office after eight years in the White House, some parts of his legacy, such as preserving vast swaths of wilderness as national monuments, will endure for generations. Other efforts, including his push for health care and immigration reform, are either on shaky ground or never took flight.
“He started with hope and change,” said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “He finishes with frustration and disappointment.”
Obama leaves office with the economy in strong shape, according to various indicators. “But economic growth has been sluggish,” Pitney said.
“Despite the administration’s efforts, the census supplemental policy measure still shows that California has the nation’s highest poverty rate.”
The president enjoyed far greater popularity in California than the rest of the nation. Public opinion polls in this heavily Democratic state consistently gave him high marks, and he easily won California’s 55 electoral votes in 2008 and 2012.
“Obama benefited tremendously from the contrast (in policy stances) with Republicans,” said Dan Schnur, a political scientist at USC.
“He might not have been as aggressive on immigration reform or environmental policy as many of his supporters would have liked. But Republicans presented him with such a perfect foil, he was able to use that contrast to his benefit.”
Obama’s legacy may be realized in the future leaders he’s inspired, said Marcia Godwin, an associate professor of public administration at the University of La Verne.
“I personally know several young people who ran for local office after getting involved in Obama for America,” she said. “They really took to heart Obama’s message of hope and change.”
The nation’s first black president wasn’t a stranger to Southern California. He frequently visited the region, especially to raise money for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton at private fundraisers hosted by Hollywood’s elite.
Obama also made frequent trips to the Coachella Valley, using the Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage to meet with world leaders and host a summit with heads of state from Southeast Asian countries.
He also mixed in rounds of golf with lifelong friends. The Obamas’ first post-presidential trip will be to Palm Springs, according to the celebrity news website TMZ, and there are unconfirmed reports the family has bought a house in Rancho Mirage.
One of Obama’s most poignant visits came in December 2015, when Air Force One touched down in San Bernardino so the president and first lady could personally express their condolences to families whose loved ones died in the San Bernardino terror attack.
New monuments
The most lasting acts of Obama’s presidency in Southern California could be his preservation of millions of acres of pristine land through his creation of national monuments in the Mojave Desert and San Gabriel Mountains.
Using his power under the Antiquities Act, the president bypassed stalled legislation in Congress to create the Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow and Castle Mountains national monuments in February 2016. Two years earlier, he created the 541-square-mile San Gabriel Mountains National Monument.
The moves delighted environmentalists, who worried the lands would be spoiled by wind and solar energy development but angered off-road enthusiasts and others who now face restricted access to monument land.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced the expansion of the California Coastal and Cascade- Siskiyou national monuments.
Clean energy
Under Obama, several large-scale solar energy projects were built in the California deserts to combat climate change. In his first year, the Obama administration sought approvals for 23 alternative energy projects for public lands in southwestern states.
In San Bernardino County near the Nevada border, the 5.6-square-mile Ivanpah Solar Power Facility began operating at the end of 2013.
In early 2014, the three-square-mile Genesis project went into operation about 25 miles west of Blythe in Riverside County. It was followed by the massive Desert Sunlight, McCoy and Blythe projects, all in Riverside County.
Several projects generated controversy. The Ivanpah project destroyed habitat that was home to the desert tortoise, a species threatened with extinction. And birds that flew too close to the plant’s towers caught on fire.
The Genesis project destroyed what local tribes believe was the sacred site of an ancient lakeside village site. And opponents of Desert Sunlight said it was built too close to Joshua Tree National Park.
On the air-quality front, the Obama administration in 2015 approved a tougher health standard for ozone, the pollutant linked to Southern California’s summer smog.
Immigration
The failure to overhaul America’s immigration system might be one of Obama’s biggest regrets. It’s a key issue in California, home to more than 10 million immigrants. An estimated 2.7 million of them are undocumented.
In 2012, Obama announced executive action to shield from deportation hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Roughly 750,000 undocumented immigrants, about a third of whom are in California, received deportation deferrals through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Obama sought to expand DACA in 2014, but that effort was blocked in federal court. President-elect Donald Trump could undo DACA once he takes office.
While Obama sought immigration reform, he also was known as the nation’s deporter-in-chief. More than 2 million people were deported during his presidency, more than any other president in history.
Health care
Unlike other more Republican states, California embraced Obama’s Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
Roughly 1.4 million Californians have enrolled for private health insurance plans through Covered California, and the exchange is credited with boosting enrollment for Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for the poor that covers more than 12 million people.
Covered California’s fate is uncertain with the GOP determined to repeal Obamacare. It’s unclear what might take its place, with Trump recently telling The Washington Post: “We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
Staff Writer David Danelski contributed to this report.