OMB Watch | Promoting open government, accountability, and citizen participation since 1983

Friday Appropriations Update

As noted in a Watcher article earlier this week, with Congress' August recess around the corner, the appropriations process is picking up steam. Or, should I say, it should be picking up steam. I'll let our patented AppropriationsWatch™ do the talking (click to enlarge):

That's a lot of red, and in this case red means unpassed appropriations bills. This time last year, the House had passed eleven bills, the Senate two. This year, that many bills haven't even been voted on by a full appropriations committee. Yikes.

There is a lot of work to do before the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. I guess, for accuracy's sake, I should have titled this post: "Get Ready for Continuing Resolutions and One Hell of an Omnibus."

(Sam Rosen-Amy 07/30/10; 2 comments)

AU Asks IRS to Investigate Oklahoma Group for Electioneering Against Transgender Candidate

Last Week, Americans United for Separation of Church and State urged the IRS to investigate an Oklahoma religious organization for violating federal law prohibiting tax-exempt groups from electioneering.

Americans United claims that Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, a tax-exempt organization, sent out an e-mail urging those on its email distribution list to support Rep. Sally Kern in her reelection campaign for the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

In an excerpt of the email highlighted in Americans United's press release, Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ uses homophobic language to tell followers to support Rep. Kern over transgender candidate Brittany Novotny.

Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United, said in a press release that "Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ can’t be tax exempt and engage in partisan politicking at the same time. If the group wants to help Sally Kern or other candidates get elected, it must first forgo tax-exempt status."

(Lateefah Williams* 07/30/10; 0 comments)

EPA Rejects Challenge to Climate Change Finding

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 29 denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 finding that climate change caused by greenhouse gases poses a threat to human health and the environment. EPA made the endangerment finding in response to a 2007 Supreme Court case that held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and are therefore subject to regulation by EPA.

The petitions, filed by GOP attorneys general from Texas and Virginia, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other conservative groups, alleged that the endangerment finding was based on faulty science, and that attempts to regulate greenhouse gases would be harmful to the economy. The petitions were in large part focused on the groups’ claim that stolen emails from climate scientists revealed a conspiracy to cover up evidence that could call into question the science behind climate change.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson shot back at these allegations in a strongly worded statement announcing EPA’s decision. “The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” said Jackson. “Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”

Environmental groups have hailed EPA’s decision. “Today, the EPA took the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other climate deniers to school,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. “Lisa Jackson’s announcement demonstrates once again the undeniable scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants to climate change and public health issues.” But opponents to greenhouse gas regulation are still attacking EPA on all fronts. Industry groups have filed a barrage of lawsuits against EPA’s efforts to protect public health from greenhouse gases, and members of Congress have made numerous attempts to pass legislation that would limit or overturn the finding.

The most recent of these attacks comes once again from Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who earlier this week proposed an amendment to a small business bill that would delay regulation of greenhouse gases for two years. Last month, Murkowski tried and failed to pass a resolution that would have overturned the endangerment finding entirely. It is unlikely that Murkowski’s latest effort to block the rule will succeed. Even if the proposed amendment survives, any attempt to suspend greenhouse gas regulations will be met by a veto, a White House official said last week.

(Rachel Sauter* 07/30/10; 0 comments)

EPA Pushing Pollution Data Out to Public with New Tools, Earliest TRI Release Ever

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week released the preliminary 2009 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, the earliest data release in the history of the program. The TRI program tracks toxic pollution from thousands of facilities nationwide and is considered one of the most successful environmental programs and a cornerstone of environmental right to know. The preliminary data are now available for the public to download and analyze, maintaining TRI as a vital tool for holding businesses accountable for their pollution and driving changes to prevent pollution.

TRI requires facilities from a broad range of industries to estimate and report to EPA how much toxic pollution they released into the air, water, and land, or transferred offsite. The early release of data in a downloadable "raw" format is an important and now hopefully permanent enhancement to the program. EPA must now dive in to the data and perform its own analyses, while fixing reporting errors and adding late submissions. The agency expects to release its "National Analysis" of the data in December.

The agency should work to identify and explain disturbing pollution trends. For example, what communities have seen steady increases in highly toxic releases, and why? What facilities have greatly increased their releases, and why? Much of this deeper investigation requires EPA to actually call up the facilities and ask them about what they reported – a perk available to a regulator that is hard for a nongovernmental researcher or regular citizen to replicate.

Top polluting facilities and industries should be prominently highlighted. Localities that suffer the greatest from toxic releases should be identified and the sources of the pollution named. The EPA analyses should combine TRI data with various other sets of information, such as biomonitoring data and public health statistics like the location of cancer clusters or high asthma rates. These in depth analyses place the data into a broader context and arm the public and policymakers with the information needed to deal with environmental and public health problems.

The EPA should also explain why the number of facilities reporting to the program has consistently declined for the last several years and identify what enforcement actions are needed, if any.

There are numerous other opportunities to improve TRI, and the agency draws attention to one of them by noting that the BP oil spill will not be reported to TRI. The oil and natural gas extraction industry is exempt from reporting to TRI – just one of many regulatory free rides Big Oil has finagled from our policy makers. Many other industries also get to hide their pollution, as well, such as factory farms, sewage treatment facilities, airlines, and shipping. EPA should take immediate steps to add polluting industry sectors to TRI. A similar expansion of the list of chemicals covered by the program is also overdue.

New Tools
The agency recently added new tools for the public to analyze TRI information. myRight-to-Know is a versatile new Web application designed for mobile devices that uses technology that would be very accessible to anyone familiar with Google maps.

According to the agency:

In addition to helping mobile users locate and identify nearby facilities, the tool helps answer such questions as:
• What chemicals are released to the air, water and land?
• What health effects are associated with the chemicals released?
• What is the facility's history of compliance with U.S. environmental laws?

EPA is boldly moving into newer technologies in a valuable effort to reach citizens using tools that are versatile and the public is comfortable with. To access the test version of the myRight-To-Know application, visit m.epa.gov/myrtk from your mobile or desktop device (sorry - not yet available for Internet Explorer). EPA is still testing the program and public feedback is encouraged.

The EPA also released the TRI Chemical Hazard Information Profiles (TRI-CHIP), a searchable database containing hazard information on TRI chemicals. If you ever wondered what was so bad about the benzene the refinery across the river has been spewing into the air, TRI-CHIP can hook you up with all the frightening details. TRI-CHIP may be a bit too technical for some, but the data are valuable and well worth getting to know.

The new tools and earlier release of data are valuable enhancements to TRI and well serve the public's right to know about what dangerous substances they and their environment are forced to endure. EPA should simultaneously work to keep TRI relevant by expanding and adapting it to provide more information on the toxic threats we face.

(Brian Turnbaugh* 07/30/10; 2 comments)

SIGIR: Pentagon Flushed Iraqi Funds down Toilet with Alarming Efficiency

On Tuesday, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released a devastating report on the Department of Defense's (DOD) control of Iraqi reconstruction funds. SIGIR reviewed the Pentagon's control of the funds from 2004 to 2007 and found that DOD could not account for 96 percent of the $9.1 billion it received during that time.

Will this make the Iraqi people like us more or less?

A majority of the money was made up of profits from the sale of Iraqi natural resources, such as oil and natural gas, as well as frozen Iraqi assets. The Coalitional Provisional Authority (CPA) created an account – the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) – in May 2003 to house the funds, which were to go towards reconstruction activities "in a transparent manner for the benefit of the people of Iraq." After the CPA dissolved in June 2004, oversight of the DFI went to DOD, which controlled the fund until December 2007, when the Iraqi government withdrew its authority for control.

According to SIGIR, the Pentagon did not give guidance to its surrogates on awarding contracts using DFI funds, which created a variety of disbursement methods. Some organizations simply mixed the Iraqi money in with U.S. reconstruction funds; others added task orders onto existing contracts paid for through U.S. money. This has prevented the Pentagon from closing out some of these reconstruction contracts, leaving the question open as to whether the U.S. government or the Iraqi government is liable for paying any outstanding invoices.

SIGIR also found that DOD did not enforce adequate financial and management controls on the disbursement of the money, which "left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss." The weak controls left few records to help determine the path of the monies, so in many cases the Pentagon can't tell how much of these funds were actually expended or, if they were, what they went for.

The chance of misuse is higher than zero. As SIGIR noted in their report, "The vulnerability of not having proper financial and management controls over these types of funds was demonstrated in a 2005 SIGIR report addressing paying agent activities in the South-Central Region of Iraq." In that case, U.S. government officials could not account for over $96 million, and after a criminal investigation, SIGIR charged eight individuals with offenses including bribery, fraud, and money laundering. We'll see what happens with this latest case.

Image by Flickr user mugley used under a Creative Commons license.

(Gary Therkildsen 07/29/10; 0 comments)

Senate Committee Approves Leaving Millions at Unnecessary Risk

Yesterday the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) failed to take action to protect the public, instead choosing to let millions of Americans remain at unnecessary risk of chemical disasters. The committee members chose to gut a House-passed bill that would have reduced the consequences of a terrorist attack on chemical plants and water treatment facilities. The committee also refused to consider a similar bill from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Both the House bill and the Lautenberg bill would have protected workers and communities by driving the adoption of safer, cost effective technologies that eliminate the threat of an intentionally released cloud of poison gas from a chemical plant.

Almost nine years after terrorists made a mockery of conventional security measures on 9/11, the HSGAC senators continue to do the chemical industry's bidding and block measures that would actually eliminate threats. In a unanimous vote, the committee extended for three years an existing, wholly inadequate chemical security program now housed at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This existing program exempts approximately 2,400 drinking water and wastewater treatment plants and about 500 port facilities, including 125 of 150 U.S. refineries. The current program prohibits DHS from requiring specific security measures, including the adoption of safer technologies that hundreds of facilities have already adopted to eliminate risk. Along with these and many other weaknesses, the current program also is devoid of any meaningful accountability measures that would help ensure the program actually did what little it is required to do.

Despite committee chairman Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) flaccid and disingenuous statement of concern, he and his committee ignored these problems – and ignored the estimated 110 million people whose security is at risk – and voted for the three-year extension proposed by ranking member Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

It seems clear that the members of HSGAC would rather wait until a chemical disaster sends dozens, hundreds, or even tens of thousands of people to hospitals and morgues before they will act to eliminate unnecessary risks from chemical plants and water treatment facilities.

Little has been learned by the committee from the BP oil spill. Worst case scenarios do happen. The best way to prepare for a worst case scenario at a chemical or water plant is to eliminate the threat wherever possible. Both the House bill and Sen. Lautenberg's bill would have pushed companies to assess safer technologies and, where feasible and cost effective, required the most dangerous facilities to implement the technologies that the facilities themselves had identified.

We have criticized the Lautenberg legislation and the House bill for a dangerous lack of transparency and accountability. However, the existing chemical security program is drastically worse. It operates within a secret black box that conceals vital information needed by the public to ensure the program is working, hold the government and facilities accountable, and drive the adoption of safer processes that eliminate threats.

Another chemical security bill introduced by Sen. Lautenberg that covers drinking water and wastewater treatment plants is now in the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (EPW), which held a hearing on the issue yesterday. The committee is being encouraged to hold a vote on the Lautenberg bill before the Senate recess begins on August 9. A prompt vote is crucial to salvaging the remnants of comprehensive chemical security legislation. Citizens can take action and urge EPW chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer to schedule a vote as soon as possible. Click here to take action.

And be sure to express your displeasure to the members of the HSGAC: Joseph I. Lieberman, Carl Levin, Daniel K. Akaka, Thomas R. Carper, Mark L. Pryor, Mary L. Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Roland Burris, Edward E. Kaufman, Susan M. Collins, Tom Coburn, Scott Brown, John McCain, George V. Voinovich, John Ensign, and Lindsey Graham.

(Brian Turnbaugh* 07/29/10; 3 comments)

Committee Approves Shareholder Protection Act

The House Financial Services Committee approved the Shareholder Protection Act, H.R. 4790. The bill requires shareholder approval of a corporation's political spending for federal races. The Securities and Exchange Commission would have to issue rules requiring corporations to disclose any materials for political activities created with or purchased using company money. The bill was introduced by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) in March, and is another effort by House Democrats to try and mitigate the effects of the Citizens United decision.

According to CQ, the "bill would allow shareholders to vote on the total amount of proposed political expenditures for that fiscal year. It would require corporations to include in its bylaws a requirement for a shareholder vote on political expenditures in excess of $50,000 or any expenditure that would make the total amount spent by the corporation more than $50,000. A majority vote would be required for approval."

The legislation is strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sent a letter to the committee urging their rejection of the bill, as "an assault on First Amendment rights."

BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) said during mark up that the bill, "simply clarifies that the right actually belongs to a corporation's owners, i.e., its shareholders. In Frank's view, the bill and the court's [Citizens United] decision work hand-in-hand." Frank asserted it, "would simply require companies to add an additional item to their annual proxy materials and, as such, would not impose new costs."

An amendment offered by Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE) would have allowed states to opt out of compliance. The majority of large U.S. companies are incorporated in Delaware. The amendment did not pass. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) proposed another failed amendment, which would have prohibited the bill from taking effect until Congress enacts another bill he sponsors, H.R. 5860. Hensarling's bill, the Union Member Protection Act, would require labor unions to obtain approval for political expenditures and disclose those activities to its members.

The Shareholder Protection Act now moves to the full House, and may be considered in September. The Senate is unlikely to act.

(Amanda Adams* 07/29/10; 14 comments)

Bill Would Create a Task Force for Enforcing the LDA

The Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act passed the House to establish a task force to strengthen enforcement of rules for federally registered lobbyists. Originally, the bill was the Fees on Lobbyists Act. It would have set up registration fees and fines for lobbyists' late filings to fund enforcement. However, the bill was amended to simply create the Lobbying Disclosure Enforcement Task Force.

The bill, H.R.5751 replaces the U.S. Attorney with the Attorney General (AG) as the recipient of referrals of cases under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). The task force will investigate and prosecute possible LDA violations. The bill also calls on the AG to make recommendations on LDA enforcement.

We have previously reported on the lack of enforcement of the LDA. Usually, lobbyists who do not comply with registration requirements face no repercussions. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH). She issued a press release which stated that the task force, "will go after lobbyists who engage in shoddy reporting practices and hide behind ignorance of the law."

"When Americans on Main Street try to cheat or break the law, there are repercussions; but for years, there was no way to hold lobbyists accountable for games they play with their disclosures."

(Amanda Adams* 07/29/10; 0 comments)

Groups Work to Change the LDA

Reportedly, the American League of Lobbyists is working with the Sunlight Foundation to change the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). Once again Tom Daschle is the poster child for why such reform is needed. "Daschle, working with his firm's lobbyists, uses his decades of congressional experience to tell clients how to favorably influence policy. But Daschle insists, 'I do not lobby.'" Dave Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists said, "I don’t care if you call it a rainmaker or a strategic adviser, if you're talking to a lawmaker about any issue or anything you’re lobbying."

The LDA requires registration if more than one lobbying contact is made, more than 20 percent of one's time is spent lobbying and have more than $11,500 in expenses or $3,000 in income from lobbying per quarter. POLITICO reports that the Sunlight Foundation "is proposing to eliminate the 20 percent rule and to lower the thresholds to $5,000 in expenses or $2,500 in income per quarter."

The article identified about a half-dozen people who are not registered, but "whose job descriptions put them in the heart of D.C.’s influence business."

(Amanda Adams* 07/28/10; 0 comments)

New Study Finds High Levels of Controversial Plastics Chemical in Paper Receipts

A new analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests that many Americans are at risk of exposure to a dangerous chemical that has been found in baby bottles, the lining of food and beverage containers, and now paper receipts. Significant levels of bisphenol-A (BPA), a controversial chemical that is not currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency, was found in 40 percent of paper receipts collected from major retailers, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, post offices and ATMs.

Exposure to BPA has been linked to developmental disorder, cancer, heart diseases, and other health problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that nearly all Americans have some level of BPA in their bodies. The recent finding that there are high levels of BPA in receipts from stores that most Americans visit regularly could provide an insight as to why exposure is so widespread. BPA is already known to leach into food and beverage products through packaging, but EWG’s study found that BPA can easily rub off paper receipts onto hands and food. The Washington Post spoke with Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with EWG:

"We've come across potentially major sources of BPA right here in our daily lives," Lunder said. "When you're carrying around a receipt in your wallet for months while you intend to return something, you could be shedding BPA into your home, into your environment. If you throw a receipt into a bag of food, and it's lying there against an apple, or you shove a receipt into your bag next to a baby pacifier, you could be getting all kinds of exposure and not realize it."

So why is BPA flying under the radar of the agencies that have been entrusted to protect public health? In January, FDA announced the results of a scientific evaluation of BPA and found that there is “reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.” But instead of laying out a regulatory path for protecting consumers from exposure to BPA, FDA merely stated that it “recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure.”

Many consumer advocacy groups found this non-conclusion unsatisfactory, and on June 28, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued FDA in an effort to force the agency to set safety standards for BPA in food. On March 29, EPA announced that it would add BPA to its list of “chemicals of concern,” pledging to look more closely at BPA’s potential health impacts. While both these developments provide some hope that BPA will soon be regulated on a federal level, many state and local governments have taken public safety into their own hands through legislative bans on the chemical.

(Rachel Sauter* 07/28/10; 4 comments)