In This Issue

Connect with Lawmakers and the Media
Type your zip code in the box below
to locate your elected officials
or follow this link: http://capwiz.com/ombwatch

Update on POGO

In February, the OMB Watcher Online reported on subpoenas served to the Project on Government Oversight by Rep. Young and the House Resources Committee. POGO has refused to comply with subpoenas for the phone records of POGO and its Executive Director. On May 4th, under subpoena, POGO's entire Board and Assistant Director appeared at a Congressional hearing. You can read their testimony on POGO's web site.

A dozen public interest groups have asked Congress to reject the Pentagon's proposal for a new exemption to the Freedom of Information Act for unclassified foreign government information. Read their letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner.

A House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology hearing, "The Office of Management and Budget: Is OMB Fulfilling its Mission?", was held on Friday, April 7th. View a summary from a meeting attendee. View a GAO report on changes at OMB

"Re-Imagining" Conference

A major conference entitled, "Re-Imagining Politics & Society at the Millenium" will take place in New York City on May 18th-20th. The conference, presented by the Foundation for Ethics & Meaning, New York Open Center, and Lapis & Tikkun Magazines, will focus on articulating alternatives to the dominant political, economic, and cultural paradigms by bringing together a wide array of individuals concerned with human needs, both spiritual and economic. The agenda addresses human rights, corporate and political ethics, and healing peoples' relationship to nature. For more information, visit the Foundation for Ethics & Meaning site. (For differently abled users, the New York Open Center site contains conference information without using Flash and with easier frames).

Cyber-Responsibility Conference

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility present "Shaping the Network Society: The Future of the Public Sphere in Cyberspace" on May 20th-23rd in Seattle, WA. The symposium looks at the directions and implications for cyberspace in community, democracy, education, culture, and the environment. There will be artists, educators, librarians, researchers, government officials, journalists, and other community members from all over the world participating in focused meetings and interactive workshops, with a special emphasis on sharing research findings. For more information, visit the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility site.

Links to
OMB Watch

A 302(b) What?

Now that the budget resolution has been passed by Congress, the House and Senate must each divide up the overall amount for discretionary spending into thirteen appropriation categories (like "Labor, Heath and Human Services, Education," "Veterans' Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Independent Agencies," or "Agriculture"). These figures are called the 302(b)s. This process gives each appropriation subcommittee the total amount available to be divided up among all the programs covered under each area. The result is 13 spending bills. The Senate version was approved last week. The House version is expected to be approved tomorrow.

Click here to view a chart comparing the two versions to this year's levels.

The appropriations process for FY 2001 has already begun, and is on a fast track; we'll keep you informed.

Pennywise and Pound Foolish

The congressional appropriations process is beginning to heat up. This year is a bit surreal. While Republicans and Democrats are arguing vociferously over the spending levels in each appropriations bill, both sides seem to agree privately that the fights are meaningless. Both parties know "these bills aren’t real. All of these bills are placeholders," as Rep. David Obey (D-WI), lead Democrat on the House Appropriations committee, publicly stated last week. Already, the House appropriations subcommittee responsible for determining "Legislative Branch" spending has approved a draft spending bill that cuts spending for FY 2001 -- $94 million below the FY 2000 level (and less than the 302(b) allocation), making large cuts in funds for the Capitol Police, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office, and a huge, almost 25%, cut in the Government Printing Office.

The real fights will come later in the year on the major appropriations bills and will be negotiated out by the White House and congressional leaders.

Besides the individual appropriations disputes, one big battle will surround the matter of adjusting the existing budget caps on discretionary spending to the level of the budget resolution. You might remember that the 1997 Balanced Budget law set limits on discretionary spending through FY 2002, often called the "budget caps." There appears to be a consensus among Republicans to adjust the FY 2001 limit ($541 billion) upward to match the budget resolution figure ($600.2 billion).

Unfortunately, at least for those concerned with continued cuts in important domestic spending, the increase was not made to shore up domestic programs given the huge budget surpluses, but rather to allow for increased defense spending, while using up the non-Social Security surplus in tax cuts, and devoting all of the Social Security surplus to paying down the national debt. In comparison, the President’s budget calls for raising the level to $624 billion.

OMB Director Jack Lew publicly complained last week that the $600.2 billion is at least $20 billion too low. Even Rep. John Porter (R-IL), chair of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, voted against the budget resolution because its share for domestic spending is too low. And Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, both recently called for eliminating the caps altogether, rather than raising them. There is, however, strong Republican opposition to eliminating the caps, and even Budget Director Lew believes that there should be some structural constraints on spending.

One strategy for raising the caps to the budget resolution level that appears likely is to include a provision that raises the budget caps in the first appropriations bill that goes to the President for his signature (usually an uncontroversial appropriation bill, like military construction). If this happens, the President will be faced with a tough choice -- to veto an acceptable bill on the grounds that the overall budget resolution appropriation level is too low or to accept very low spending caps.

The budget process no longer gives even the appearance of rationality, but looks like a purely political exercise in partisanship. Rather than using this fortuitous time of a booming economy and budget surpluses to come together to invest wisely in the American people and communities, insure future productivity, and even perhaps restore some faith in the process by the American people, it looks like the same old budget train wreck this year.

Budget Process on the Fast Track

The House Republican leadership plans to bring a controversial budget process bill that makes major changes in federal budget process (H.R. 853) to the House floor this Thursday, May 11th. The stated purpose of the bill, sponsored by Reps. Jim Nussle (R-IA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD), is to make the process more speedy and efficient, specifically to avoid the specter of a government shutdown as well as the last minute omnibus spending bills that have occurred during the past two years.

There is discussion about pulling some of the more controversial provisions, and there may also be amendments (like creating two-year budget cycles). It is it yet unclear what provisions will actually come to the House floor.

While some of the changes make lots of sense on the surface, a closer look reveals that they could also have negative consequences. We think that such a major bill requires considerably more time and analysis. Among the more controversial and large changes proposed by the bill are:

• Making the annual budget resolution a joint (rather than concurrent) resolution, that must be passed by Congress and signed by the President. The resolution would then have the force of law. Currently, the budget resolution is not signed by the President. This new requirement would significantly slow up the budget process, exactly the opposite of its intent.
  
  
• Creating a "reserve" category for emergency spending, based on past spending figures, and tightening the definition of an "emergency." This could lead to reductions in discretionary spending if a need for additional funding arises that doesn’t meet the definition or exceeds the reserve.
  
  
• Creating a new sequestration process that could have a big impact on entitlement programs. If tax cuts or spending increases exceed the size of the on-budget surplus -- in other words, if projections about the impact of tax cuts, discretionary spending, or the on-budget surplus are wrong -– a sequestration of entitlement programs could occur.
  
  
• Creating automatic continuing resolutions, so that when Congress and the President fail to agree on appropriations bills by October 1, funding levels would continue at the prior year’s level pending passage of the bills.(Almost sure to be withdrawn, since it is not favored by the Appropriations Committee.)
  
  
• Creating a "lock-box" for savings from floor amendments and using the proceeds to reduce debt. Currently, any funds that are not allocated for an appropriations bill may be relocated to other appropriations bills (within the limits of the budget caps or the resolution). This provision has the potential to lower the already limited amount of discretionary funds.

Overall, this is a dangerous bill, especially since few will know its final contents until shortly before floor consideration.

Internet Sales Tax Moratorium on Fast Track

On May 4, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would extend the current moratorium on new Internet sales tax from 2001 to 2006. It is expected that the bill will come to the House floor as early as this week.

E-commerce is a rapidly growing and increasingly important segment of our economy, but a Congressionally-mandated moratorium, started in 1998, precludes states from collecting new taxes on sales that occur through the Internet. The impact of the moratorium is huge. States have lost more than $525 million in sales tax revenue on these transactions over just the last year, and the loss is projected to jump to somewhere between $20 billion and $1.4 trillion for remote sales by 2003.

Not surprisingly, high-tech companies support permanently exempting e-commerce from sales tax, and they have the ears (and pockets) of a number of politicians. State and local governments, bricks-and-mortar companies, and many nonprofits oppose a sales tax moratorium because of the loss of revenue for public investments -- in communities, in education, in public safety, in bridges and roads, and so on.

The exclusion of an entire sector from the obligations of community has other unwelcome effects. Richard Sclove, research director at the Loka Institute, recently wrote in a commentary in The Christian Science Monitor, that tax-free e-commerce has a negative impact on citizens because "it weakens local cultural and community vibrancy... As social bonds weaken, people relinquish mutual understanding and the capacity for collective action. Those are essential conditions for a workable democracy."

Despite such strong criticisms of tax-free e-commerce, Congress is on a fast track to make it happen. The primary bill in the House is H.R. 3709, sponsored by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA). This bill would modify the Internet Tax Freedom Act (P.L. 105-277) -- which imposed a moratorium from October 1, 1998 through October 1, 2001 -- and would permanently ban new taxes of Internet sales. H.R. 3709 was marked up in the Judiciary Committee last week. At the mark up, Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) proposed a modification to the Cox bill. Instead of a permanent ban, they would extend the moratorium until 2006 (five years beyond the current law). Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) proposed a 2-year extension of the moratorium as a compromise.

The Delahunt proposal lost on a 22-15 vote, with three Democrats -- Boucher, Marty Meehan (D-MA), and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) -- voting against it and three Republicans -- Howard Coble (R-NC), Bill Jenkins (R-TN), and Lamar Smith (R-TX) -- voting for it. The Goodlatte/Boucher proposal was then approved by voice vote. H.R. 3709 is expected to move to the House floor this week.

In the Senate, there are several bills in the hopper, two of which do not appear to be moving. One, S. 2028, the companion to the Cox bill, was offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). The second is S. 2401, which would implement the recommendations supported by the high-tech businesses serving on the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, which was chaired by Gov. Jim Gilmore (R-VA). It has been offered by Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Herb Kohl (D-WI).

The bill most likely to move is S. 2255, offered by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), to extend the moratorium for five years -- until 2006. McCain chairs the Commerce Committee, which would consider the bill. However, because of the controversy the bill created, particularly among state and local governments, he pulled it last month. At the moment, many critics are waiting to see an alternative bill that is being developed by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) that would set a path for eventual taxation of Internet sales. It remains unclear how willing McCain is to develop a compromise.

INVEST IN AMERICA Moves Forward!

Forty groups from across the country met on April 17th and 18th to jump start the Invest in America campaign, which seeks to get more federal resources for domestic investments over the long run. The meeting was exciting and unique. Participants discussed and identified ideas for long-range efforts and to move from short-term tactics to long-term vision.

The meeting was sponsored by Invest in America and the participant list reflects the diversity of this emerging coalition -- including activists, service delivery providers, think tanks, economists, and political scientists. There was a real mixture of local, state and national groups allowing for a broad exchange of ideas and a lively debate about long-term vision.

By the end of the meeting, there was a clear mandate for Invest in America to move forward to develop a long-term campaign to promote future domestic investments. Participants recommended that investment be defined as promoting policies and programs that benefit people, family, and communities by providing lasting improvements in quality of life. Many felt that such an effort must also include ways of assuring greater accountability and performance of the federal government in making important investments.

Participants developed recommendations for action plans, including a communications plan, a constituency building plan, strategies for questioning budget assumptions, and ways to expand thinking about what investment means today. In addition to this long-term focus, participants worked on several projects that Invest in America will undertake immediately, including questions to candidates, a budget primer, and a report that puts a human face on the budget numbers, by showing in real life terms how federal dollars benefit families and communities. For more information on how you can help, contact Ellen Taylor, taylore@ombwatch.org, at OMB Watch.

Materials about the two-day event will be made publicly available on the Invest in America web site over the next few weeks. At this time, besides the list of participants, you can read our pre- and post-meeting vision statements.

If you'd like email updates, sign up for the budget discussion list

EPA, Justice Propose Paper-Only Public Access to Chemical Accident Scenarios

A rule proposed jointly on April 27 by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice would block the public's right to know about potential chemical accident worst case scenarios in communities across the United States.

A public hearing is scheduled for May 9 in Washington, DC and public comments on the proposed rule are due on June 8, 2000. View the text of the proposed rule, along with the EPA and Justice Department assessments that formed the basis of this rule (totaling over 200 pages).

Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires that the EPA collect risk management plans (RMP) from plants that manufacture, process or otherwise use specific hazardous chemicals. Included in these plans are offsite consequence analyses (OCA), which indicate how the surrounding community might be affected in a potential worst case chemical accident scenario and alternative case scenario.

The proposed rule would severely constrain public access to this information by (1) withholding the heart of the OCA information from widespread Internet dissemination; (2) forcing the public to travel to government-run "reading rooms" to sign in only to view, but not photocopy, OCA worst-case chemical accident information; and (3) creating a web site that would allow users to find out whether a particular street address might be vulnerable to chemical accidents without identifying the facility that poses the risk.

What could happen in a worst-case accident?

• View Risk Management Plan Executive Summaries on the Right-To-Know Network.
• View additional information about withholding RMP data from the public.

We encourage you to submit comments that encourage the government to make important health and safety information available to the public.

"Burden Reduction" Efforts Threaten Right to Know about Toxics

New White House initiatives to reduce burdens on industry would make it harder for the public to safeguard human health and the environment and hold government and industry accountable for their misdeeds. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the office in the Executive Office of the President that oversees agency regulatory and budget decisions, is seeking public comment on ways to reduce the burden of reporting requirements.

OMB is targeting seven agencies to identify ways to reduce the burden imposed on the public by federal information reporting requirements. By far the largest contributor to the public's burden is filing taxes with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the General Accounting office estimates that taxes account for roughly 80 percent of the total reporting burden imposed by the federal government. Besides the IRS and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the other federal entities participating in the OMB effort include: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Health Care Finance Administration, and the departments of Transportation, Agriculture, and Education.

This public comment is not part of a rulemaking process (yet). OMB hopes to develop recommendations in a few months, according to an OMB official.

Easing Industry Burden

OMB is pushing EPA to consider allowing facilities that currently report to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory program to skip reporting their chemical releases for a given year if the amount of chemicals released did not change significantly from the previous year. Some industry representatives have suggested that all facilities covered under TRI should only have to report every two years, rather than the annual reporting currently required. Other industry representatives have suggested that industry should only report increases in chemical releases, not decreases. If adopted, increases-only reporting would allow industry to argue that the TRI data does not account for industry's decreases and therefore should be disregarded. The power of the TRI data as an agent for preventing pollution and driving down releases derives from the accuracy and reliability of the data. Not discussed in the context of TRI was technologically-feasible ways to integrate electronic data collection, management and dissemination. Integration shows the biggest promise for reducing reporting burden, eliminating duplicative reporting, and improving data quality. Also not mentioned were creative ways to build upon TRI's ten-year success in reducing releases of toxic chemicals by roughly 44 percent, such as moving to quarterly reporting or integrating reporting mechanisms across agencies.

Public comments on the TRI burden reduction proposals will be accepted through June 10, 2000.

The public can submit comments in an electronic docket at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ES Submit, then click on unregistered user submission. You will need the following information to submit a comment:

- Docket ID: 7156
- Operating administration: OMB
- Document Title: For EPA-related comments, select either EPA-TRI, EPA-RCRA, EPA-TSCA, or EPA-AIR

The public may also submit comments via fax to 202-493-2251 or in writing to DOT Dockets, 400 7th Street, SW, PL401, Washington, DC 20590. Include the docket ID (7156) and the document title (e.g., EPA-TRI) at the top of the document.

Measuring Government Performance

At a recent news conference, Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) said Congress must integrate agency "performance reports" (mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993) into the budget process. "If we don't praise or single those out who are doing a good job, and sanction those who are not, then we are not doing our job," Thompson said. "This is more of a test for Congress than it is for these agencies."

This echoes concerns raised by OMB Watch that GPRA could become nothing more than a trivial, bureaucratic paper exercise if it continues to be ignored. But it could be much more.

In particular, the performance reports -- which were submitted to Congress for the first time ever on March 31 -- could serve as a vehicle to improve data available to the public. For example, EPA could report on the performance of its regional offices for a few priority environmental indicators, introducing the constructive tension of comparison with public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the first performance reports (which were recently graded by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University) have fallen short of this ideal.

GPRA has been billed as a core component of Vice President Gore's "reinventing government" initiatives. At a recent hearing on the vice president's efforts, Paul Light of the Brookings Institution, among others, said the next president must push for more effective implementation of GPRA, as well as address many other management issues. In particular, Light said Congress should pass a bill (S. 2306) introduced by Thompson that would establish a commission to "map the federal organizational chart, thereby providing a guide for potential consolidation."

• Read testimony from the hearing.

E-Rulemaking: Input Wanted

Several agencies are beginning to utilize electronic communications in the development of rules. For example, the Dept. of Transportation has developed an online docket center that allows the public to submit comments on agency activities, and to view material from the rulemaking record.

OMB Watch is interested in receiving your input on this. Is this something that agencies should be pursuing? Are you aware of, or have you participated in, any experiments with electronic rulemaking? And do you have any ideas about e-rulemaking that agencies should be pursuing?

Comments should be sent to Reece Rushing at rushingr@ombwatch.org.

"Cyber Security" Update

In the last issue of the OMB Watcher Online, we pointed out some problems with H.R. 4246, the Cyber Security Information Act, introduced by co-sponsors Reps. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Tom Moran (D-VA) on April 12th. The bill finally appeared on Thomas over the weekend! It has been referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and the House Judiciary Committee. No hearings have been scheduled to date.

The public interest openness community is opposed to the bill. There are also rumors that the Administration is unsupportive.

• Text of H.R. 4246
• OMB Watch Analysis

Tech Help: Accessibility Resources

The Web is an increasingly important information conduit between nonprofits and the audiences they serve. A large number of nonprofits, however, develop web sites utilizing design principles that do not consider individual physical limitations, disparity in equipment and software, or other obstacles that limit access to online content. Web accessibility, however, does not mean relying on special fixes. It involves web site design that guarantees access to nonprofit information for the widest possible audience, ideally during the planning of web sites, and through continual monitoring of user needs and concerns. Find out how your nonprofit web site fits within the grand design of accessibility...

Subscribe to NPTalk

Your comments are always welcomed!