In This Issue : Enter the 3-letter anchor name, which will link to the articles below. (2) TITLE GOES HERE: Enter the article's title --> SUBHEAD --> Right-to-Know and Information Policy Chemical Manufacturers Issue Site Security Guidelines Information Removed Ashcroft Memo on FOIA Emphasizes Caution Before Disclosure President Issues Critical Infrastructure Executive Order Graham Commits to Greater OIRA Transparency Nonprofit Sector Anti-Terrorism Bill Could Impact Nonprofits "Compassion Capital Fund" May Fund Think Tank Charities Buried Under CACAA? Federal Budget "Economic Stimulus" Package: Politics As Posturing FY 2002 Appropriations Update Regulatory Issues EPA Challenges DOE's Weakening of Energy Efficiency Standard "Hard Rock" Mining Standards Rescinded Technology GAO Report Addresses Internet Remedy for Voter Access Problems Correction IRS Workplan Reader Responses More on RTK SIDE BAR: Budget: Revised Surplus Numbers; FED 101 Chemical Manufacturers Issue Site Security Guidelines The American Chemistry Council, along with the Chlorine Institute and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, issued guidelines to the U.S. chemical industry on October 23 for greater site security to prevent against terrorist attacks, years after they first raised the issue as a reason to restrict data on chemical hazards. In 1999, the chemical manufacturers successfully convinced Congress to pass a law withholding public access to worst-case scenario data, contained in "Risk Management Plans," detailing the number of people who would be killed and injured in the event of a catastrophic accident. Yet ironically, chemical manufacturers have done very little to address site security since then. A report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry notes that "security at chemical plants ranged from fair to very poor" and that "security around chemical transportation assets ranged from poor to non-existent." (This report has been removed from the government's web pages in the wake of September 11, even though it does not reference specific facilities, but is available HREF="http://www.mapcruzin.com/scruztri/docs/cep1118992.htm">a private, non-governmental site.) Why have the chemical manufacturers waited until now to address site security? Perhaps it says something about how seriously they took their own arguments all along. Instead, the chemical manufacturers have seemed to be chiefly motivated by a desire to restrict information that might prove embarrassing and might force them to take corrective actions -- exactly why disclosure of the information was required in the first place. For instance, the chemical manufacturers argued against disclosing the worst-case scenario data long before the issue of terrorism was even raised. And who first raised the terrorist possibility? Not law enforcement. It was the chemical manufacturers, searching for a new argument. Now this argument is proving even more successful. In the aftermath of September 11, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to remove from its web site all information contained in the Risk Management Plans (RMP) (not simply, the worst case scenario data, which has always been withheld), again citing the terrorist threat -- a move strongly backed by the chemical manufacturers. Yet during the debate over the worst-case scenario data, both the FBI and Congress decided that disclosure through the Internet of the remainder of the RMP information presented no unique increased threats of terrorism, making EPA's decision to remove the entire RMP all the more startling. Moreover, it should be pointed out that terrorists do not need the detailed data from EPA's web site (which, by the way, can still be viewed in cached form on any number of private search engines) to carry out a chemical attack. Chemical facilities cannot be hidden. Driving down the New Jersey Turnpike, for instance, one can see dozens of them. Moreover, chemical facilities, like most other enterprises, are listed in the phone book. It would be very easy to match plant locations with census data to figure out where to accomplish maximum damage. Or you could do a simple Lexis-Nexis search for news stories. Most large chemical plants are covered extensively in the local press. These stories are readily available, and would allow you to easily determine the largest plants in the most populated areas. Research libraries also contain extensive information on chemical facilities, as do the industry's own trade publications. Or if you prefer, you could simply buy these hazardous chemicals yourself -- anonymously, as is allowed (and as Timothy McVeigh did) -- and concoct your own chemical disaster wherever you'd like. None of this is very complicated or newly divulged. It is simply naive to believe that restricting access to chemical information, as EPA has chosen to do, actually reduces the risks associated with living near a chemical facility. We must begin to address the risks themselves. For this reason, it is encouraging that the chemical manufacturers are finally taking some action to address site security. Along these lines, the Justice Department should complete HREF="/ombwatcher/ombw20010917.html#chm">its long overdue study of chemical site security, as mandated by Congress. Yet site security is just one piece of the puzzle. Facilities should move to safer, substitute chemicals, stored in smaller, safer volumes. This has already occurred to a great degree in New Jersey; yet unfortunately, most other states remain far behind in this effort. Moreover, emergency responders, such as fire fighters, need greater resources and training to deal with potential disasters. The public would be well served if the debate shifted to addressing the actual problem -- chemical hazards -- rather than what information to restrict, which only invites complacency and leaves the public in the dark. Even in the absence of terrorism, chemical plants have always posed a major threat to the surrounding communities, often with those living in danger completely unaware. Between 1987 and 1996, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board reported that there were over 600,000 chemical "incidents" in the United States. Not all of these incidents result in tragedy, but each has the potential, and many do. Each year, thousands are injured in chemical accidents, and about 150 are killed. Citizens and community groups should take this opportunity to find out about the dangers in their communities and work with local plants to reduce risks. The first step in this process is giving the public information about the risks they face. Back to Top Information Removed Following the tragic attacks of September 11, federal agencies have been busy removing information from their web sites that could potentially be used by terrorists. OMB Watch has been keeping an inventory of information, updated on an ongoing basis, that we know has been removed. This list is not comprehensive; it's just what has been reported to us. Unfortunately, government agencies are keeping no such inventory themselves. Accordingly, please send us a note at ombwatch@ombwatch.org if you know of information that has been removed, but is not on this list. Back to Top Ashcroft Memo on FOIA Emphasizes Caution Before Disclosure In a memo dated October 12, 2001, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft issued a new policy statement, on behalf of the Bush Administration, directing federal agency heads to exercise "full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests" before disclosing information, and careful consideration of threats to national security and the effectiveness of law enforcement in responding to FOIA requests in releasing records to journalists and others under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).The policy supercedes a 1993 memorandum issued by Attorney General Janet Reno, which ordered that agencies should make allowable discretionary disclosures except where there was demonstrable harm. Ashcroft promised the full backing of the Department of Justice to those agencies that legitimately decide to turn down requests made under FOIA. FOIA has frequently been the vehicle for journalists, historians, and others to reveal government wrongdoing and waste and abuse, as well as a mechanism to gain a better understanding of the context of agency decision making. The new guidelines can be found on the Justice Department's website. For purposes of comparison, see Attorney General Reno's 1993 memorandum. Back to Top President Issues Critical Infrastructure Executive Order Executive Order 13231, published in the October 18 Federal Register, creates a President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and extensive committee apparatus to protect the nation's critical information systems. Richard A. Clarke, Bush's cybersecurity adviser, will chair the newly created board which, under the order, has responsibility to "coordinate and have cognizance of federal efforts and programs that relate to protection of information systems." Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. will have overall responsibility for government-wide security policy and implementation. The order also gives Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and CIA director George Tenet the responsibility for their own infrastructure protection policies and standards. Board members, besides Daniels, will include Attorney General John Ashcroft and top-ranking officials of cabinet departments and independent agencies. The order does not abolish existing groups such as the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, the Federal Computer Incident Response Center or the National Infrastructure Protection Center, but the board will assume general leadership of all of them. Among the Board's responsibilities is "outreach to the private sector and State and Local Governments" as well as "communities and representatives from academia and other relevant elements of society." The Order also establishes a National Infrastructure Advisory Council to provide the President advice on the security of information systems for critical infrastructure supporting banking and finance, transportation, energy, manufacturing, and emergency government services. Back to Top Graham Commits to Greater OIRA Transparency John Graham, administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), deserves praise for new measures -- announced October 18 -- to increase transparency at his agency, which reviews (and can possibly reject) new agency regulations and information collections. As indicated in a press release and a HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/oira_disclosure_memo-b.html">memo to OIRA staff, Graham intends to disseminate useful information through the Internet that will help the public better understand and evaluate OIRA's activities. "This is truly a breakthrough for OIRA," said Gary D. Bass, OMB Watch's executive director. "In the past, OIRA has fiercely resisted transparency -- which is ironic considering its oversight authority over government information policy. What sunshine exists at OIRA has been mostly forced on the office, first by congressional pressure and then by executive order. Graham's actions are refreshing in light of this history, and deserving of our praise." Back to Top Anti-Terrorism Bill Could Impact Nonprofits The USA PATRIOT Act" (H.R. 3162) could pose problems for nonprofits, especially those that advocate changes in US foreign policy or provide social services to individuals that become targets of government investigations. The central problem is a vague, overbroad definition of a new crime, "domestic terrorism." (The attacks of September 11 are crimes under current law, making this provision unnecessary.) In addition, greatly expanded surveillance powers can be invoked under a lowered threshold, only requiring an assertion that information is relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation. Last week Congress rushed the bill through in a closed process that took place while Congressional offices were shut down for anthrax testing. President Bush signed the bill on Friday October 26. The House passed the bill 352-66 on October 24 and the Senate approved it the next day 98-1, after three hours of debate. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) was the only Senator to vote against the bill, saying it "does not strike the right balance between civil liberties and security." There was no conference, since lawmakers worked out their differences in closed-door sessions prior to the votes. The process was so rushed that a final copy of the bill was not available to the public at the time the votes were taken. "Domestic terrorism" is defined in Section 802 as criminal activities within the United States that are dangerous to human life and appear to be intended to intimidate civilians, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or affect government operations by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Broadly interpreted this definition could be applied to acts of political protest by any group whose tactics involve minor violations of state and local law or are engaging in civil disobedience. The crime of "domestic terrorism" carries stiff penalties, and anyone providing material support to such a group or its members, including "harboring," also can be charged with a criminal offense. Material assistance includes expert advice, assistance or training. Assets of terrorist organizations can be seized and forfeited. Nonprofits could also be impacted with Section 215, which allows seizure of records, computers and other items for "intelligence" investigation purposes, without requiring probable cause that a crime is involved. This provision applies whether or not the group is the subject of the investigation. Although the investigation cannot be "conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution," free speech activities can be the primary factor, as long as some other reason is cited. Judges do not have discretion to deny applications for orders for seizure of records and other items if they conform to the act, and the orders are issued without notice. The order cannot disclose that it is issued for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. In addition, people involved in turning over the records must keep their actions secret. Congress is requiring the Attorney General to report all requests for the production of tangible things to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate on a semiannual basis. The Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate will also get reports every six months on the number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things and the number that are either granted, modified, or denied. The expanded surveillance powers also allow secret searches of offices, wiretaps on phones and cell phones, and interception of electronic message information (except the content of e mail). The surveillance portions of the bill will sunset on December 31, 2005, except for ongoing investigations on incidents occurring before that date. In the meantime, government officials that intentionally use surveillance that is not authorized by the act can be disciplined, and the subject of the search can sue the government. However, these remedies are not likely to be useful in most instances, since the law forbids phone and Internet providers and custodians of records from informing people they are the objects of surveillance by federal authorities. The Attorney General or Secretary of State could designate a group as a terrorist organization, making payment of dues by non-citizens a deportable offense and invoking authority to freeze financial accounts. There are no procedural safeguards to protect against a wrongful designation. The ACLU has issued a statement saying, "This broad new authority threatens to usher in a new age of investigation of Americans based on their political activities." However, they do not plan to take immediate legal action, but will wait to see how the law is implemented. Back to Top "Compassion Capital Fund" May Fund Think Tank The Senate version of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations contains money for the Bush Administration's "Compassion Capital Fund," which could grant money to faith-based organizations for service provision. The bill (S. 1536), which is scheduled to be taken up on Tuesday, contains a provision for $89 million for the fund, as well as at least $33 million to be used on other faith-based programs (including "maternity group homes"). There have been reports that a large amount (over $30 million) of the "Compassion Capitol Fund" money will be used to fund studies on the efficacy of faith-based nonprofits by Public Private Ventures, a group chaired by John DiIulio, the outgoing head of the White House faith-based office. Currently, there is little or no evidence to suggest that faith-based nonprofits are any more effective than secular nonprofits. It's hard to imagine that any studies conducted by the former head of the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives would be fair and unbiased. Despite sporadic reports of action, there is a great degree of uncertainty around the outlook for legislative action on charitable choice given the new set of challenges facing the country. Initially, the Bush administration stated that passing charitable choice legislation would still be a priority, but no action has been taken. There is broad support from the nonprofit community for the passage of charitable giving incentives that were part of the administration's original faith-based package, but any legislation that includes the direct federal funding of churches is very controversial. Back to Top Charities Buried Under CACAA? On October 2, 2001, Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH) introduced H.R. 2985, the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act. On the same day, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced S.1484, the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act. The American Spirit Act would authorize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to pursue twice the current level of civil penalties for fraudulent practices that capitalize upon "popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster declared by the President." Such activity would have to occur within a period of time on or between the date of the President's declaration and the one-year anniversary of the expiration date of the emergency period. McConnell's CACAA would make solicitations for contributions to fraudulent charities -- especially in times designated by the President as either federal disasters or emergencies -- a federal crime by amending Chapter 47 Title 18 of the United States Code, and telemarketing solicitation for fraudulent charitable purposes subject to the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act. Fraudulent charitable telemarketing offenders would also face a 10-year prison sentence for activity conducted in tandem with other federal crimes. CACAA would also require the FTC to include charitable solicitations under its rules regarding telemarketing and to share information with state and local officials to prosecute violators of those rules. Last, CACAA would increase the federal penalty against those individuals or groups soliciting or collecting donations while posing as agents of the American Red Cross from one to five years jail time in addition to restitution to those directly and indirectly harmed by such acts. (Federal protections for the American Red Cross are due mainly to its historic service to the nation in times of crises, demonstrated by its leadership in the wake of September 11.) While stronger rules and laws regarding charitable solicitations can help to reinforce public confidence in giving to relief and human services, there are concerns with both pieces of legislation. It is unclear whether the estimated $1.5 billion in annual revenue from donations to fraudulent charitable activity cited by McConnell in his October 2 press statement on S. 1484 is both a reliable figure and reflects the acts of smaller individual activity versus large-scale organized efforts. If the rationale for such scrutiny is based on an actual heightened vulnerability to the national conscience and spirit to give during times of national emergencies, it can also be argued that the propensity for fraudulent activity is persistent at all times of the year. There is also a distinction to be drawn between collection of donations and the mishandling of funds by fraudulent and legitimate charities. There may be times when legitimate charities are established quickly without coordinating their activities with recipient charities, and rules are unclear as to which activity is prohibited. While it is widely assumed that there is already federal authority to aggressively monitor and prosecute fraudulent charitable solicitations through the FTC, it currently only collects complaints against charities into the Consumer Sentinel database, a public-nonprofit collaboration since 1997, among the FTC, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Better Business Bureaus, Canada's PhoneBusters, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Association of Attorneys General, National Consumers League, US Postal Inspection Service, and the US Secret Service. Information from Consumer Sentinel, including complaints from the public, is made available only to law enforcement and regulatory bodies at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as to charity monitoring bodies. Increased authority granted to the FTC for setting out the rules under which state and local jurisdictions and regulatory actors must monitor and prosecute activities will require more consistency in the application of existing and emerging federal and state laws covering solicitations, including those dealing with electronic records and online transactions. H.R. 2985 was reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on October 11 by voice vote without any amendments. S.1484 is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee. OMB Watch will continue to monitor these bills for further developments. Back to Top Opening Move In "Economic Stimulus" Package: Politics As Posturing By a slim and primarily party line vote (216 to 214) the House passed its "economic stimulus package" (H.R. 3090) on Wednesday, October 24. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has an excellent summary of the "Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001." The bill violates not just one or two, but all five of the principles to guide the design of an economic stimulus package previously agreed upon by party leaders from both houses earlier this month:

• Proposals should sunset within one year to the extent practicable. The House-passed bill permanently repeals the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and allows retroactive refunds from 1986 to the present. It permanently defers corporate taxes on certain income earned overseas (primarily benefiting multinational corporations). It includes provisions speeding up tax write-offs for business equipment, expanding the time when current tax "losses" can be used to apply for a refund of previously paid taxes, and extending individual AMT tax adjustments, currently slated to expire in 2004. The bill also permanently reduces capital gains taxes from 20% to 18%. Finally, the bill accelerates the cut in the 28% individual income tax bracket to 25% so that it will take effect in 2002, rather than in 2006.
• A substantial portion of the fiscal impact should be felt within six months. The bill does "speed up" the transfer of $9 billion in federal unemployment insurance trust funds that had already been approved for state unemployment accounts. However, the amount is woefully inadequate and this measure likely can't be put into action by the states until next year, providing little if any relief right now.
• The package should cost approximately $60 billion. According to the JCT analysis, the House-passed bill is estimated to cost $100 billion in FY 2002, and $159 billion over the next ten years.
• Stimulus dollars should go to those most likely to spend them, and to those most vulnerable in an economic downturn. 95% of the cost of the House-passed bill is for tax cuts. The tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit corporations and wealthier taxpayers. The House-passed bill does provide for tax rebates to the 35 million Americans who filed income taxes but did not qualify for the earlier rebate checks. This is a useful provision, since low-income recipients are more likely to spend the rebate. The bill also allocates $3 billion in grants to states for health care coverage to the unemployed, an amount which is completely inadequate, especially given the severe budget difficulties being experienced by the states.

Essentially, the bill is just the House's opening move: passage of legislation that is designed to continue providing tax cuts to those who need it least at the expense of true economic stimulus measures, knowing all the while that it will not resemble the final legislation that will be signed into law by the President. In this way, the House action is a bidding war of sorts, i.e., the House has opened with an impossibly high request knowing that it still might get more than it should in the end; Even more to the point, however, is the fact that now those House members who voted for the bill are able to say to their corporate and wealthy supporters that they tried to further reduce taxes. We regret that in a time when the country is struggling with the attacks in New York and DC, escalating concerns about anthrax being delivered via the US mail, a shaky economy, decreasing surpluses and vastly increased needs for resources, the House is doing (political) business as usual. At a time when most Americans feel more strongly than they have in decades that government should use its resources to protect our domestic security -- whether that is safe mail delivery or making sure that ordinary working Americans who are suffering because of the attacks or the economic downturn receive assistance -- the House has unashamedly used the very real need for economic stimulus as a vehicle to advance its pre-September 11 conservative agenda to cut taxes for those who need it least, while simultaneously reducing resources for government. Ordinary Americans don't want tax cuts, but they do want security and the sense that we are all pulling together for a common good. The good news is that the bill is a sham, and everyone pretty much agrees on this point. Even the President is only "supporting" the bill with the caveat that he is aware the Senate will act to cut down on the cost and the most egregious tax cuts and pass something that he might be able to sign. The bad news is that, once again, Americans are shown that they cannot expect their representatives to do the right thing, even in the most difficult of times. Rather the House has shown that it will use hard times as a cover for its own purposes, like satisfying corporate interests. The Democratic substitute measure, which failed 166-261, would have cost $110 billion, but would have offset most of the costs by repealing the reduction of the top tax rate. It included an extension of unemployment benefits, $11 billion interest-free financing for school construction and repair, and a 75% government subsidy to help the uninsured purchase a continuation of health benefits under COBRA. It also provided tax rebates to those who did not qualify this summer and limited, temporary tax breaks to businesses. Senate Alternatives The Senate is expected to consider its own economic stimulus plan, but not until next week or the week after. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has proposed a $70 billion stimulus plan, which includes an extension of and an increase in unemployment benefits, a 50% federal subsidy for COBRA health insurance premiums, and a temporary state Medicaid option for workers who do not qualify for employer-provided health care coverage. It includes tax rebates to those who did not qualify this summer, some corporate tax cuts, and extensions of expiring tax provisions. There appears to be a move by Senate Republicans to support the Bush Administration's economic stimulus package, which proposes to accelerate rate cuts in the 29%, 31% and 39.6% brackets. It also contains a provision to repeal the corporate AMT, a temporary provision allowing businesses to immediately write off a percentage of the cost of purchases they make, and a rebate for low-income taxpayers. The cost would be $90 billion in 2002, but $175 billion over ten years, even more than the House-passed bill. Back to Top FY 2002 Appropriations Update Of the last ten business days, Capital Hill has been "open for business" for only six and many Capital Hill offices are still closed, with Congressional staffers working out of temporary offices. Needless to say, much of the legislative process is still moving at a slowed space, which is why we find ourselves one month into FY 2002, with no appropriations acts with which to fund FY 2002 program expenditures. A fourth continuing resolution (CR), H.J. Res. 70, was passed on October 25 to keep the government operating at FY 2001 spending levels until November 16, at which point a fifth CR will likely be needed to take Congress through its last steps of the appropriations process. So what exactly does Congress have on its plate for the next four weeks? With only 2 appropriations bills readied for the President's signature, 1 more approved in conference and seven others readied for or currently being reconciled in conference committees, Congress still has 3 more appropriations bills to debate and send to conferences: the spending bills for the District of Columbia, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education, and Defense. The DC appropriations bill has been passed by the House and is likely to be debated by the Senate this week, and after much stalling and partisan wrangling over judicial nominations, the airline security bill, and an anti-terrorism bill, the Senate has agreed to take up the Labor-HHS-Education bill tomorrow. House action on the Defense appropriations bill, however, currently seems to have slowed - though not for a lack of agreement, but rather to address a technical matter. The President has requested the release of the next installment of the $40 billion emergency spending relief package passed on September 18. This $20 billion includes funds for the Departments of Defense, Energy, HHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and has to be approved and formally appropriated by Congress. House members are working on incorporating its appropriation of this emergency spending into its Defense bill, and the Senate is waiting until the House completes its work. There is also support among some House members for allocating an additional $18.5 billion for a variety of expenditures addressing "homeland security." BNA reports that House Appropriations Committee ranking member David Obey (D-WS) has proposed adding the increase - for transportation safety, computer security, the Treasury Department, HHS, FEMA and food safety - to the defense bill as well. A few weeks ago, there was a great deal of negotiating between the White House and Congress over who was going to take responsibility for "busting the budget caps" to both allow for the President's $18.5 billion defense increase and Congress' $4 billion education increase and avoid an across-the-board cut of other programs. President Bush ultimately said he would, but it is Congress who must legislate the increase. Appropriators in the House and Senate are still working on the best way to pass the legislation officially increasing the FY 2002 discretionary spending limit to $686 billion - as a separate bill, which would require additional time for preparation and debate, or as a part of an existing appropriations bill. The latter has been the modus operandi of appropriators for the past few years and is likely to be chosen again. Back to Top EPA Challenges DOE's Weakening of Energy Efficiency Standard The Department of Energy (DOE) under the Clinton administration approved standards that would require new air conditioners manufactured after January 23, 2006, to be 30 percent more efficient than current models. In April, the Watcher reported that the Bush DOE planned to roll back the standard and propose a lower, 20 percent increase in efficiency. In an October 19 letter, obtained by OMB Watch, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criticizes DOE for ignoring the "strong rationale" for using the higher efficiency standard, while overstating the regulatory burden on manufacturers. DOE has asserted that the increased cost of central air conditioners due to the higher efficiency standard would negatively impact low-income people, but EPA responds that a higher minimum efficiency standard will actually ensure that low-income consumers have lower utility bills by helping them conserve energy, and that most of the higher costs will be absorbed by landlords. In June, DOE's decision was challenged in court by a number of attorneys general, as well as public interest and environmental groups. The lawsuit, still pending, alleges that the administration illegally delayed and weakened the new standards, violating the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, which prohibits any weakening of energy efficiency standards once they are set. Back to Top "Hard Rock" Mining Standards Rescinded The Bush administration announced on October 25 that it would HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53812-2001Oct25.html">roll back environmental and land use protections for "hard rock" mining that were put in place shortly before President Clinton left office. The new, weaker standards will be published in the Federal Register on October 30, and go into effect on December 31 of this year, according to HREF="http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2001/pr011025_3809.htm">the release from the Bureau of Land Management. More than 47,000 citizens voiced support for keeping the Clinton standards intact during the 45-day comment period this summer. Back to Top GAO Report Addresses Internet's Ability to Remedy Voter Access Problems On October 15, 2001, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) released "Elections: Perspectives on Activities and Challenges Across the Nation," which addresses reform measures regarding the voting administration, voter registration, voting technologies, and vote counts and certification in federal elections. It is one of a series of reports to Congress in response to the issues and perceptions raised during the contested November 2000 Presidential election, in which some 57% of voting jurisdictions faced some problem conducting a fair and/or accurate vote. Chapter 7 (pages 312-345) addresses the issue of the Internet's potential to remedy perceived difficulties with present-day approaches in balloting. Current polling sites came under attack last November for continuing to prove difficult for persons with disabilities -- as many as half were estimated to be inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs. Those individuals who could make it inside a polling station found great difficulty utilizing the punch cards and butterfly ballot options available in some locations. There are also those who currently find it difficult to utilize voting booths with levers and switches unassisted, due to visual impairment or lack of motor function. Technology-based remedies to current voting shortcomings range from outfitting current polling locations with advanced voting technologies, developing public kiosks with electronic balloting terminals accessible to registered voters, and enabling Internet voting from American households. The arguments pushed in favor of various reforms include the convenience and time-savings they may offer, the potential increase in security and reliability, and the reduction of costs to localities The report notes that the best evaluations of Internet voting and balloting so far have shown approval generally by those familiar with the basics of computers and those who have regular access to such technologies -- particularly at home, especially younger voters and those in higher-income brackets. Such familiarity with technology, however, is not enjoyed by all Americans, as evidenced by the Department of Commerce's Fall 2000 digital divide statistics regarding persons with disabilities, a population representing roughly 22% of the U.S. population -- though only half as likely to have access to the Internet. While 25% of Americans without a disability have at least had contact with a personal computer, nearly 60% of people with disabilities have not. Needs differ, moreover, for those individuals with disabilities who do have regular Internet access. Unless there is an alternate set of assistive technologies, a mouse and keyboard, according to the report, may prove just as daunting as levers and paper ballots to the blind, those with motor difficulties, and persons with severe learning disabilities. So utilizing public kiosks or equipping current polling stations with advanced voting equipment may wind up serving less as a solution and more of a barrier to participation unless tools such as screen readers, icon-based touch screens, and motion-sensor technologies are adopted. Assistive technologies, however, would add to the cost of technology purchases required by localities. Localities might also argue that because special technologies would only be used for one specialized purpose, they might not be worth the investment. Thus, advanced online technologies might be relegated to the list of other voting reforms -- such as motor voter, early voting, and mail-in ballots -- which have yet to result in sustained voter turnout after their adoption. The GAO report finds potential fault for currently perceived problems within the general voting population's lack of ability (or willingness) to follow instructions, as well as confusion by voting authorities around proper polling place procedures and unclear rules. It is suggested that addressing the training needs of voters -- particularly in conjunction with the actual voting experience itself -- could help with a number of current shortcomings. What the report highlights, however, is that the emphasis on voting technologies, without attendant emphasis on improved voter outreach and education, improved rules and administrative, and substantive demonstration of technologies by more localities, cannot be considered a viable stand-alone solution. For example, is the concept of a digital certificate any less daunting to a voter than the current format of a punch-hole paper ballot? In weighing whether technology-based voting system reforms are both feasible and appropriate given current perceptions, practices, capacity, and resources, the report discusses the notion of "ease of use" as a core component of the public accessibility to voting. Without ease of use, voters cannot easily comprehend what is required of their participation, and the voting system in place cannot accurately capture voter intent. A voting system that cannot accurately capture the voter intent runs great risk of being perceived as unwelcoming -- if not fundamentally unfair. Such perceptions may, in turn, hamper participation by the broader public, and leads to a loss of confidence in a vital form of public participation. The report serves as an assessment, rather than a set of recommendations, of various reform proposals. It does, however, raise issues regarding the Internet's ability to substantively open up the voting process to citizens without favoring certain needs over others -- or perpetuating "digital divides" along underrepresented segments of the broader voting population. Back to Top Correction: IRS Workplan An error was made in the October 15 Watcher article on the IRS Workplan. The article should have read: "Among the top issues to be reviewed are 501(c)(3) organizations that are making improper contributions to candidates for office, filing and reporting compliance by 527 (PAC) organizations, and groups that have filed Form 990 but have not requested exempt status recognition." In the October 15 issue of the Watcher, the word "not" was omitted. The error was corrected on the morning of October 16 and the article has been accurate since then. Our apologies for any confusion this may have created. Back to Top Reader Responses RE: Right-to-Know Reconsidered We have received a number of e-mail responses, both positive and negative, to the October 15 Watcher's "Right-to-Know Reconsidered" article. We are currently giving those who responded time to elaborate on their initial comments and will publish a more complete collection of reader responses to our on-going work on RTK issues in the next Watcher, on November 12. If you would like to comment on our RTK policy work, please e-mail us at ombwatcher@ombwatch.org. Please indicate in your e-mail whether or not we may publish your comments in the Watcher, as well as your name and any other information by which you would like to be identified. Back to Top Notes and Sidebars Revised Federal Budget Surplus Numbers According to news sources, the Administration reported today that the surplus for FY 2001 (October 1, 2000 through September 31, 2001) was $127 billion, down from the August estimate of $158 billion. This is still the second largest surplus in our history. The smaller surplus figure is due to the effect of the spring tax cut, including the rebate checks and the switch of the due date for corporate income tax payments, as well as generally lower tax revenues resulting from the downturn in the economy. Information should be on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and U.S. Treasury websites shortly. FED 101 Ever not understood a press announcement about a Federal Reserve Board (FED) action? Ever pretended that you did? Well, now, thanks to a very thorough website created by the FED, you can actually understand the language explaining FED policy and action. For more information, go back to school at FED 101.