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 --> Federal Budget Not Enough Money for the President's Tax Cut Appropriations Update Instead Of Cutting Spending, Cut Some Tax Cuts What If The Tax Cuts Were Made Permanent? Second Annual GPRA Performance Reports Regulatory Issues Congress Votes for Stronger Arsenic Standard House, Senate at Odds over Environmental Enforcement Budget Corps of Engineers Reverses Decision to Save Wildlife Senate Rejects Nominee to Head CPSC Sunshine Showdown Lieberman Gains Access to Bush Reg Documents Nonprofit Sector Issues New Charitable Contribution Bill Introduced In The Senate Charitable Choice in Limbo Campaign Finance Bill: Coming Back To Life In The House? Information Access and Technology Community Technology Funding Conservative and Progressive Online News Sites SIDE BAR: Budget: Tax Cuts vs. Social Security; US Poverty Line Nonprof Sector: Faith-Based Office Audit; Soft Money; Nonprofit Advocacy THEY'RE FINALLY GETTING IT! There's Not Enough Money for the President's Tax Cut After assurances that there was plenty of money to accomplish the $1.35 trillion Bush tax cut and increase defense spending and pass Medicare prescription drug coverage and increase education spending and enact a patient's bill of rights and pay for additional tax breaks like those included in the recent House-passed energy, charitable giving, and patient bill of rights bills and correct the alternative minimum tax and pay for emergency costs that always arise, it looks like Republicans are beginning to catch on to what Democrats have been saying for a long time -- there is not enough money for the tax cut and other spending and tax priorities agreed to in the budget resolution while still honoring the bipartisan agreement to use all of the Medicare and Social Security surpluses for debt reduction. Without, of course, cutting spending…. The House has been enthusiastically passing legislation, apparently with no concern about where the money is going to come from to pay for the costs, and without actually offering offsets for the additional expenditures. For instance:

• HR 7, The Community Solutions Act, which passed the House on July 19, includes a non-itemizer deduction for charitable giving at a cost of $6.4 billion over ten years (to keep the cost as low as possible, the deduction is limited and worth only pocket change to taxpayers, and thus will not accomplish much, if anything, in its goal of encouraging charitable giving). It also includes tax-free withdrawals from IRA's for charitable contributions and other charitable giving provisions, for a total cost of $13.3 billion.
• HR 4, The Securing America's Future Energy Act, passed on August 2, includes a number of special tax breaks to encourage energy production and alternative sources of energy, at a cost of $33.5 billion over ten years (with most of the tax breaks going to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries).
• HR 2563, the Patients' Bill of Rights bill, which passed the House on August 2, includes specific tax breaks to assist the self-employed and small businesses with buying health insurance and will also reduce income tax revenues, as the increase in health care costs will lower wages -- and thus the taxes paid on those wages. The bill has not been "scored" yet, but low estimates are that it will cost at least $13 billion over ten years.
• HR 1088, the Investor and Capital Market Fee Relief Act, passed on June 14, lowers transaction fees charged by the Securities Exchange Commission and is estimated by CBO to cost $14 billion over ten years.

Already, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has pointed out, these four bills total over $61 billion in additional revenue losses between 2002 and 2011, well exceeding the $41 billion allotted in the budget resolution for additional tax cuts. Remaining likely expenditures include the $18.4 billion request (solely for FY 2002) in additional military spending, with the "Quadrennial Defense Review," due on September 30, likely calling for more increases in military spending in the coming decade; prescription drug coverage; correction of the alternative minimum tax problem that has been precipitated by lowering the tax brackets; paying for the education reforms passed by the House and Senate; and the usual emergency spending needs that are bound to arise. With the release of the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) Mid-session Review expected later this month, House majority leaders are now openly admitting that spending will have to be cut in order to avoid using the Medicare and Social Security Trust funds. Even though there is no problem with using Medicare and Social Security to finance government operations -- since the trusts funds receive interest on the loan through government bonds no matter how the revenue is spent -- the political will is to use those funds for debt reduction only. It has become politically unpopular to tap into either trust fund, with the argument that using those funds to reduce the debt and lower interest payments is the best course of action. This has led to mechanisms like "lock boxes" to "protect" these trust funds. The resolve not to use the Medicare and Social Security revenues will likely mean spending cuts. Hints that there actually wasn't enough money began to leak out last month. On July 27, the BNA Daily Tax Report quoted an internal GOP memo warning that spending would cut into the Medicare trust fund this year and every year through FY 2005, and that the Social Security surplus might have to be used in FY 2003. On August 2, CongressDaily reported that House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-IA) had openly said that spending will need to be cut, perhaps as soon as this fiscal year (ending September 30) with across-the-board spending cuts. This lack of resources will almost certainly require something to give in a fairly drastic way as Congress turns to the remainder of the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills in September. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Budget Committee, has been keeping a running tally of the fiscal picture and how much the government will dip into the Medicare and Social Security Trust Fund surpluses. His analysis shows four scenarios:

• Under the current budget resolution and tax cut just enacted (Scenario 1);
• Under action taken by the House or being debated, including the Bush defense request, energy bill, and patients' bill of rights bill. It does not include the faith-based initiative or the lowering of SEC transaction fees passed by the House (Scenario 2);
• Likely further action, including average cost for emergency spending, and acting on tax extenders and sunsets (Scenario 3). The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) issued a report after the Spratt analysis that pegged tax extenders much higher than Spratt's estimate (see related story); and
• The impact of the August re-estimate of the economy, which will reduce the surpluses (Scenario 4).

Under Scenario 1, which assumes only action taken by Congress so far, there would still be an on-budget surplus in most years. (The on-budget surplus excludes Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds.) Only in 2003 and 2004 would there be a need to slightly dip into Medicare and Social Security. In 2001 and 2002, there would still be $6 billion and $25 billion, respectively, in on-budget surpluses. The 10-year on-budget surplus would be $472 billion. Under Scenario 2, from 2003 through 2007, there would be a need to spend $92 billion of the Medicare surpluses. The 10-year on-budget surplus would drop to $182 billion. Under Scenario 3, over the 10-year estimate, there would be a need to spend $217 billion of the Medicare surpluses. There would be no on-budget surplus left. Indeed, there would be a $183 billion deficit over 10 years. Under Scenario 4, the re-estimate of the economy will be done formally by the Congressional Budget Office. However, the House Budget Committee does it own internal estimates. Based on its own estimates, over the 10-year period, there would be a need to spend $348 billion of Medicare surpluses and $72 billion of the Social Security surplus. In fact, in the current year, 2001, there would be a need to spend $15 billion of Medicare Part A to pay for running government. See "Paying for Bush's Priorities" chart below. Chart: Dipping into the Medicare and Social Security Surpluses -- Cumulative Impact" The graph below shows the cumulative 10-year (2002-2011) impact on the overall on-budget surplus/deficit under the four scenarios described above. 10-year Cumulative Impact on Budget Surplus/Deficit Back to Top Appropriations Update With five of the thirteen appropriations bills ready for final debate in House-Senate conferences (Energy, Interior, the Legislative Branch, Transportation, and VA-HUD), members of Congress have returned home for the August recess. When they return after Labor Day, they will have less than a month to pass the remaining eight bills and debate and iron out the differences between House and Senate versions, before the new fiscal year begins on October 1. As expected, Congress is leaving the two largest and most contentious bills, Defense and Labor-HHS-Education for the final act of the appropriations process -- although the House Armed Services Committee had begun to markup the Defense appropriations bill (HR 2586) and seemed to be in agreement with the additional $18.4 billion Bush requested in June. Appropriators will also have to find the resources to fund the additional education spending both Bush and Congress have agreed on. The Washington Post reported today that many Congressional staffers believe that this can only be accomplished by making cuts in other programs. The familiar showdown between the military and social programs, often dubbed "guns vs. butter," is further complicated by the spending limit of $661.3 billion in the budget resolution, different priorities of the Republican House and Democratic Senate, and the bipartisan agreement not to dip into the Medicare and Social Security surpluses. BNA's August 6 Daily Report for Executives reported that on Friday, 150 House Republicans sent a letter to Bush pledging their support to uphold any veto he issued against any appropriations bill that exceeded his spending priorities. The letter called the Bush budget proposal "generous and affordable" but warned that "new leadership in the Senate does not share [the same] commitment to fiscal discipline and will look to bust the budget with spending far in excess of what is required." For a closer look at what all this means for future budget debates, see this related Watcher piece. Back to Top Instead Of Cutting Spending, Cut Some Tax Cuts Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) is planning to introduce legislation in September that would delay any additional cuts in marginal income tax rates, or the elimination of the estate tax, until Congress can:

• assure the American public that doing so will not jeopardize the Social Security or Medicare Trust Funds or force cuts in benefits
• add a comprehensive prescription drug benefit to Medicare,
• provide full funding to modernize schools and add 100,000 teachers, and
• significantly reduce the number of Americans with "worst case" housing needs.

There is another way to be both fiscally responsible and meet the priorities of many Americans -- rather than cutting spending, cut the tax cuts. Back to Top What If The Tax Cuts Were Made Permanent? (Or, "What if Pigs Could Fly?") Most of us know that all of the tax cuts in the Bush plan passed by Congress (the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001") are scheduled to expire at various times during the next nine years, with all provisions expiring on December 31, 2010. A number of other tax provisions are also scheduled to expire at various times during the next ten years. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has prepared a helpful chart listing all tax provisions scheduled to expire through December 31, 2010 and a second chart providing the cost for renewing them. JCT provides the revenue costs for a one year extension of the tax provisions that will expire during this year. It is relatively small -- $2.57 billion between now and 2011 -- roughly the same cost as some other proposed tax cuts currently being debated, such as permitting Individual Retirement Accounts to be rolled over tax free for charitable contributions. However, the cost from 2001 through 2011 of extending all the tax provisions that will expire December 31, 2010, including the Bush tax cut, is enormous -- over $396 billion. Almost one-third of that, or $112.5 billion over the 11 years, is the cost of extending the Bush tax cut provisions, which would cost over $100 billion in 2011 alone. However, the cost may be much larger since the last year of the Bush tax cut -- 2010 -- is estimated by JCT in a different analysis as costing $187 billion. JCT did not provide an explanation of what tax cut provisions are included in the latest analysis. Back to Top Second Annual GPRA Performance Reports In March 2001, federal agencies were required to produce their second annual Performance Reports under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), covering the results they achieved during fiscal year 2000. Throughout the implementation of the Act, Congress has been far quicker to use the planning and reporting process under GPRA to criticize agencies and give them low "grades," rather than use GPRA as a tool designed to assist agencies in actually improving the performance of government. Predictably, these latest reports were again found to be inadequate. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), the ranking member on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, who has remained a determined critic of agency conformance with the requirements of GPRA, testified before the Government Efficiency Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform on June 19, finding that the FY 2000 reports were only moderately improved from the prior year's efforts. Sen. Thompson found that the reports could still not be used to adequately assess an agency's performance or to compare programs across government, that there were remaining problems with inadequate data, and that the reports evidenced agency unwillingness to set goals to resolve long-standing problems in the federal government. Also during June, the General Accounting Office released its evaluations of each agency's Performance Report as well of their third annual Performance Plans. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, under its Government Accountability Project, released its slightly more positive scorecard of the Performance Reports in May, finding "modest but widespread" improvement. We expect that GPRA will continue to be used, not as a constructive tool to increase government responsiveness and accountability to its citizens, but as a weapon in renewed conservative efforts to denigrate and delimit the activities of government. Given this focus on reducing, rather than improving, government, President Bush's stated intent to use GPRA in making budget decisions and allocations by the FY 2003 budget should be of great concern to nonprofits. Nonprofits should also be paying attention to GPRA because of the likelihood that performance requirements will be extended to nonprofit grantees of federal funds. There is increasing recognition that, in order to achieve the goals of GPRA, agencies must include third-party grantees and contractors in their GRPA process. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government recently issued a report recommending increased agency attention to grantee and contractor compliance with performance-based measures. The report included a recommendation that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide guidance to insure that third-parties are included in the GPRA process. GPRA has the potential to be a useful tool in achieving increased government accountability and openness as well as an opportunity for increased citizen participation in making demands on government. However, in the current political climate, GPRA can also be a useful weapon to decrease government spending for those programs that cannot demonstrate quantitative "results." Back to Top House, Senate Vote for Stronger Arsenic Standard The Bush administration was dealt a critical blow last week when both the House and Senate voted to prevent further delay of a stronger standard to reduce arsenic in drinking water. A new standard has been on hold since late March when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shelved a rule issued at the end of the Clinton administration. That rule lowered the acceptable level for arsenic in drinking water to 10 parts per billion (ppb), down from the previous (and still current) standard of 50 ppb -- set back in 1942 -- which the National Academy of Sciences has found does not adequately protect public health. The House vote -- which occurred on an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 2620) and HREF="http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=288">passed 218-189 -- goes further than the Senate proposal in that it specifies that EPA must immediately adopt a standard no weaker than the one finalized at the end of the Clinton administration, leaving room for yet a stronger standard. The Senate -- also in an amendment to VA-HUD appropriations (S. 1216) -- merely instructed (in a 97-1 vote) that a stronger standard be adopted without specifying what that should be. Initially, EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman seemed to signal that she would seek a straight repeal of the Clinton standard. That quickly became a politically untenable position, however, and the administration began to backtrack. Now, especially with the House and Senate votes, a stronger standard seems all but assured. The question is, how strong? EPA is currently HREF="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-12878-filed.pdf">taking comment on whether the new standard should be set at 3 ppb, 5 ppb, 10 ppb, or 20 ppb. The Children's Environmental Health Network, among others, argues that a tougher standard of at least 5 ppb needs to be enforced because children consume more water per pound of body weight than adults, making them more susceptible to arsenic's carcinogenic effects. Regardless of whether EPA eventually strengthens the arsenic standard, the legality of the Bush administration's delay is still in question. Democratic members of the Senate recently joined a lawsuit led by the Natural Resources Defense Council arguing that EPA ignored a previous congressional mandate to issue the arsenic rule by June 22. The amendment establishing that deadline was attached to fiscal year 2001 EPA appropriations bill. Back to Top House, Senate at Odds over Environmental Enforcement Budget Upholding a proposal from the Bush administration, the House recently voted to slash the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) enforcement staff by 8 percent, or 270 positions, while providing $25 million in new grants to states for enforcement activities, with passage of the 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill. An amendment offered by Rep. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) that would have shifted $25 million budgeted for EPA's administrative activities back into federal enforcement HREF="http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=289"> was defeated, 214-182. The administration faces a tougher sell in the Senate, however, which restored the $25 million in proposed cuts to EPA's enforcement budget, as it HREF="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1071/vote_00269.html">overwhelmingly approved its version of the VA-HUD appropriations bill on August 2. The Senate version also does not include the additional $25 million the administration requested for enforcement grants to states (though it does include a total of $3.6 billion for state and tribal assistance grants). The administration's move to devolve enforcement responsibilities comes despite recent evidence that many states do not adequately enforce environmental protections. At least six states failed to report numerous serious violations of the Clean Air Act, according to a 1998 audit by the EPA inspector general. The state of Ohio has one of the worst records on the books. For instance, from 1996 to 1997, under former governor and now senator George Voinovich (R), 72 percent of Ohio plants and refineries surveyed had violations of the Clean Water Act and 33 percent were in violation of the Clean Air Act, according to EPA's inspector general. Yet during this time, Ohio reported only four serious violations of environmental laws from over 1,700 major industrial plants. Accordingly, a number of environmental groups have asked EPA to revoke Ohio's authority to enforce federal environmental laws, and to bring in federal enforcers instead. Yet despite this track record, President Bush nominated Donald R. Schregardus, who headed the Ohio EPA during the Voinovich administration, to be EPA's new assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance. Back to Top Corps of Engineers Reverses Decision to Save Wildlife Apparently following orders from the White House, the Army Corps of Engineers abandoned a plan to propose major flow changes in the Missouri River, despite its earlier endorsement of the plan. The proposed flow changes would have increased spring flows and decreased summer flows to mimic the river's natural system, in order to save three regional species -- the pallid sturgeon, the piping plovers, and the least terns. Previously, the Corps publicly acknowledged that its management of the river was violating the Endangered Species Act and had agreed the spring rise was necessary. The Corps' change of heart -- which HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23426-2001Aug2.html">the Washington Post reports was prompted by political interference from administration officials on behalf of the barge industry and farming interests down river -- throws out 12 years of study that went into devising the plan. "So much for science," Michael Olson, the Missouri River's Fish and Wildlife Coordinator, told the Post. The decision also ends, for now, a fierce battle in the Senate between Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), who strongly supported the flow change, and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), who fought tooth and nail against it. Back to Top Senate Rejects Nominee to Head Consumer Product Safety Commission On August 2, the Senate Commerce Committee voted along straight party lines, 12-11, to HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23452-2001Aug2.html">reject Mary Sheila Gall, President Bush's nominee to chair the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Gall is the first Bush nominee to be officially rejected by the Senate, offering another strong rebuke to the administration's demonstrated hostility to health and safety protections. Gall has served on the CPSC for the past 10 years, with a record of pro-industry actions. She voted against federal efforts to regulate baby walkers, baby bath seats, bunk beds, and has frequently blamed children's injuries on parents rather than faulty products. Gall has a hands-off regulatory philosophy that extols the virtues of industry "self-regulation." Senator John Edwards (D-NC) noted that the chair of the Commission gives a voice to the consumer "and under Mary Gall, that voice would be silent." Ann Brown, current chair of the CPSC (appointed by Clinton in 1994), will continue to serve in the position. However, the White House has hinted that it may seek to remove Brown from the chairmanship, though the legality of such a move is unclear. Brown's appointment expires in 2006. Back to Top Sunshine Showdown The General Accounting Office's (GAO) effort to obtain information from Vice President Dick Cheney about the energy task force he chaired is slowly escalating into a major showdown. GAO, an investigative arm of Congress, has requested information and documents concerning the development of the Bush administration's energy policy, particularly about the private meetings of an energy task force, called the National Energy Policy Development Group. The interagency task force, chaired by Cheney, met with parties outside the government to develop its recommendations to the president. Normally meetings involving people from outside of government that are used to establish government policy are made subject to sunshine laws, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, no information about the meetings involving people outside of government was made public, raising concerns that access to the task force was dominated by industry. Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking members of the Energy and Commerce and HREF="http://www.house.gov/reform/">Government Reform committees, respectively, asked GAO to investigate last April. They wanted to know whether this process provided special access for special interests, and if so, to what extent and to whom and at what cost. Their April letter to GAO said, "It is our understanding that the task force has conducted a number of meetings since at least March 15, 2001, and some, if not all, of these meetings have included exclusive groups of non-governmental participants -- including political contributors -- to discuss specific policies, rules, regulations, and legislation... While we have never been provided with an official list of members of this task force, it is our understanding that these meetings took place at federal facilities with the participation of federal employees. We further understand that the meetings were conducted entirely in private." Their request to GAO included such things as names of task force members, dates and times of their meetings, laws or guidelines that apply to their meetings, phone records, attendance lists, and identification of who determines the invitation list to the meetings. They sent a similar request directly to the task force. GAO proceeded with the investigation, but was rebuffed by the Vice President's office. The head of GAO, Comptroller General David Walker, did not give up. On July 18, Walker sent a "demand letter," which escalated the issue. Cheney responded publicly that he would not comply with the demand letter, and sent a letter to Congress stating as much. In the letter, Cheney said that Walker's demand letter has exceeded "his lawful authority and which, if given effect, would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch." At this point, the ball is back in GAO's court. GAO can pursue this in U.S. District Court or drop it. If it appears that GAO will pursue the matter through a lawsuit, the administration -- either through a presidential or OMB certification -- could declare the materials as "pre-decisional" and part of the deliberative process, making them exempt from public access. Such action would force Congress to issue a subpoena if it wants the information. Such administration action would also force any Freedom of Information Act requests that are denied into the courts. Back to Top Lieberman Obtains Access to Documents on Bush Regulatory Rollbacks Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) has reached an agreement with the Bush administration that will allow his staff access to critical documents that might illuminate decisions to roll back standards on arsenic in drinking water (see above story), HREF="/ombwatcher/ombw20010402.html#min">hard rock mining, and HREF="/article/archive/9/#rds">roadless forests. Lieberman had previously been rebuffed in seeking access to the documents, but the administration relented after he threatened to subpoena them using his newly-acquired power as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Under the agreement with the administration, Lieberman's staff may view the documents and take notes, but cannot have copies. Moreover, before Lieberman can release any information obtained, he must notify the administration, and give them a chance to respond and possibly argue against the release. In a statement announcing the agreement, Lieberman explained the importance of his effort: "When the Bush Administration took office in January, it ordered the federal regulatory agencies to review a range of environmental, health, and safety regulations issued by the Clinton Administration that had not yet taken effect.... Much to my disappointment, and, I believe, to the detriment of America's environmental and public health, the Bush Administration decided to move to undo or undercut several of these critically important regulations. I was particularly curious about the process the agencies in question went through to reach those hasty decisions -- a process we are concerned was neither open, nor public, nor even adequately explained. We don't know, and the public does not know, who they consulted or relied on in making those decisions, or really very much about why they thought those decisions were the right ones to make, giving us legitimate reason to question just whose interests were being served." Back to Top New Charitable Contribution Bill Introduced In The Senate Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) introduced a bill on August 1 that includes some of the charitable giving incentives from HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, that was passed by the House of Representatives in July. While the text of S 1300 is not yet available, it is reported to include HR 7's reduction in the foundation excise tax, an increase in the cap on corporate contributions, and elimination of the capital gains tax on grantees receiving donations of S Corporation stock. The major giving components of HR 7, including the nonitemizer deduction and IRA rollover, are already contained in another Senate bill co-sponsored by Santorum and Lieberman, S 592. Back to Top Charitable Choice in Limbo Following a meeting involving President Bush and Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Rick Santorum (R-PA), it appeared there was new life to charitable choice legislation. However, it is uncertain whether such legislation will move this year in the Senate. In the week prior to the August recess Bush reportedly told Lieberman that he will consider changes to the civil rights portion of the House-passed faith-based initiative, HR 7, that supercedes state and local civil rights laws that provide more protection than federal law. This seemed to give some impetus to moving a charitable choice bill in the Senate. Lieberman has openly expressed concern about the need to protect against discrimination based on sexual preference, marital status, and other factors. Although progress on the civil rights issue is welcome, serious problems remain with the House-passed version of charitable choice. For example, the bill allows an estimated $47 billion in federal funds impacted by the bill to be converted to vouchers at the discretion of agency heads. There was little to no debate on the issue on the House floor, although the bill allows religious programming in programs paid for with vouchers. Human services groups have expressed concern about the impact "voucherization" could have on the availability of services, since agencies would not be able to know how many people would seek their help, how much staff to hire or whether other organizations are offering duplicative services. Some groups have expressed concern to Lieberman about the problems in HR 7. Lieberman is rumored to be supportive of faith-based funding, but cautious about introducing legislation that could result in less accountability in service delivery. Back to Top Campaign Finance Bill: Coming Back To Life In The House? The petition to discharge the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill from committee to the House floor gained strong momentum within days of being filed, and had 205 of the necessary 218 votes by the time Congress recessed on August 3. Common Cause and other reform groups are conducting grassroots campaigns in congressional districts of members that have not yet signed during the August recess. If 218 members of the house sign the petition, it will come up for debate on the floor, with a rule allowing votes on several substitute bills. If the number is close to 218 when Congress returns after Labor Day Speaker Dennis Hastert will be have to decide whether to bring the bill to the floor or wait and see if pro-reform members can get the required signatures. Republican members were said to be under intense pressure from party leadership not to sign the petition. A list of Representatives who have signed the Discharge Petition is available. OMB Watch has urged Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) to strengthen the portion of their bill that deals with exceptions to the ban on broadcast "issue advocacy" during an election cycle. While an exception allowing nonprofits to air candidate debates and forums was included, other nonpartisan or non-electoral communications, such as grassroots lobbying calls to action and get-out-the-vote messages, could still be prohibited. However, the bill allows the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to conduct a rulemaking to create exemptions for such activities. But it does not require the FEC to act, and if they do not, nonprofits will find their advocacy rights curtained during election cycles. OMB Watch is urging the sponsors to change the bill language to require the FEC to come up with rules protecting these rights. Back to Top Community Technology Funding On July 30 the House passed its VA-HUD spending bill, on a roll call vote of 336-89. The Senate passed its VA-HUD appropriations bill on August 2, by a roll call vote of 94-5. Both the House and Senate bills call for $80 million for community technology centers (CTCs), under the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program, in the form of grants to create or expand CTCs in high poverty urban and rural communities and to provide technical assistance to those centers. While no plans have yet been circulated for a HUD CTC program, it is likely that a CTC program would be administered through HUD's Neighborhood Networks initiative, a program started in 1995 (yet never funded) to create CTCs for residents of public and assisted housing, mostly in urban areas. The proposed $80 million under the VA-HUD bill would be earmarked for grants that would be open, on a competitive basis, to state and local educational agencies, higher education institutions, business, public and private nonprofits, or consortia with the capacity to provide computer access and support services. This would strongly suggest that, pending full passage and signing by the President, the program will operate out of HUD, instead of through the existing Department of Education program, to which Congress appropriated $65 million in FY 01. A "transfer" of CTC activities has raised concerns that funding for the existing CTCs, which is slated for three years under the current program, would be cut, and the attendant America Connects Consortium technical assistance network would be eliminated just as it completed its first year of activity. Ironically, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) serves as the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies (VA-HUD), but also sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. This past May, Mikulski and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) were successful in getting authorizing language for the federal CTC program added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act bill, the reauthorization of which was a top Bush administration priority. That language authorized $100 million to be spent for the creation/expansion of 1,000 CTCs under the existing Dept. of Education program. The amendment's passage was seen as an indication that there would be a push to keep the existing federal CTC program under the auspices of the Education Department, instead of HUD, as proposed by President Bush. There is uncertainty, at this writing, whether CTCs might also be included in a Labor/HHS/Education spending bill. While the proposed level of funding for federal support of CTCs was increased, the level of funding recommended for another key technology grant program, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) was dramatically cut. In FY 01, TOP received $45 million for grants to help develop the national telecommunications and information technology infrastructure to help deliver social services -- including education, health, employment, and public safety -- to underserved rural and urban areas across the country, and provide program model research and evaluation to help replicate those services. Under the original FY 02 budget plan, $16 million dollars was available for TOP, of which around $13 million was designated for new grants. The House version of the Commerce-State-Justice (CJS) spending bill passed by a vote of 408 to 19. On July 1, the Senate Appropriations Committee finished the markup of its CJS bill. Both bills provide only $15.5 million for TOP, under the heading of "Information Infrastructure Grants" -- a reduction of $30 million for the program, insufficient to sustain the current level of activity, and to accommodate the rising level of need and interest in this vital program. Back to Top Conservative and Progressive Online News Sites If it's true that no good deed goes unpunished in the realm of policy and advocacy, does that mean that is also goes unpublished? One might think that a wide range of advocacy-related news is finding a large online audience through mainstream news sites. A growing number of conservative and progressive news sites, however, seeks to present news and analysis ignored (or actively rejected) by mainstream news outlets. In doing so, they present a glimpse of the once and future role of media as active participant and advocate on matters affecting society. Read more from NPTalk. Back to Top Notes and Sidebars Tax Cut vs. Social Security: More Numbers It's not the Social Security deficits we should worry about, it's the tax cut that's gonna put us in the poorhouse -- according to a recent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) analysis (including a rebuttal to the Administration critique), the 75 year cost of the tax cut is more than TWICE that of the Social Security deficit. US Poverty Line: Real Numbers If you ever thought that the federal "poverty line" doesn't reflect what is really needed to maintain a decent and safe standard of living, take a look at the new Economic Policy Institute analysis using "basic family budgets" for a more realistic estimate of how many families can't make ends meets and the hardships they face. See how much your basic family budget is by community. Faith-Based Office The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives missed its July 29 deadline for sending the President a report on barriers to participation of faith-based groups in federal grant programs. The reports, including reviews by five federal agencies, were ordered by the President when he announced his faith-based initiative in January. Soft Money Contributions Database A study released July 26 found that political parties in the states raised about $600 million in soft money during the 2000 election, and transferred half to national parties. The Center for Public Integrity, the National Institute on Money in State Politics and the Center for Responsive Politics have created a database of state soft money contributions, and are analyzing it. A state by state breakdown is currently available. Nonprofit Advocacy Frontiers of Freedom Institute has filed a complaint at the IRS against the Rainforest Action Network, claiming the group should lose their tax exempt status because of their advocacy activities, including direct action. More information is available from the Frontiers of Freedom press release.