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 --> Regulatory Affairs John Graham Confirmed with Heavy Opposition GAO Study: EPA Advisory Boards Riddled with Conflicts of Interest Administration Moves to Revise Clean Water Standard OSHA Suspends Steel Erection Safety Standard Roadless Rule Off Track Nonprofit Sector Issues House Passes Faith-Based Bill Proposal Would Simplify IRS Lobbying Rules For 501(C)(3) Groups Campaign Finance Reform Stalls In The House Federal Budget Social Security Commission Issues Draft Report Watch for More Spending Caps Appropriations Update Rule What? Access to Information Judge Slows FEC Release of DNC Campaign Info E-Government Task Force Formed Public Interest Policy Information and Media Advocacy SIDE BAR: Budget: Nonprof Sector: Faith-based Audit; Tax Deductible Campaign Contributions Information Policy Announcements: John Graham Confirmed with Heavy Opposition The Senate HREF="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1071/vote_00242.html">voted 61-37 last Thursday (July 19) to approve the nomination of John Graham to head OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which acts as gatekeeper for health, safety, and environmental protections. The heavy opposition to Graham represents a strong rebuke to the administration's HREF="/article/articleview/195/1/4/">recent regulatory roll backs, and puts Graham on notice that Congress will be paying very close attention to how he conducts himself as OIRA administrator. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) carried most of the floor debate for the opposition, and deserves much of the credit for the strong vote against Graham. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Paul Wellstone (D-MN), and John Kerry (D-MA) also spoke against the nomination. During debate, Durbin focused on Graham's consistent hostility to protections for public health, safety, and the environment, which has frequently put him at odds with the vast consensus of the scientific community. In particular, he pointed out that Graham has argued that dioxin at certain levels may be good for you; that pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables isn't a serious health threat; and that banning DDT might have been a mistake. Lieberman also deserves special credit for the strong vote against Graham; as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which had jurisdiction over the nomination, his voice carried considerable weight, and undoubtedly swayed other senators. During debate, Lieberman pointed out that Graham's academic work at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis posits a false tradeoff between addressing one type of risk and another, which he typically uses as an excuse to advise inaction. For example, Graham has frequently attacked various environmental protections, arguing that we should instead devote resources to more "cost-effective" programs, such as violence prevention or promoting the use of bike helmets. "Why make us choose?," Lieberman asked. The heavy Democratic opposition to Graham happened in the face of Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) actively campaigning for the nominee. While OMB Watch opposed the nomination, he has now been confirmed. Accordingly, OMB Watch looks forward to monitoring and reporting on his actions. Back to Top GAO Study Finds EPA Advisory Boards Riddled with Conflicts of Interest The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) panels -- which purportedly provide independent advice to the agency on the scientific basis underlying agency actions -- frequently include participants who have financial conflicts of interest, which are sometimes undisclosed, according to HREF="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01536.pdf">a new report from the HREF="http://www.gao.gov">General Accounting Office. The General Accounting Office (GAO) repeatedly found that there was no record kept of the processes undertaken to ensure a balanced panel, which the law requires, and that often times there was not enough information disclosed from each panelist to even determine what his or her affiliation was. For example, on one SAB panel examining health risks of carcinogens, seven of the 17 members worked for chemical companies or industry-affiliated research organizations. In another case, a 15-member panel in 1998 was asked to judge whether the toxic chemical 1,3-Butadiene should be classified as a "known" carcinogen. The majority of the panelists brought perspectives sympathetic to industry (only three panelists were viewed by EPA as having an "environmental perspective"), with four directly employed by industry or industry-affiliated research organizations. One panelist worked for a company that produces 1,3-Butadiene, and two owned stock in companies that manufacture 1,3-Butadiene -- amazingly, none of which was disclosed to the agency. In the end, the panel decided that 1,3-Butadiene should be classified as a "probable" carcinogen, rather than a "known" carcinogen, which could have significant implications for setting regulatory priorities. GAO's findings add new credibility to the case against "peer review" panels that have been a key component of HREF="/regs/1999/vladeck.html">cross-cutting regulatory "reform" legislation over the years. Proponents of extending "peer review" to all federal agencies have frequently held up EPA's SAB panels as their model, arguing that they can provide sound, independent advice. Opponents in the public interest community, however, have argued that those with a stake, along with the time and resources to serve, will aggressively seek out positions on such peer review panels, inevitably tilting them in industry's favor -- even if the law calls for "balance." This appears to be what has happened in the case of EPA's SAB panels. Back to Top Administration Moves to Revise Clean Water Standard The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to suspend and eventually revise a rule (completed in July of 2000) that requires the cleanup of thousands of polluted lakes, rivers, and streams. The rule, which would significantly strengthen the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) program, was to have taken effect October 1, 2001, but will now be suspended for 18 months. This action will likely halt industry litigation to overturn the rule in federal appeals court (EPA filed for a stay of the litigation on July 16). In the meantime, an anonymous EPA official told BNA that the agency could propose revisions to the rule by Spring of 2002. In delaying the standard, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman cited a need for additional input from stakeholders -- even though EPA received about 34,000 comments before the rule was finalized last year. Back to Top OSHA Suspends Steel Erection Safety Standard The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced that it would delay the effective date of a rule that protects iron workers from the dangers of steel erection work, in particular falls from great heights, by six months to January 18, 2002 (a notice appeared in the HREF="http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html">Federal Register on July 17). The rule -- which according to OSHA, is expected to prevent 30 deaths and 1,142 injuries a year -- was the product of negotiation between workers and affected industries, and was not considered controversial when it was finalized. Yet several steel and metal manufacturers filed a petition in March for review in a federal appeals court, citing concern over a specific part of the standard focusing on slip resistance, and the administration responded with the suspension. The delay of the standard is legally questionable since the effective date is part of the rule itself, and a rule can only be altered by entering into a new rulemaking, meaning public notice and comment. Yet this has become standard operating procedure for the Bush administration, and because any litigation would drag on longer than six months, it is likely to go unchallenged. Back to Top Roadless Rule Off Track The Bush administration signaled on July 10 (in an HREF="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-17249-filed.pdf">Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) that it will roll back a rule -- completed at the end of the Clinton administration -- that bans new roads and logging in millions of acres of national forests, including much of Alaska's Tongass National Forest. Just weeks earlier, the administration tipped its hand by deciding not to appeal a dubious ruling by a federal judge in Idaho halting implementation of the ban. Public support does not appear to be on the administration's side. During formulation of the roadless rule, the Forest Service received an unprecedented 1.6 million public comments, 95 percent of which were supportive of the rule. Yet timber interests weighed in heavily against the ban, and the administration has apparently responded. The National Environmental Trust provides reaction from various public figures opposed to the administration's action. Back to Top House Passes Faith-Based Bill H.R. 7, the "Community Solutions Act," was passed by the House on Thursday, July 17. The final vote was 233-198, with 4 Republicans voting against the bill, and 15 Democrats voting for it. A Democratic alternative that addressed some of the civil rights and discrimination problems in HR 7 was defeated 261-168. This alternative would have prohibited religious organizations that provide federally funded programs from engaging in sectarian activities at the same time. A motion to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to remove language that allows discrimination also failed on a vote of 234-195. Moderate Republicans, led by Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), temporarily held the bill hostage over the provisions that could waive state discrimination laws. However, after some arm-twisting by the President and Republic leadership in the House, they relented. What they got instead was an understanding that the issue would be addressed during a House-Senate conference, if there ever were one. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) held a colloquy with Reps. J.C. Watts (R-OK) and Tony Hall (D-OH), two sponsors of charitable choice. Watts committed to address the employment discrimination problems in a House-Senate conference committee (if this bill ever makes it through the Senate). No similar commitment was made on discrimination against program beneficiaries. The main dispute over the bill is its "charitable choice" provision, which allows direct federal funding of congregations' social service work. An estimated $47 billion in federal programs would be affected if the bill becomes law. It also allows all covered programs (such as juvenile justice, housing and the Community Service Block Grant) to be converted from grant programs to vouchers at the discretion of the Secretary of the agency responsible for the program. Congregations that receive federal funds would be allowed to discriminate in hiring for the program on the basis of religious affiliation. State and local civil rights laws could be superseded. The bill also has several items relating to charitable giving. It contains a charitable deduction for non-itemizers, which, as originally proposed by the Bush administration could have generated charitable donations because it had no ceiling on the amount that could be deducted. The cost would have been $84 billion. The bill also had provisions that allowed individuals to give money from Individual Retirement Accounts to charities without facing taxation on the capital gains. The Ways and Means Committee in markup slashed the giving package to $13.3 billion, but provided offsets to pay for the tax cuts. This upset Democrats on two accounts. It requires dipping into the Medicare Part A trust fund, and the main tax break - the non-itemizer deduction - will not result in any incentive for new charitable giving. The unsuccessful Democratic substitute bill would have offset the cost of the package by reducing the tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers by making their marginal rate 35.5% instead of 35%, affecting 0.7% of all taxpayers. But they kept the non-itemizer deduction as Republicans proposed. As passed the bill allows for a maximum deduction of $25 this year, up to $100 in 10 years (double for couples). This represents a tax savings of $3.75 to $15 for taxpayers, at a cost of $6.4 billion. Ironically, the average charitable giving on non-itemizers is currently $328 per year, far above the permissible tax break. The future of this legislation is uncertain, as the Senate leadership has made a commitment to take it up, but not necessarily this year. At this point, no companion Senate bill exists. Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have introduced the Savings Opportunity and Charitable Giving Act (S. 592), a bill with charitable giving incentives but no charitable choice provisions. Santorum has convened a bipartisan working group that is seeking common ground on these issues. He is expected to take the lead in pushing faith-based legislation in the Senate. For more information, see OMB Watch's Charitable Choice resource page. Back to Top Proposal Would Simplify IRS Lobbying Rules For 501(C)(3) Groups OMB Watch is working with a group of nonprofits that hope to simplify and update the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules governing legislative lobbying expenditures by nonprofits exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. The objective is to change the tax code to eliminate the distinction between direct and grassroots lobbying and index the amount that can be spent on lobbying for inflation. Legislation that removed the grassroots-direct lobbying distinction passed in a tax bill last year, but was vetoed by President Clinton for unrelated reasons. Efforts to include it in tax bills in the remainder of 2001 are underway. Although no major tax bill is expected after the massive tax cut bill earlier this year, smaller bills extending current tax laws or enacting the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) proposals on simplification are possible. Eliminating the distinction between direct and grassroots lobbying would do away with the requirement that a charity spend no more than 25% of its allowed lobbying budget on grassroots lobbying (defined as appeals to general public asking them to contact legislators in support or opposition to specific legislative proposals). Grassroots lobbying expenditures would still count toward the overall budgetary limit, but 501(c)(3) organizations would be free to allocate their lobbying resources according to their needs, based on their best judgment. A major impact of the change would be to eliminate the need to separate record-keeping for the two types of lobbying. The elaborate cost allocation rules for expenditures on mixed direct and grassroots lobbying messages would no longer be necessary. This would make compliance with IRS rules easier, and free-up staff time. JCT submitted a report on tax simplification to Congress in April of this year. It urged elimination of the direct - grassroots lobbying distinction, stating the proposal "would simplify the Code and regulations by eliminating a largely unnecessary, but burdensome, process of definition and calculation." Under the tax code the allowable legislative lobbying budget for 501(c)(3) organizations is determined by a sliding scales formula adopted 25 years ago as part of Section 501(h), which established the expenditure test for measuring charity lobbying. The value of the dollar limits in the code has been diminished by inflation by nearly 66%, resulting in the gradual erosion of charities' lobbying rights. Adjusting for inflation would greatly help smaller charities engage in public policy actions. Currently, charities can use up to 20% of the first $500,000 of exempt purpose expenditures for lobbying, plus 15% of the amount of exempt purpose expenditures between $500,000 and $1 million. There is a sliding scale that caps lobby expenditures at $1 million. Roughly one-third of charities now fall in this first category, that is, less than $500,000, and can easily calculate their lobbying limits with the 20% of the exempt purpose expenditure. If the scale were adjusted for inflation, it would mean roughly one-half of charities could use the simplest 20% calculation. For example, a charity with a budget of $2 million would see the following change: Proposed 501(c)(3) Lobbying Expenditure Changes The result is a reasonable increase to reflect the impacts of inflation and, for smaller organizations, fewer steps needed to determine the limit. There is bipartisan support for the simplification and update proposal on Capitol Hill, but a strong sponsor will be needed to make sure it is included in a tax bill this year. The recommendation of JCT should bolster these efforts. For general information on lobbying by 501(c)(3)s, see the Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI) website. CLPI, along with the Alliance for Justice and OMB Watch, is leading this effort. Back to Top Campaign Finance Reform Stalls In The House On July 12 the House of Representatives rejected a procedural rule that campaign finance reform advocates said would have unfairly limited debate on the bill. The vote was 203-228, with 19 Republicans voting with most Democrats to defeat the rule proposed by the Republican leadership. Afterwards House speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said he had fulfilled his pledge to bring the bill to the floor and intends to move on to other issues. Last week Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001, with Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), and several other Republican reform proponents met with the speaker to discuss the situation. After the meeting Shays announced that a discharge petition looked like the best alternative for reformers. The Blue Dog Democrats, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats, had committed to begin the discharge petition process, which can force a bill to the floor. On July 19, the day after Shays' announcement, Blue Dog leader Rep. Jim Turner (D-TX), offered a new rule to the Rules Committee. The proposed rule must sit without action in the Rules Committee for seven days before petitions to discharge it to the floor begin circulating. Turner said the drive to get 218 members of the House to sign the petition would begin before Congress begins its August recess. The Blue Dog's rule would bring the Shays-Meehan bill to the floor and allow votes on three competing substitute bills. One would be HR 2360, introduced by House Administration Committee Chair Robert Ney (R-OH). HR 2360 limits, rather than bans, soft money, and requires extensive reporting of broadcast, cable, satellite and Internet communications that mention federal candidates within 120 days of an election. The second substitute would be a bill offered by the majority leader and the third would be an opportunity for Shays to offer another version of the bill he and Rep. Meehan have co-sponsored. Although discharge petitions are rarely successful, campaign finance reformers used them successfully in 1998 and 1999, when the leadership agreed to bring up the Shays-Meehan bill in the face of strong momentum. There is a strong likelihood this will happen again, since Shays said he has received many inquiries about when the petition will be ready for signatures. Both Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), co-sponsor with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) of S 27, the reform legislation that passed the Senate, have indicated that they will consider attaching the reform bill to other legislation going to the House if the discharge petition is not successful. Nonprofit Advocacy and Voter Participation Issues Still a Problem Reps. Shays and Meehan did not make any adjustments to the ban on nonprofit broadcasts that mention federal candidates during election cycles when they filed their managers amendment. OMB Watch and other nonprofits urged them to make floor statements that would clarify their intent that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) conduct a rulemaking proceeding that would result in exceptions to the ban that would protect nonpartisan broadcasts. Since the debate on the bill never reached the floor, this colloquy has not yet taken place. However, during the debate on the rule Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) argued that the rule governing debate on the bill should allow consideration of issues affecting the rights of citizens groups and the need to protect the rights of voters. The Congressional Black Caucus was divided on support for the Shays-Meehan bill going into the debate on the rule, and no clear consensus has yet emerged. Their support will be crucial for any bill to be successful. The soft money ban in Shays-Meehan has been cited as a concern because soft money is a source of funding for voter education and get-out-the-vote drives in minority communities. While Shays-Meehan contains an exception to the ban on broadcasts that mention federal candidates for debates, it has no such exception for voter registration and get-out-the-vote messages. Election reform efforts in the both the House and Senate could result in block grants to states for voter education and participation programs to which nonprofits would be eligible to apply . Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chair of the Senate Rules Committee, begins a series of town hall meetings on election reform in Georgia this week. In the House, Rep. Ney and ranking member Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) are working on a bipartisan bill that would also create resources for voter education and get-out-the-vote activities. For more information, see this May 25 Watcher article. During the time signatures are gathered for the House discharge petition Reps. Shays and Meehan should find ways to strengthen, rather than ban, nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts by nonprofits. OMB Watch proposed amendments that would accomplish this goal, but they were rejected and the issue delegated to the FEC because the sponsors feared they would create loopholes. This is a backwards approach. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be banned just because someone, sometime, might abuse the process. If Shays and Meehan are willing to consider appropriate amendments to protect nonprofit advocacy and voter participation work, they will find increased support for their bill in the tough battle ahead. Back to Top Social Security Commission Issues Draft Report The President's "Commission to Strengthen Social Security" issued its first draft on July 18 (Almost a week later, at the OMB Watcher's press time, this report was not yet available on the Commission's website (www.commtostrengthensocsec.gov). Not surprisingly, since every member of the Commission supports at least partial privatization, the document paints a grim picture of the future of the "broken" Social Security system. This report ought not to be taken at face value. Why not? First, although the Commission is "bipartisan," it is no secret that the members were chosen by the President to make recommendations to implement his agenda for Social Security, which includes partial privatization. The affiliations of at least some of the members are another indication of why the report may be less than unbiased. The Commission's website lists its members, which include the Vice President of Reliant Equity Investors, the Vice Chairman of Fidelity Investors, and the CEO of AOL/Time Warner. The authors of this draft report argue that "the diversity of views, opinions, and political beliefs represented on this Commission is critical to our ability to make an objective analysis." That objectivity is directly contradicted by their stated full endorsement of the President's Principles for Strengthening Social Security," including the tenet that "modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal requirement accounts, which will augment the Social Security safety net," i.e. partial privatization. If Social Security is in trouble, an assertion that is itself disputed by many experts, a solution ought to be proposed through a deliberative process that includes different points of view -- including the point of view that Social Security should remain a public good, dedicated to income protection, and not be made over into a wealth building (or destitution producing) instrument subject to individual investment decisions. The conclusions about Social Security that the Commission offers are based on a predetermined desired outcome that Social Security should be privatized. As citizens -- most of us beneficiaries, future beneficiaries, or contributors to the Social Security system -- we deserve an examination of Social Security that is not biased from the start. The report makes much of the fact that we do not "own" our future Social Security benefits, as if individual legal ownership, i.e., personal asset ownership and investment privileges, is the primary, if not the only, value we as a nation ought to be implementing. According to the authors of the report, the fact that we don't each "own" our own Social Security benefit is anxiety producing. When you think about it, though, the bank does not keep your savings account in a little slot with your name on it either -- it uses your money, with the promise that if you want it back, they'll give it to you. Why should the full faith and credit of the US government to provide our future Social Security benefits be perceived as less secure? The report holds out the carrot that through privatization we will acquire the "means of wealth accumulation and long-range investment, giving families resources they never had before, and widening the circle of Americans fortunate enough to pass on the accumulated results of their investments and hard work." The rhetoric is hard to resist and there is a good reason for the claim that privatizing Social Security will make us wealthy. Conservatives fully intend to reduce and weaken the federal government -- read Rep. Dick Armey's (R-TX) comments. Since Social Security is a government program, and one that has widespread citizen support, an important plank in the goal of reducing government must be convincing us that we as individuals can do a better job than government. Never mind that many individuals who invested heavily in the stock market are rethinking their strategies in light of the market slowdown. Never mind that our collective will, represented through a publicly provided program of Social Security, to provide for retirees is much more powerful than our individual efforts. The facts are that Social Security can pay full benefits to all beneficiaries from the payroll taxes being collected until 2016. At that point, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, it will not be broke. Payroll taxes will still be paying most beneficiaries and cash shortfalls will be relatively small. By 2025, we will have to begin redeeming the Treasury bonds that constitute the Social Security Trust Fund. This means that general government funds will be used to make up the difference between revenue from Social Security payroll taxes and payments to beneficiaries. We will not run out of Trust Funds until 2039, and even then 72% of payments to beneficiaries can be made with Social Security payroll tax revenue. These projections are based on a very low estimate of growth used by the Social Security Trustees -- much lower than the GDP estimates used by the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office. Some analysts argue that if the government would just apply its own projections for GDP that it uses elsewhere (for example in determining general surpluses, the President's budget, and the ability to pay for the President's tax cut) to Social Security projections, the funds would be liquid for about the next 75 years. Strikingly, there is nothing in the Commission's report that talks about the cost of privatization - certainly no small sum -- and where the resources for accomplishing that will be found. We do not argue that attention should be given to whether or not Social Security is in trouble and, if it is, how we can fix it. For too long now, the idea that we are "saving" Social Security by not "using" the Trust Funds has effectively prevented us from even discussing how to shore up the Social Security program. That discussion is long overdue, but it should not be limited to an examination of how best to privatize the system. For some alternative views see the following:

• AARP
• New York Times Editorial
• Campaign for America's Future
• Women and Social Security Project

Back to Top Watch for More Spending Caps As many of your know, a limit or "cap" on yearly discretionary (appropriations) spending has been a part of the budget landscape since the development of the Budget Enforcement Act. The original purpose of the caps was to get the budget into balance when it was running yearly deficits. With the budget in surplus, the caps have been largely ignored during the past couple of years. (The new "cap" that puts the brakes on discretionary spending is now being accomplished through the device of not using the Social Security, and sometimes the Medicare, surpluses for spending, but only for debt reduction, a process commonly referred to as a "lockbox.") The overall budget cap will expire after FY 2002. Even though the Congressional budget resolution already exceeds the BEA limit set for FY 2002, there will likely be an effort to reinstate budget caps (as well as the pay-as-you-go mechanism to control direct spending) in the continuing effort to achieve "fiscal discipline." Now that there are large budget surpluses is there a need for discretionary spending limits? Do the limits actually help in the budget process, or do they just lead to the increased use of accounting gimmicks or "emergency" spending for non-emergencies that doesn't count towards the limit? Would it be better to make two different caps -- one for domestic and one for military spending -- instead of combining them? How can the budget process be improved? Should we move to biennial budgeting? What changes should be made to the budget process to reflect this new era of budget surpluses? All of these questions, and more, will probably be on the table in the not-too-distant future. The recently-released statement of the Director of Federal Budget Analysis at the General Accounting Office to the House Budget Committee is a useful history and attempt to grapple with some of the budget process questions we can anticipate. Back to Top Appropriations Update Appropriations work continues in an effort to get most of the bills passed before the month-long August recess. So far the House has passed Commerce-Justice-State, Energy-Water, Interior, Transportation, and Agriculture appropriations bills. House Committee markups have been made on Treasury-Postal, VA-HUD, Foreign Operations, and Legislative Branch. The Senate has passed Energy-Water, Interior, Legislative Branch, and Foreign Operations. Senate Committee approval has been made on Commerce-Justice-State, VA-HUD, Transportation (currently being debated on the Floor), and Agriculture. There is no action scheduled on Treasury-Postal. Hearings have been held on the District of Columbia appropriation in both the House and Senate. What appropriations are conspicuously absent? The classic "guns vs. butter" items of Defense and Military Construction and Labor-HHS-Education, which are expected to face off in September. The conference report for the 2001 Supplemental Appropriation was passed by both the House and Senate on Friday, July 20. The Senate planned to consider the bill today, but expedited passage at the request of Vice President Cheney so that funds could be released to the Defense Department immediately. The total amount of the appropriation was $6.5 billion, of which approximately $5.6 billion goes to the Defense Department. It contained no emergency spending. For more information, see this listing of the status of FY 2002 appropriations with links to the bills. Back to Top Rule What? According to a report in the National Journal's Congress Daily (7/16/01), at the end of the appropriations season last year, language reinstating Senate Rule 28 was added to the FY 2001 omnibus (Labor-HHS, Legislative Branch, Treasury-Postal, and other appropriations) conference report. What is Rule 28? It prohibits including language in conference reports (including, but not limited to appropriation conference reports) of "extraneous" provisions that are not in either the House or Senate version of a bill. The reinstatement of Rule 28 in exactly the way that Rule 28 prohibits is an ironic twist. What does the resurrection of Rule 28 mean? If new provisions are inserted in any conference report, a Senator can raise a "point of order," which can be sustained by a simple majority, and thus reject the entire conference report. Since conference reports, especially appropriations conference reports, and most especially, omnibus conference reports, are frequently the vehicle for all sorts of "extraneous" provisions as part of the deal-making process, the reactivation of Rule 28 could have a big effect. In actuality, it may be ignored and/or gotten around procedurally. Is Rule 28 a good thing? On the one hand, clean conference reports that don't have any unpleasant surprises tacked on at the last minute make sense, but on the other hand, some of the provisions that get included are beneficial -- so it's a draw. Back to Top Judge Puts Temporary Hold on FEC Release of DNC Campaign Info The June 25 Watcher reported on the withholding of files of an investigation of coordinated campaign activity between the AFL-CIO and the Democratic Party. A July 17 article in the Bureau of National Affairs' Daily Report for Executives reported that federal judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. issued a preliminary injunction July 16 prohibiting the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from making these files public. The decision pre-empted a plan by the FEC to make the documents public July 17. According to BNA's Kenneth P. Doyle, Kessler said during a court hearing, that she would set a briefing schedule that will keep the documents under wraps at least until October. The Commission agreed to a court schedule calling for completion of briefing of the legal arguments by October 12. But FEC officials intend to defend their practice of placing closed-case documents on the record, as the Commission believes most documents related to political activities being probed should continue to be disclosed. A representative told BNA that the commission is conducting a limited review of whether some of the names of individuals not directly related to an investigation should be protected. Meanwhile, however, the documents will remain off the public record. According to BNA, attorneys for the AFL-CIO and DNC indicated they were pleased that Kessler had granted an injunction, giving them time to make their arguments. As noted in the Watcher's earlier report, the documents involved include about 6,000 pages originally made public in May. According to BNA, questions also have been raised about nearly 50,000 other documents relating to the DNC, which the FEC says it has but did not make part of the public record, apparently because of questions about their relevance. These documents are now the subject of a number of disclosure requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Doyle reports that the FEC recently closed a similar enforcement case involving the Republican Party's ties to the business community. Documents from this probe of the GOP's links to a collection of business groups known as The Coalition have not yet been made public, even though a 30-day deadline for putting them on the public record has passed. He notes that it is not clear yet whether or how Kessler's decision to grant an injunction in the Democrats' and AFL-CIO case will affect disclosure of other closed cases, including the GOP-Coalition case. Back to Top E-Government Task Force Formed One week after a Senate hearing on e-government, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitchell Daniels issued a memo creating an inter-agency task force to work on e-government issues. As reported in the last OMB Watcher, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on July 11 on S. 803, the E-Government Act. The bill received lukewarm responses from Republicans and the Administration. For example, the Administration argued there is no need for an OMB Deputy Director to focus solely on information issues. OMB points out that they have created the position of Associate Director for Information Technology and e-Government, headed by Mark Forman. On July 18, one week after the Senate hearing, Daniels issued a memo on "Citizen-Centered E-Government: Developing the Action Plan" (M-01-28). The memo establishes a task force that is to "identify priority actions to achieve strategic improvements [sic] the following four areas of service:"

• Services to individuals, including one-stops shops and easy entry to access high quality government services;
• Services to businesses, including reduce burdens on reporting;
• Intergovernmental affairs, including making it easier for state reporting and better performance measurement and results;
• Internal efficiency and effectiveness, including better performance and reducing federal costs of administration.

The task force is to do its work by the end of August. The memo does not address a key component of S. 803 -- improved access to information. Instead, the focus is on improved access to services. Back to Top Public Interest Policy Information and Media Advocacy Ever wonder why policy information, particularly around broader government and agency matters, doesn't seem to merit attention by the media -- unless government does something wrong? Even for those media entities which monitor policy information on a regular basis, is there a bias against public interest perspectives on those policy matters? NPTalk recently reviewed current insider analyses on what is arguably one of the most vital bodies of reportage the media can conduct, to see if they are indeed doing so. Back to Top Notes and Sidebars Faith-based Audit On July 29 five federal agencies will be filing reports at the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives that will outline results of their inquiry into barriers faith-based and community organizations face when applying for federal grants, along with solutions they propose to address those barriers. The agencies filing reports are: Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development and Justice. For more on the faith based initiative see OMB Watch's analysis. Tax Deductible Campaign Contributions Want your donation to Congressional and Presidential candidates to be tax deductible? A bill sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) would allow individuals to deduct up to $100 -- $200 for couples -- for hard money contributions to federal candidates. The bill, HR 2464, was filed July 11 and has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.