Nonprofit Sector Faith-based Bill Moves Forward Charitable Giving Bills Face Reality Test In House Competing Campaign Finance Bills Headed to House Floor Federal Budget Appropriations Update How Big Is the Surplus? Does it Matter? Lockboxes and Political Fictions Regulatory Issues Interior to Reconsider Snowmobile Ban John Graham Nomination Access to Information First Step to a Government-Owned FirstGov E-Gov Hearing Tech Help: Internet Taxation (special) SIDE BAR: Budget: GDP Clarification; Nonprof Sector: HR 7 Town Meetings; Information Policy CTC Program Apps Announcements: Faith-based Bill Moves Forward On June 28, the House Judiciary Committee approved a revised version of charitable choice that rejected a Justice Department recommendation that religious activity and federally funded services be kept separate. The committee was acting on part of HR 7, sponsored by Reps. J.C. Watt (R-OK) and Tony Hall (D-OH). (See related watcher story, June 11) The party line vote also expanded the potential use of vouchers for a host of programs, including juvenile justice and crime prevention, housing, hunger relief, assistance to the elderly, domestic violence, child abuse and job training. The bill considered by the committee reflected amendments agreed to between Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and the White House. Major changes in the bill include:

• The bill still prohibits use of funds from federal grants or cooperative agreements for proselytization, but allows activities that promote religion to be interwoven with federal services. Beneficiaries would be required to opt-out of the religious portion of a program if they do not wish to participate. Congregations would self-certify their compliance. Agencies must guarantee that people who apply for or receive federal assistance receive notice of their right to opt out and get alternative services. The committee rejected an amendment that would have prohibited proselytizing, worship or religious instruction during delivery of federally funded services.
• Congregations with federal grants or cooperative agreements cannot discriminate against program beneficiaries "in carrying out the program" on the basis of religious affiliation or belief. However, congregations that accept vouchers are only limited to non-discrimination in admission to programs.
• The bill requires agencies that administer federally funded programs to ensure that anyone that objects to receiving service from a religious organization is provided with an alternative that is accessible and of equal value. However, no funds are provided to cover the cost of such an alternative. The committee rejected amendments that prohibited funding a religious organization if a non-religious alternative is unavailable or would require that alternative service be equally accessible.
• A new provision allows all or part of any program covered by the Act to be converted to "indirect assistance," defined as vouchers or certificates, if the Secretary of the funding agency finds it to be "feasible and efficient."
• Congregations that receive federal funds must only keep them in a separate, segregated account if the money comes from a grant or cooperative agreement. Funds from vouchers may be commingled with congregational funds. If a separate account is used, the federal government can only audit that fund.
• Any organization providing services under programs covered by this Act will be allowed to conduct annual self-audits and submit copies to the appropriate agency. This language appears to nullify OMB Circular A-133, which requires grantees that receive more than $300,000 to use outside auditors. It appears that government agencies still have the right to inspect the books.
• The revised bill withdrew a provision that would have allowed congregations to use religious practices as a basis for hiring, and instead permits them to consider religious affiliation. Civil rights groups continue to object to this expansion of the religious exemption to social services provided with federal funds. The committee approved amendments requiring compliance with all other civil rights laws.
• An amendment to the provision allowing lawsuits against local, state or federal governments for violation of the bill's provisions eliminated monetary damages, limiting plaintiffs to injunctive relief.

The combined effects of the new charitable choice provisions of HR 7 could result in entire federal programs being converted to vouchers, where program recipients could be forced to participate in religious activity in order to receive services. Nonprofits that wish to provide services would find it difficult to plan or budget, since they would not be able to anticipate how many requests for service will be made or how long it would take to be reimbursed. Precious resources would have to be spent on outreach rather than reserved for the services themselves. Beneficiaries may find that the services they need are not available in their area. If vouchers are not used, people in need would still be forced to opt-out of programs with religious content, placing an additional burden on their lives at a vulnerable time. Public accountability would be weakened through the "self-audit" provisions. State and local governments that administer programs with federal funds could be forced to fund secular alternatives, although no funding is provided to do so. The other sections of HR 7 are being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee, where a mark up is scheduled for July 10. These include tax provisions to encourage charitable giving, creation of Individual Development accounts to encourage saving by low-income households and limitations on corporate liability for donated vehicles and equipment. It is not known exactly when the bill will end up on the House floor, but the administration wants action as soon as possible, so it is likely that the bill will come up before the August recess. One difficulty with these provisions is the cost associated with them. The non-itemizer deduction can cost $85 billion over 10 years. Chair Bill Thomas (R-CA) is trying to modify the provision to keep the cost around $50-55 billion. Even this amount will be difficult for Senate consideration since Senate rules will necessitate an offset to keep the cost neutral. Unfortunately, the recent tax cut has gobbled up nearly all possible offsets of such magnitude. Back to Top Charitable Giving Bills Face Reality Test In House On July 10, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to consider tax provisions of HR 7, the Watts-Hall bill, (see related story) that would stimulate new charitable giving. During the past few weeks bill sponsors and House leadership have been debating how to pay the costs of these proposals, now that the surplus has been spent on the President's tax cut package. Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has said the bill would not contain offsets, but the bill's Republican sponsor, Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) has previously made statements recognizing the need for some form of offset. The cost of the largest proposal in the bill, the nonitemizer deduction, would be $84 billion over ten years. House Democrats have indicated they will seek offsets, possibly by reducing the size of the tax cut for wealthy taxpayers. Last week Watts' chief of staff indicated that the cost of the tax provisions are being reduced to about $10 billion. This could be done by limiting the amount that can be deducted or requiring donations to reach a floor before the deduction becomes available. Independent Sector is opposed to a floor on the amount contributed before the deduction becomes available, saying that a "first-dollar" deduction is necessary to make the program available to many taxpayers. They also are opposing a ceiling on the deduction that would eliminate any incentive for new giving. The administration finds itself in a difficult dilemma, since it has committed itself to the charitable giving proposals as part of its faith-based initiative. The reality of the situation struck last week when Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitch Daniels told USA Today that the President would not support increasing taxes to pay for the giving proposals, stating "We're well aware that reality might dictate some delay in pursuing some of these measures." Cox Washington News Bureau reported John DiIulio, director of the White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, as saying "There are new economic realities that didn't exist when these proposals were first drafted…." Since the White House created this "new reality" with its enormous tax cut, it should be held clearly responsible if meaningful charitable giving incentives do not pass this year. Back to Top Competing Campaign Finance Bills Headed To House Floor The House Administration Committee reported out two campaign finance reform bills on June 28, voting 5-3 along party lines. HR 2356, a new version of a bill sponsored by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA), was reported unfavorably. It closely follows the provisions of McCain-Feingold, which passed the Senate in March. The majority on the committee preferred HR 2360, favorably reporting the alternative introduced by committee Chair Robert Ney (R-OH). The House Rules Committee will meet sometime this week to determine which bill will go to the floor, the process for debate and consideration of amendments and substitutes. Debate is expected to begin before the end of the week. The new Shays-Meehan bill seeks to mirror the Senate bill as much as possible in order to avoid a conference, where House Republican leadership has pledged to kill it. It side-steps differences with the Senate by creating separate contribution limits. For example, Shays-Meehan retains the $1,000 cap on individual contributions to House races, but leaves the increase to $2,000 for Senate races in McCain-Feingold intact. Both limits would be indexed for inflation. It also keeps the Senate provision allowing increased contribution limits for candidates with wealthy, self-funded opponents (the so-called millionaire's amendment), but only for Senate races. The provisions of Mc-Cain-Feingold that limit nonprofit advocacy are adopted by Shays and Meehan, dropping language in their bill that would have regulated print electioneering communications and limiting prohibitions to broadcast, satellite or cable messages that mention federal candidates within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. The broadcast ban dropped a provision in the original bill that would have limited its application to paid advertising. These provisions are overbroad, and will ban a variety of communications by nonprofits that do not attack or support candidates, directly or indirectly. For further information on the impact on nonprofits, see this OMB Watch analysis. The negative impact of these restrictions on nonpartisan issue advocacy and voter education activity by nonprofits is somewhat modified by two amendments Shays and Meehan have added to the McCain-Feingold language. The first excepts broadcast of candidate debates and forums and ads that promote debates. The second permits the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to promulgate regulations that except communications "to ensure the appropriate implementation of this paragraph", as long as they do not attack or promote candidates for federal office. However, until and unless the FEC acts to protect non-electoral communications by nonprofits, any broadcast mentioning a federal candidate within the forbidden time window would be illegal. OMB Watch has been working with other nonprofits for amendments that protect nonprofit advocacy. These two amendments are the result of that effort, but more will need to be done to clearly protect broadcast of nonpartisan grassroots lobbying messages, voter registration and get-out-the-vote messages and public education by charities and other nonprofits. HR 2360, sponsored by Rep. Ney and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD), does not ban broadcasts during an election cycle, but does contain disclosure requirements that would apply to any broadcast made within 120 days of an election and identifies a federal candidate, even if it does not support or oppose federal candidates. Only news broadcasts are exempted. All other broadcast sponsors would have to file reports at the FEC with 24 hours of payment for the broadcast, naming the person making the disbursement and their place of business and phone number. For mass media broadcasts costing more than $50,000 that are targeted to the electorate of the candidate identified in the ad, more detailed disclosure would be required, including the amount of each expenditure over $200 and the identity of the recipient, the full text of the ad and a list of the candidates identified in it. These disclosure requirements are also overbroad, since they are not limited to broadcasts that advocate for or against candidates. They would impose unnecessary and burdensome tracking and reporting obligations on nonprofits that are engaged in genuine issue advocacy. The Ney-Wynn bill would cap soft money contributions to political parties at $75,00 per year, rather than ban it as the Shays-Meehan bill does. It also increases the annual aggregate limit on contributions by individuals from $25,000 to $37,500, but retains the $1,000 limit on contributions to any one candidate. For information see past OMB Watch's analyses. Back to Top Appropriations Update With Congress returning this week from the July 4 recess, work on passing the supplemental appropriations bill for 2001 and the thirteen appropriation bills for FY 2002 will move into full swing. The House has already passed its version of a supplemental appropriations bill, but the Senate has not yet begun full floor action on its version. An agreement between the House and Senate on the supplemental appropriation will then need to be made, after which it will be sent to the President for approval or veto. The appropriations bills are in various stages of consideration. Each bill must be passed before fiscal year 2002 begins on October 1, 2001. There is a very limited time to get everything done -- especially since the annual summer recess for Congress is from August 3 to September 4. If appropriations are not passed on time, Congress will need to pass "continuing resolutions" to keep government functioning until the appropriations are finished or, in the worst case scenario, which everyone will try hard to avoid, a partial "government shutdown" could result if all bills are not passed and signed into law by the President by October 1, 2001. Everything points to the likelihood that the last two bills to be considered will be the Defense appropriation and the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriation. Labor-HHS is frequently considered towards the end of the process and is usually the most contentious of all the bills, especially since it funds a number of programs that benefit low-income and vulnerable populations. Additionally, both the House and the Senate recently passed legislation that authorizes increased spending for education programs for low-income students (which, while authorized, is meaningless without an increase in appropriations funding). In the area of military spending, the President has asked for an increase in the Defense appropriation of $18 billion. Pairing these two appropriations bills by saving them for last when it is almost sure that there will not be adequate funds remaining to fund them -- especially in light of proposed increases -- will sharply contrast defense and domestic priorities and probably lead to a dramatic finish to the process this year. Back to Top How Big Is the Surplus? Does it Matter? The new Senate Budget Committee Chair, Kent Conrad (D-ND), recently held two hearings that are relevant to the current budget debate. On June 27, the hearing was about "Reassessing the Economic Outlook." Building on testimony presented at that session, another hearing on the following day asked the question: "How Big is the Remaining Surplus?" Yet another Senate Budget Committee hearing is scheduled for July 12, with Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, giving an economic and budget update. Like the Joint Committee on Taxation report that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) commissioned, which was discussed in the last OMB Watcher, Conrad's analyses reveal the enormous additional costs of the recently passed tax bill which, when combined with anticipated increases in military spending, will lead to large reductions in estimated budget surpluses during the next ten years. Below is a chart incorporating the JCT figures alongside Conrad's estimate. In his analysis, Conrad includes ten-year estimates of:

• $1.3 trillion for the tax cut
• $500 billion additional spending in the budget resolution (for prescription drug coverage, health and agriculture)
• $220 billion in increased military spending (the $18 billion Bush defense increase request for 2002 adjusted for inflation and continued over ten years)
• $572 billion in interest payments on the national debt

This reduces the $2.7 trillion non-Social Security and Medicare (on-budget) surplus to only $193 billion. Under this scenario, we will have to dip into the Social Security and Medicare surplus for each year starting in 2003 through 2007. Between 2007 and 2010, we do not dip into the surplus, leaving a total of $193 billion. However, this estimate does not include the costs of extending the tax cuts beyond the sunset in 2010, the cost of tax "extenders" that are always continued, the increased education authorizations, fixing the alternative minimum tax, or the cost of natural emergencies or disasters. Conrad considers the assumptions upon which this estimate is based to be sure bets. In other words, even under the most conservative estimate, without including what will almost surely be additional costs, there will be no surplus, except the Social Security and Medicare surplus, some of which will need to be used, over the next ten years. In a second scenario, Conrad notes that we will need to dip into the Social Security and Medicare surplus right away if we include even a portion of the $350 billion in new authorizations that were included in the omnibus education bill passed by the Senate, along with accounting for the economic slowdown. To illustrate, he reduces the surplus by $154 billion for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) funding. He also deducts $165 billion to account for slowed economic performance that will reduce the surplus. (We'll have to wait for the Congressional Budget Office analysis at the end of July to see what the actual projection will be -- but estimates are that it may be reduced by as much as $200 to $300 billion.) Under these assumptions, there is a ten year $162 billion deficit in the non-Social Security and Medicare surplus, meaning that $162 billion of the Social Security and Medicare surplus (off-budget) would need to be used to balance the federal budget. Conrad warns that we are in trouble and that Congress must adhere to a policy of "no new spending that's not in the budget that isn't paid for" and "no additional tax cuts that aren't paid for." In other words, there can be no spending or tax cuts without offsets somewhere else in the budget to cover the costs. What he's not saying (yet), but some Democrats are, is that we need to consider rolling back some of the tax cuts before they go fully into effect, in order to make room for spending priorities. Even though Conrad makes much of a substantial budget "deficit," in fact, the overall or unified budget remains in surplus throughout the next ten years, under both of his analyses. The fiction that we must not use the Social Security and Medicare surplus is once again providing a political strategy for both parties, and returning us to deficit politics even while we have a surplus (see related story, this issue). Oddly enough, OMB Director Daniels, criticizing the Democrats' over-reaction, seems to have a rather clear perspective. He is quoted in the Washington Post: "Everybody breathe into the paper bag for a minute, and let's look at what is a very strong fiscal position. The surplus has declined from being gigantic to merely immense because the economy slowed down -- we now know, starting a year ago." Yes, the tax cut uses up resources that we think would be better spent on domestic investments that will ultimately fuel the economy, including research and development, job training and education, solving environmental problems, and insuring opportunities for every American. But we should not be conned into thinking that we lack the resources to address these problems because of concerns over small reductions in the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. Table: How Big Is the Surplus? Back to Top Lockboxes And Political Fictions For a long time now, OMB Watch has been making the point that "lockboxes" to save the Social Security and/or Medicare Trust funds, besides not locking, are really just political fictions. In fact, we were making this point during the battle over FY 2000 appropriations. The amount of Treasury bonds held in the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds will equal the amount of revenue collected for these programs, no matter how the actual revenue is spend. It is always spent -- if there is a budget deficit to make the budget balance, or, if not, for debt reduction -- and it never has been saved in an account or lockbox or piggy bank. There is no mechanism for the government to save money -- the Treasury always borrows the Social Security/Medicare surplus and uses it to balance the budget or pay down the debt, and then issues U.S. Treasury Bonds (the safest investment in the world) to the Trust Funds. The real and only question about using the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds is whether all the revenues from Social Security or Medicare should be used for debt reduction, which would reduce interest payments on the debt. It is only recently that this political fiction is being discussed, since the lockbox has been (and still remains) a useful fiction for both parties -- for Democrats to stop the use of federal resources on tax cuts, and for Republicans to limit the role of the federal government by cutting federal spending. In fact, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to divide the budget up into an on-budget surplus and an off-budget (Social Security/Medicare) surplus -- it's just a way of "reshuffling money in our pockets," as the chief economist for Wells Fargo was quoted in today's Washington Post. The slowing economy and the costs of President Bush's overly large tax cut have reduced the amount of money available for FY 2002 appropriations. The tax cut will continue to be a drain on over-all revenue. This does not mean that we should resign ourselves to neglecting important domestic needs as we have done for years while we were actually fighting a budget deficit. While the rhetoric will be one of blame -- the Democrats blaming the Republican tax cut and the Republicans blaming Democratic spending for "raiding" the Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds, the reality is that the budget is still in surplus. The tax cut has limited resources but we should not let a political fiction like a "lockbox" add more constraints. We think that revenue from Social Security and Medicare can and should be used for the country's priorities. Back to Top Interior to Reconsider Snowmobile Ban The Department of Interior announced on June 29 that it will reconsider a rule (completed at the end of the Clinton administration) that would phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National parks by 2004. The decision came out of a settlement agreement reached between Interior and snowmobile manufacturers, which had brought suit to stop the ban in Federal District Court in Wyoming. In announcing its decision, Interior cited the need for more voices to be heard on the potential ban -- even though the agency convened more than 20 public hearings and collected more than 40,000 public comments before the rule was finalized in January. Interior has also agreed as part of the settlement to redo an impact assessment completed last year. Snowmobile enthusiasts believe the new assessment will be more friendly to their interests and result in a lifting of the ban. Back to Top John Graham Nomination The nominee to head the regulatory office at OMB is likely to be considered on the Senate floor this week or next. John Graham, President Bush's nominee for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has become a highly controversial candidate. Environmental and consumer groups, along with unions, publicly oppose the candidate. They have expressed concern over a record while at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, that is strongly biased to industry's regulatory interests. Some have raised issues about the quality of science he employs. Others have raised conflict of interest issues. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN) have had "holds" on the nomination, meaning that they had concerns about bringing the confirmation to the Senate floor. Durbin removed his hold, but still expressed grave concerns about the candidate. Wellstone is expected to remove the hold very soon, paving the way for a floor debate about Graham and the use of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment in the regulatory process. See previous OMB Watcher articles on Graham's nomination. For more information on Graham's record at the Harvard Center and why he's wrong for the OIRA position, see Public Citizen's report. Back to Top First Step to a Government-Owned FirstGov The Office of FirstGov manages the federal web portal known as FirstGov.gov. Currently, FirstGov relies on a temporary gift of search services from The Federal Search Foundation (Fed-Search) which uses Inktomi search technology to crawl and index all publicly available U.S. Government websites (primarily the .gov, .mil, and fed.us domains). FirstGov will soon also include all primary State government websites as well (initially estimated at 15 million pages). On June 14, the Office of FirstGov issued an RFI (request for information ) as a step in the process of preparing for migration to contracted search services. They have not yet prepared a formal procurement plan. FirstGov plans to contract for new search services for the FirstGov.gov website before the conclusion (next year) of the loan of search services from the Federal Search Foundation. FirstGov is planning for a comprehensive search service able to crawl and index all publicly accessible U.S. government and state government websites. Their desiderata include being able to scale easily to include other public sector websites, and adaptability to crawling and indexing other unstructured electronic information as well, such as U.S. government databases not yet accessible via the Internet. They are also interested in the full range of capabilities, beyond displaying the results on the website, for using the information stored in the index, such as: easily creating databases of quantitative information and/or visual displays of the hierarchical structures of the networks of websites, from Cabinet Departments down through Bureaus, Divisions, Offices, and Programs, depending upon the relevant organizational structures; and the ability to map the occurrences of and/or clustering of keywords – ideally extensible in the future to mapping concepts as well as keywords. The functionalities they ask respondents to talk about include: the ability for user customization of sort order, number of returns per page, date or relevancy, and other; personalization, including alerts, automatic delivery and updates to predefined profiles; tools enabling user identification of most frequently sought references for a given source; tools that will identify most popular results for a given search term; automatic highlighting of search terms and linguistic and thesaurus equivalents; advanced query expansion and thesaurus expansion, custom thesaurus creation; various search and query capabilities; and the ability for users to search all, part, or specific repositories of information, including databases. In addition to potential vendors, they are seeking comments from: the research community, particularly concerning assessments of existing search methodologies and implementations as well as discussions of trends that may affect our selection and implementation during the next 2-3 years; other organizations, especially other governments and government agencies that have implemented search services for their own use, and other third-parties that can provide independent reference, reviews, or evaluations. Comments are due August 15, 2001 (modification 01). See http://www.eps.gov/spg/GSA/FTS/TFL/GS0001ACP3329/listing.html for more information. Back to Top E-Gov Hearing A hearing on S. 803, the "E-Government Act of 2001," will be held on Wednesday, June 11, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Building. Three panels will be convened. Panel I will be Sean O'Keefe, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Panel II will be composed of Anne K. Altman (Managing Director, U.S. Federal, International Business Machines); Dr. Costis Toregas (President, Public Technology, Inc.); Aldona Valicenti (President, National Association of State Chief Information Officers); and Greg Woods (Chief Operating Officer, Student Financial Assistance Programs, United States Department of Education). Panel III will consist of Sharon Hogan (University Librarian, University of Illinois at Chicago on behalf of the American Library Association, the American Association of Research Libraries and the American Association of Law Libraries); Barry Ingram (Vice President & Chief Technology Officer, EDS Government Global Industry Group on behalf of the Information Technology Association of America); Patricia McGinnis (President & Chief Executive Officer, Council for Excellence in Government); and the Honorable Joseph R. Wright, Jr. former Director and Deputy Director, Office of Management & Budget, Vice Chairman, Terremark Worldwide, Inc.). For further commentary, see the OMB Watch statement on the bill. We will be submitting written testimony, which we will post when it is submitted. Back to Top Tech Help: Internet Taxation (special) Long considered the staple of many e-mail hoaxes, the subject of Internet taxation is not only rooted in truth (to some degree), but also provides a prime opportunity to examine the intersection of Internet governance, federal versus state and local authority, and tensions between the federal legislative and judicial branches of government. Even more tellingly, in the deliberations regarding how to implement tax revenues that are fair, just, equitable, and logistically feasible, nonprofits factor heavily -- both as vehicles for discussion and advocates for those who stand to benefit (or lose) most if (or when) taxes on online use, access, and transactions are implemented. NPTalk takes a special look at Internet taxation, to sort fact from fiction Back to Top Notes and Sidebars GDP Report Clarification In the last OMB Watcher, the article about effect of a lower GDP rate on the surplus was not well written and it gave the impression that the lower surplus figure was the cumulative total amount over eleven years. Actually:

• If GDP were one percent lower only in 2001, the surplus would be reduced by $66 billion in the year 2011.
• If GDP is one percent lower each year beginning in 2001, the surplus would be reduced by $545 billion in the year 2011.
• If you add up the loss of surplus in each of the eleven year, the figures are much higher:
• If GDP were one percent lower only in 2001, then over eleven years, the surplus would be reduced by $474 billion.
• If GDP is one percent lower each year beginning in 2001, the surplus would be reduced over eleven years by almost $2.6 trillion. HR 7 Town Meetings The July 9 issue of Roll Call reports that interns from the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives called congressional offices asking about any town hall meetings that members might be having over the recent July 4 recess. Because of the unusual nature of these requests, and with a little prodding, congressional aides surmised that the White House was trying to plant GOP activists at the town-hall meetings to embarrass Members who don't support HR 7. While this is not an unusual tactic for some advocacy groups, it is highly irregular for the White House to engage in this sort of activity. The article cites a White House official as saying that the staffers were simply gathering information so that the office could respond to citizens' letters asking how they could help support the legislation. According to Rep. Lois Capps' (D-CA) chief of staff, Jeremy Rabinovitz, it seems " the White House was putting together a somewhat heavy-handed lobbying campaign on the faith-based initiative." CTC Program Applications Due in One Week! Reminder that the Community Technology Centers Program deadline for applications is July 16, 2001. Applications are available online or call 1-877-433-7827 for a hard copy. The purpose of the Community Technology Centers program is to promote the use of technology in education through the development of model programs that demonstrate the educational effectiveness of technology in low-income or economically- distressed urban and rural communities. Eligible Applicants: State and local educational agencies, tribal governments, colleges, institutions of higher education, libraries, museums and other public and private nonprofit or for-profit agencies and organizations are eligible to receive grants under this program. Estimated Available Funds: $32,275,750.