In This Issue Senate Finance Chairman's Mark "Mend It-Don't End It!" Estate Tax Rally Estate Tax Repeal Update Study Examines Targeted Tax Credits Charitable Giving Tax Incentives Left Out Of Tax Bills Confirmation Hearing Set for John Graham Roadless Rule on a Bumpy Ride EPA Gives More Time for Comments on Confidential Information Senate Authorizes Creation of 1,000 CTCs State Legislative Website Report Update Tech Help: Online Protection for Children To the Editors: --> Corrections --> SIDE BAR: Taxes: Nonprof Sector: Diverse Communities and Philanthropy; High-Tech Philanthropy; Nonprofit Low Power FM Radio Licenses Information Policy Online Inventory of E-Gov Initiatives Senate Finance Chairman's Mark Now that the House and Senate have adopted the budget resolution conference report (on May 9 and 10), setting spending limits at $1.95 trillion, with $661.3 billion in discretionary spending ($325.1 billion in military spending and $336.2 billion in domestic spending), and a $1.35 trillion tax cut over the next eleven years, from 2001 through 2011, consideration is now turning to the tax bill. On Friday, May 11, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and ranking Democrat Max Baucus (MT) drafted a tax cut mark that includes:

• An across-the-board cut in marginal tax rates, including a new 10% tax bracket effective retroactively to January 1, 2001 (part of the economic stimulus). When fully phased in, the current 36% rate would be reduced to 33%; the 31% rate would drop to 28%; and the 28% rate would go to 25%. *Revenue loss: $846.8 billion.
• Increasing the standard deduction for married couples to a level that is equal to twice the deduction for single filers. This would be phased in beginning in 2005. *Revenue loss: $59.8 billion.
• Doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1000 in 2010, and allowing a small portion (15% of a parent's income over $10,000) to be refundable. The child tax credit will retroactively go to $600 effective January 1, 2001 (part of the economic stimulus package). *Revenue loss: $190.4 billion.
• Repealing the estate tax by 2011 and retaining the gift tax. (See article, this issue). *Revenue loss: $144.6 billion.
• Miscellaneous:
  • Expand retirement savings incentives *Revenue loss: $40.1 billion)
  • Add incentives for education savings (*Revenue loss: $32.8 billion).

The bill only partially addresses problems with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) created by lowering the marginal rates (at a cost of $33.1 billion). It does not include extension of the corporate Research and Development tax credit. In order to get all these provisions to fit within the $1.35 trillion eleven-year tax package ($1.25 trillion over ten years and a two-year billion dollar stimulus package), the changes are phased in gradually -- for instance, the marriage penalty relief phase-in doesn't even start taking effect until 2006. While the bill has an eleven-year (2001 to 2011) cost of $1.347 trillion, the cost in the following decade will be tremendously higher. Also, benefits from the "economic stimulus" package, retroactive to January 1, 2001, will not be seen until tax day, April 15, 2002. The $1.3 trillion figure is not the end of tax cuts for this year either. Included in the budget resolution is a provision that the total amount of tax cuts can be increased if the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) surplus estimates, usually released in July, are higher than its previous January estimate. There are also indications that some business-favorable tax cuts will probably be included in other legislation -- for example, as part of a bill raising the minimum wage later this year. And, none of the charitable giving provisions, like the non-itemizer deduction for charitable contributions, are included in this tax package (see article, this issue). The budget resolution is not law and thus not binding, so while it represents a broad outline, we can expect changes in the numbers as the tax bills and appropriations are determined. According to our sources, the tax bill is on a fast track. (Remember, since this tax bill is operating under reconciliation instructions, only a simple majority -- 51 votes -- is required to pass it.) Republicans have scheduled it to be marked up by the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, May 15; considered on the Senate Floor Wednesday and Thursday, the 16th and 17th, with anticipated conference by the Senate and House starting over the weekend. Since the House has so far passed four separate tax bills, which cost well more than the $1.35 trillion figure used by the Senate (and are around the $1.6 trillion limit they are using), it is unclear whether they will just negotiate with the Senate or try to pass another bill(s) that would fit into the $1.35 trillion package. Given the effort to begin the conference on the bill over the weekend, negotiation seems more likely. The plan is to have this tax bill done before Memorial Day. It seems likely that there will be numerous amendments and adjustments made to the Chairman's mark, so the content of the final bill is anything but certain, although it will certainly use up the full $1.35 trillion allotment if it is passed. *All revenue losses are for the eleven-year period from 2001-2011. Chart: Where Your Tax Cut Goes Back to Top "Mend It-Don't End It!" Estate Tax Rally On May 10, 2001, Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy, and Nonprofits to Preserve the Estate Tax, a coalition coordinated by OMB Watch, held a rally at the Senate followed by lobby visits and a reception. The event was a great success. Speakers at the noon rally included Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Bill Gates, Sr., Marian Wright Edelman, founder and President of the Children's Defense Fund, Gerald McEntee, President of AFSCME, Robert Rohwer, an Iowa farmer and member of the National Farmers Union, Dal LaMagna, small business owner of Tweezerman Company in New York, and the Rev. Jim Wallis, the convener and President of "Call to Renewal." Each of the speakers contributed force and energy to the movement to oppose repeal of the estate tax, both through their personal stories and their political visions. Video clips of the rally, including the individual speakers will soon be up on OMB Watch's Estate Tax Resource Page. During the afternoon, members of Responsible Wealth and members of Nonprofits to Preserve the Estate Tax joined to visit all one hundred Senate offices. About half of those visits were scheduled meetings with Senators or staff. Packets with extensive information about the negative effects of repeal of the estate tax, each including specific state information, were delivered to each Senate office. Finally, a reception was held at the end of the day to discuss the results of the lobby visits, plan future strategies, and reaffirm the importance of the estate tax in a larger vision of social justice. To get more involved, contact estatetax@ombwatch.org or call (202) 234-8494. Back to Top Estate Tax Repeal Update At the Nonprofits to Preserve the Estate Tax rally on May 10, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee and a Finance Committee member, made public his new bill, cosponsored with Thad Cochran (R-MS) to reform the estate tax, by raising the exemption immediately to $1 million ($2 million for couples) and up to $2 million ($4 million for couples) by 2006. It would also increase the exemptions for qualified family-owned businesses and farms. This is a reasonable effort at reforming the estate tax, but there are currently a number of estate tax reform bills floating in the Senate, with a variety of provisions. You may remember that on April 4, the House passed H.R. 8 phasing in full repeal of the estate tax by 2011, and changing the capital gains taxable value of assets sold by an heir to tax the appreciation from the value at purchase (carry over basis). Currently, assets are inherited at their current value (step up basis) and capital gains paid on the difference between the value when inherited and the sale price. Without an estate tax, however, appreciation during a decedent's lifetime would never be taxed. While, on its face, this seems like a reasonable way to recoup some of the revenue losses resulting from repeal of the estate tax, in practice, this will be an enormous complication of the tax system and subject to a number of ways of evading the capital gains tax. A similar scheme was passed in 1976, with a reduction of estate tax rates, but the law was repealed without taking effect because it proved so unworkable. The capital gains carry over basis cannot replace the estate tax, and will add even more difficulties to an already complex tax system. Most recently on Friday, May 11, 2001, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and ranking Democrat Max Baucus (MT) drafted a tax cut mark that includes phased-in repeal of the estate tax by 2011. This mark is similar to the House bill although the phase-in is even slower. Following is a chart showing the scheduled raise in exemptions and lowering of marginal rates: Table: Changes in the Marginal Rates and Exemptions in the Estate Tax Also similar to the House bill is the provision that after full repeal in 2011, a carry-over basis (value based on the original cost) is employed except for $1.3 million ($4.3 million to a spouse) in assets that are transferred. There are complicated rules about what can be transferred under these limits and new reporting requirements. The limits will be adjusted for inflation. The Chairman's mark does not repeal the gift tax that is currently a part of the "unified estate, gift and generation skipping transfer tax." This is to prevent wealthy individuals from giving unlimited amounts of money during their lifetimes to heirs or others to avoid high capital gains taxes on assets. One problem that was identified with the earlier House-passed bill was that repeal of the estate and gift tax would precipitate massive income tax avoidance and evasion, making the bill cost more than would be collected in revenue if the estate/gift tax were in effect. A full explanation of the estate tax provisions of the Chairman's mark can be found online from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). The cost as estimated by JCT is $144.6 billion over the next ten years. The cost in the first year of full repeal, 2011, is $29.6 billion -- and nearly twice this in the next year (See the Citizens for Tax Justice analysis of JCT figures). That figure does not adequately represent the real yearly costs of full repeal -- the time lag for settling an estate means that many of the estates for that year will actually not be settled until 2012 or 2013. In addition, it seems unlikely that a stand-alone gift tax will survive for long since it would mean that wealthy people will be taxed on giving during their lifetimes, but not on bequests when they die. If a wealthy person has, for instance, a disabled child, he may want to provide support during his lifetime and not just when he dies, or there may be instances where it would make sense for a wealthy person to pass assets of a business to her children prior to her death. If the gift tax then is ultimately repealed, the costs, including ways of evading payment of capital gains taxes, will skyrocket according to some estimates. Back to Top Study Examines Targeted Tax Credits The President's proposal to allow states to use federal funds earmarked for the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program to fund a state tax credit for donations to charities primarily serving low income households is the subject of a study released last week at a forum sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The study, written by former White House domestic policy advisor Margy Waller and funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, examines the history of federal targeted tax credit proposals and surveys the experience of three leading states with similar programs. The concept of targeted tax credits first appeared as part of the welfare reform debate during the mid-1990s. The study traces the content and rationale for these proposals, noting that the primary purpose cited in all was to shift decision making on how public funds are used to address poverty from government to individual taxpayers, effectively privatizing the welfare system. The only bill to become law was the 1998 Community Services Block Grant, which permits each state to use up to 10 percent of their discretionary funds to offset state charity tax credits. The report notes that no state has yet used this mechanism. Currently, a bill sponsored by Reps. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) would establish a federal tax credit for contributions to charities providing services to the poor, but has no offset. The sponsors' intent is to allow individual taxpayers to decide how to allocate surplus resources instead of the federal government. The President's proposal for a targeted tax credit is part of his "Faith-Based Initiative." He has stated that the goal of the credit is to increase charitable giving. However, the report examines the experiences of Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina with similar tax credit programs and finds no evidence that such credits increase charitable giving. One of the difficulties targeted tax credits present is defining which nonprofits qualify to receive the donations. Qualified charities have been defined by a percentage of expenditures on anti-poverty programs or by the income levels of those served. Spending on legislative lobbying or legal services has been excluded from the definition of service, regardless of the potential impact on the poverty of individuals or communities. Instead, these important advocacy functions are lumped in with administrative and fundraising costs. The report notes that the impact of privatizing decisions on where to channel resources to fight poverty will result in a loss of rationality in planning and accountability for successful performance. Geographic inequities are also likely, since people "give where they live," and nonprofits in high poverty communities are unlikely to generate donations at the same dollar level provided in statewide allocation formulas, which are needs-based. A copy of the report is posted on the Pew Forum's website. Back to Top Charitable Giving Tax Incentives Left Out Of Tax Bills Now Linked to Charitable Choice As Senate Republicans rush to move tax legislation through by the end of this week, supporters of proposals to increase charitable giving have been disappointed that key provisions have not become part of the package. Two key proposals allowing nonitemizers to deduct charitable donations and permitting people age 59½ and over to donate directly from IRA rollovers without penalty which were proposed by President Bush are not part of the Chairman's mark. Surprisingly, Bush has been silent about their disappearance in the tax bill. In the House, these proposals have been tied to his "Faith-Based Initiative". It is clear that there will be some tax cuts this year, but if the bulk of the cuts are used up by expensive unbalanced proposals, like estate tax repeal, it will become increasingly difficult to make room for the nonitemizer deduction and IRA rollover proposals. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released his version of the tax bill on May 11 that had no incentives for charitable giving. It will be considered tomorrow, May 15, in committee. It is possible, although unlikely, that there will be amendments offered during the committee mark-up or on the floor. Such amendments face an uphill fight since the overall tax bill has to fit within the $1.35 billion overall tax cut ceiling agreed to by Congress. (If estate tax repeal were dropped, charitable giving proposals would easily fit within the overall tax reduction framework.) In the House, the nonitemizer deduction and IRA rollover are part of a charitable choice bill, legislation which would allow federal funding for religious congregations to carry out social service programs. A hearing on that bill, H.R. 7, sponsored by Reps. J.C. Watts (R-OC) and Tony Hall (D-OH), is scheduled before the Select Revenue Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee on May 24th. The link with charitable choice will weaken the chances for the nonitemizer deduction to pass, as charitable choice faces significant opposition. In the Senate a bill sponsored by Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) contains the charitable giving proposals without charitable choice. It is likely that a charitable choice amendment will be offered to the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) when it comes to the House floor sometime this week. The amendment will allow direct federal funding of religious after-school and tutoring programs that include proselytization of students, religious discrimination in hiring and authorize lawsuits against local governments by congregations that are not awarded funds. This is an example of the shotgun approach to charitable choice that the administration and Congressional Republicans are using to include charitable choice legislation in as many places as possible. For more information, see:

• OMB Watch's Charitable Choice Information Page
• Table comparing pending charitable giving bills

Back to Top Confirmation Hearing Set for John Graham The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a confirmation hearing at 10 a.m. on Thursday (May 17) for John Graham, President Bush's controversial nominee to head OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which has the power to approve or reject agency regulations. As director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, which is heavily funded by corporate money, Graham has been a consistent and reliable ally of almost any industry seeking to hold off new regulation. For instance, after receiving funding from AT&T Wireless Communications, Graham produced a study in July 2000, that argued strongly against a ban on the use of cell phones while driving -- which was being considered by many cities and states at the time. He's also downplayed the health risks of diesel engines, as well as second-hand smoke, and argued against a ban on highly toxic pesticides (all after receiving funds from affected industries). In a talk at the Heritage Foundation, Graham said that "[e]nvironmental regulation should be depicted as an incredible intervention in the operation of society." This fierce, ideological opposition to new regulation causes great concern that OIRA will take a much more activist role in the rulemaking process, reminiscent of the 1980s when the office came under heavy criticism for continually thwarting crucial public protections. Recently, Lisa Heinzerling, professor at Georgetown University Law Center, HREF="http://www.citizen.org/congress/regulations/graham/heinzerling_testimony.html">submitted testimony to the Committee critiquing Graham's highly suspect analytical methods, which he will be in position to implement as OIRA administrator. In particular, Heinzerling calls attention to a widely cited study conducted by Graham and one of his graduate students that claims we could save 60,000 more lives per year by shifting life-saving resources from wasteful programs to cost-effective programs. As Heinzerling points out, however, this study is highly misleading. Most striking, 79 of the 90 environmental "regulations" considered by Graham were never actually implemented; most of these, not surprisingly, were scored as outrageously expensive. Thus, Graham's study tells us virtually nothing about the regulatory system as it actually exists. The study does make mention of this, but in his many public presentations, Graham has never made this clear. And despite repeated misrepresentations by the press and members of Congress, Graham has never bothered to correct the record. In fact, he has perpetuated the myth by continually using the study to criticize our real-world regulatory system. For an exhaustive supply of information on Graham, see this special Public Citizen web site. Among other things, this site contains a listing of the 11 faculty from Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health, where Graham's Center is housed, who have written in opposition to the nomination. Back to Top Roadless Rule on a Bumpy Ride A federal judge in Idaho recently rolled back (on May 10) a ban on new roads and logging in 58.5 million acres of national forests, including much of Alaska's Tongass National Forest, claiming it would cause "irreparable harm" to the timber industry. This decision came a week after the Bush administration begrudgingly decided to defend the Clinton-era rule, which HREF="http://www.nrdc.org/media/default.asp#0504roadless">many saw as a public relations ploy. Indeed, in announcing its intent to defend the ban, the administration also indicated that it viewed the rule as flawed and that it would be revised through a new rulemaking. Moreover, several weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that the White House had instructed the Justice Department to look into ways of killing the rule. Now that the ban has been struck down in court, the administration has declined to say whether it will join an appeal of the decision with Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund and other environmental organizations. On its surface, the judge's ruling seems highly dubious. In order for a court to overturn a rule, it has to find that the agency action was "arbitrary and capricious," an extremely high standard. In the case of the roadless rule, the Forest Service had studied the issue for years. This included the review of public comments from 1.6 million Americans, most of whom supported the ban. The judge clearly disagreed with the ban. But that is not grounds enough for a judge to overturn a rule. In this case, it appears the agency's judgement was careful and considered, and thus, should have been allowed to stand. Back to Top EPA Gives More Time for Comments on Confidential Information The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to accept public comments until June 13 on its proposed plan to revise its policies for handling confidential business information (CBI), according to an agency announcement in the May 14, 2001 Federal Register (You may also view the notice via EPA's web site.) Critics argue that EPA withholds too much industry-submitted information from the public because industry is allowed in most cases to claim the information as confidential without justifying that claim. Currently, a facility may submit information to one part of EPA and claim the information to be confidential when the same information is publicly available through another EPA program. In addition, facilities may claim information to be CBI without ever having to justify its claim until a member of the public files a formal request to review the information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That public request triggers a review process during which EPA contacts the reporting facility to find out why the information was claimed as CBI and to determine if the claim is justified. This process is time-consuming and inefficient for EPA. In practice, the public is not aware that they may challenge CBI determinations and does not often file time-consuming, formal FOIA requests, effectively allowing CBI claims to go unreviewed and unchallenged. EPA notes it is hoping to revise this CBI process to make it more efficient. Upfront-substantiation would allow EPA to review CBI claims as they come into the system, eliminate steps in the review process, and allow EPA to protect only the information that needs to be protected. For more information on confidential business information, see the recently-published OMB Watch report, "A Citizen's Platform for Our Environmental Right-To-Know," which walks through the basics of confidential business information and makes recommendations for appropriately protecting confidential information while meeting the public's right to know about environmental and health threats. Back to Top Senate Authorizes Creation of 1,000 CTCs Last week the Senate took action to create 1,000 community technology centers (CTCs) to be funded through the Department of Education. On May 9 the Senate approved, by a vote of 50-49, an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to the Elementary and Secondary Education bill. The bill authorizes $100 million to go towards creating and expanding 1,000 CTCs. The education bill is expected to pass the Senate. and will await House action before a conference occurs. The CTC program is a grants program in its third year, operated by the Education Department. Although Congress and President Clinton supported the program, this is the first time it may be specifically authorized. President Bush had proposed in his budget that the CTC program be shifted to HUD, possibly with programmatic changes. The President's proposal also funded CTCs at $80 million -- much less than the $100 million proposed by President Clinton, and the amount authorized under the Mikulski amendment. Mikulski sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, but also serves as the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Administration, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies (VA-HUD), and is widely recognized as a leading voice in the Senate on digital divide issues. The amendment's approval is significant as an indication that Mikulski will push to keep the existing federal CTC program under the auspices of the Education Department, instead of HUD, as proposed by Bush. The companion House education bill, H.R. 1 passed through the House Education and the Workforce Committee on the same day. The bill does not authorize continuation of the CTC program at the Education Department. It does, however, give local school districts the ability to transfer up to 50% of the federal monies they receive to a range of programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, without requiring permission of the states or the Education Department. Thus, federal funds originally targeted for class size reduction or teacher salaries could conceivably be transferred for classroom technology or community-based distance learning on an annual, non-permanent basis. While purporting to offer local education efforts more flexibility to target funds for specific needs without layers of bureaucratic obstacles, it potentially binds disparate technology and non-technology education priorities together, to be addressed at the expense of one another, without guaranteed consistency from school year to school year. Even if the Mikulski amendment remains in the final education bill sent to the President, it does not insure that $100 million will be spent on CTCs. CTCs were appropriated $65 million for FY 2001. Although the bill authorizes $100 million in FY 2002, congressional action is needed each year to appropriate that amount. The budget resolution that just passed Congress provides for only a 4% spending increase on all discretionary programs without adjusting for inflation. There will be intense competition over limited funds since certain areas of the budget, such as defense spending, are likely to get significant increases. Back to Top State Legislative Website Report Update In an attempt to provide a more informed starting point for follow-up research and public assessment of the state legislative entry points, an addendum to the OMB Watch report, "Plugged In, Tuning Up: An Assessment of State Legislative Websites" is available online. Upon release of the report, a number of state legislative information technology representatives expressed interest in responding to the information provided, and to highlight those items they felt were in need of clarification, update, or correction. The addendum features 19 responses, reflecting only the direct input of state legislative staff themselves. Users are strongly encouraged to read both the original report, and the updated information online. The authors reiterate that since the original report served only as a snapshot of activity during a specific period of time, state legislature websites must be carefully viewed as constantly-changing resources designed to reflect general public demand and specific information needs of legislative bodies. This addendum document represents the final edition of this report. While no further editions of the report in this form will be developed, questions or comments can be directed to Matt Carter and Ryan Turner at ombwatch@ombwatch.org. Back to Top Tech Help: Online Protection for Children The protection of children from harm online is a noble goal that, unfortunately, raises a number of issues with respect to privacy, free spech protections, state and local authority -- and in the current political and legal landscape -- federal funding of schools, libraries, and nonprofit educational entities. Never has there been a time when so few letters spelled so many acronyms that confounded so many in such a short amount of time. NPTalk attempts to spell out the details of online protection for children, and its impact on nonprofits Back to Top Nonprofits Letter Opposing Repeal of the Estate Tax The NONPROFITS TO PRESERVE THE ESTATE TAX sign-on letter is open to all nonprofit groups. If you have not done so already, please add your organization. We'd like to show the broad-based support that exists among nonprofits for preserving the estate tax. Whether or not the estate tax ought to be reformed or modified, if your organization thinks it serves a valuable role as part of our progressive tax system, you should sign on. Fair Taxes for All Website The Fair Taxes for All website is now up and running, providing information on the coalition's opposition to the Bush tax cut proposal. Diverse Communities and Philanthropy The Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers has published "Engaging Diverse Communities for and Through Philanthropy," a report that explains why potential African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American donors are not as effectively engaged by philanthropic institutions, ways both communities and community-focused entities can engage diverse donor interests, and examples on how this is already being done. High-Tech Philanthropy The Association of Fundraising Professionals has released, "Agent-Animated Wealth and Philanthropy: The Dynamics of Accumulation and Allocation Among High-Tech Donors," the results of an in-depth study involving 30 high-tech philanthropists, that attempts to identify the issues that both determine and underlie their giving patterns and attitudes, and to explain the mechanics of "venture philanthropy" from a donor's perspective. Nonprofit Low Power FM Radio Licenses Nonprofit applications for Low Power FM (LPFM) radio licenses are being accepted by the Federal Communications Commission from June 11 through June 15, 2001 in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Guam, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. LPFM stations operate a maximum power level of 100 watts, broadcast to an area of approximately 3.5 miles, and give nonprofits the means to produce and provide non-commercial community-based, community-focused content. More information is available from the FCC website. The Media Access Project and the Center for Democratic Communications of the National Lawyers Guild are assisting groups with the free application process, which involves electronic submissions only. Online Inventory of E-Gov Initiatives Earlier this year, the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council launched an online database that is a systematic catalogue of more than 1,300 federal electronic-government initiatives, searchable by agency, type of program, transaction or customer, method of distribution, and key word or phrase. A list of programs is retrieved and links first to thumbnail descriptions and then to either the initiative or more detailed information. The information in the Inventory of Electronic Government Initiatives database is based on a questionnaires sent last summer to all federal CIOs by the Council. MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! SIGN ONTO THE INVEST IN AMERICA STATEMENT OF PRIORITIES The Invest in America coalition continues to press for increased domestic investment in programs that will provide opportunities to low-income people and create stronger and safer communities. We have revised our original Statement of Principles and will be sending the new Statement of Priorities to the Administration and Congress. We hope to get even more organizations on the list of supporters, so sign on now! The Century Institute Summer Program for Undergraduates Applications are now being accepted for The Century Institute Summer Program, a two-week fellowship designed to introduce undergraduate students to the progressive tradition in American public policy. The program will be held at Williams College in Williamstown, MA from July 1 through July 14, 2000. The program is open to any student who is a sophomore or junior in the 2000-2001 year, who has an interest in public policy and civic engagement. More information and an application is available at the The Century Institute's web site.