In This Issue Congress Repeals Ergo Standard House Passes Bill on Small Business Paperwork Administration Delays Roadless Rule Bush Agency Review Limits Risk Management Plans Industry CRE-ates Mischief Against Right To Know Bush Nominee Draws Fire for Hostility to Public Protections Tax Cut Frenzy Update Estate Tax Hearing Charitable Giving Hearing Senate Debates Campaign Finance Legislation Impacting Charities IRS Will Wait on Nonprofit Internet Use Guidelines OMB Watch Evaluation of Online State Legislatures E-FOIA Evaluations New Chemical Exposures Report Corrections Congress Votes to Repeal Ergonomics Standard Largely along party lines, Congress has voted to repeal ergonomics standards to protect workers from repetitive stress injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome. The House voted 223-206 to repeal the rule on March 7, with 206 Republicans voting for the "resolution of disapproval" and 191 Democrats against it; 13 Republicans and 16 Democrats crossed party lines. A complete list of how members voted is available on the House web site. The House vote followed the Senate's action March 6, with 56 voting for repeal and 44 opposed. No Senate Republicans voted against the "resolution of disapproval" and six Democrats voted for it – Sens. Max Baucus (MT), John Breaux (LA), Ernest Hollings (SC), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), and Zell Miller (GA). In making the case against the ergonomics standard, the mostly Republican opponents began by stating their commitment to worker health and safety. But, they explained, it was the particulars of the rule they objected to, not an ergonomics rule per se. This argument, however, seems highly suspect given the history of the ergonomics standard. During the 10 years since then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole initiated the ergonomics rulemaking, business interests and most congressional Republicans have continuously questioned the need for any ergonomics standard – despite numerous studies that have demonstrated its urgency. Back to Top House Passes Bill on Small Business Paperwork At the beginning of the last Congress, in early 1999, HREF="/regs/1999/sbpra-vote.html">the House passed a bill that would have granted immunity to first-time violators of paperwork requirements -- which serve as the foundation for enforcing regulatory protections -- even in cases of willful violations. This legislation was highly controversial and opposed by the Clinton administration, which had enough votes to sustain a veto. As a result, it never moved in the Senate. This Congress, the Republican majority decided to try a different approach. The controversial waiver provision was struck entirely, while the other components of the bill were left in place. With a little bit of fine tuning, HREF="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.00327:">the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act (H.R. 327) passed the House last week HREF="http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=50">on a unanimous vote. Specifically, H.R. 327 requires:

• each agency to "publish in the Federal Register on an annual basis a list of the requirements applicable to small-business concerns ... with respect to collection of information by agencies...";
• the establishment of one point of contact within each agency "to act as a liaison between the agency and small-business concerns."; and
• the establishment of an interagency task force to (1) "examine the feasibility of requiring each agency to consolidate requirements regarding collections of information..." and (2) to submit a report "examining strengthening dissemination of information."

Parts of the bill may still be problematic. For instance, given the expansive definition of small business, agencies will presumably have to compile a list in the Federal Register of virtually every collection of information they undertake (even if it has already been published and affected parties already put on notice). This will be difficult to fulfill, and seems to be of questionable value. Nonetheless, H.R. 327 has come a long way. Back to Top Administration Delays Roadless Rule President Bush appears ready to reverse course on a rule issued 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. Last week, HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/politics/17FORE.html?searchpv=site02"> the administration put off a decision on whether to defend the rule in court (it is being challenged by the timber industry and others) and announced that it would further delay the rule's effective date (which had already been pushed back by HREF="/ombwatcher/ombw20010205.html#lwq">the Card memo). This seems to be a sign that the administration may abandon the policy. In delaying the rule, the administration is relying on Sec. 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 705, which allows a rule's effective date to be delayed pending judicial review, "[w]hen an agency finds that justice so requires." Whether this is an appropriate use of Sec. 705, however, appears to be open to question. In response to HREF="/ombwatcher/ombw20010220.html#reg">an inquiry from Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a February 14 memo from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) detailed the history of Sec. 705. According to the CRS memo, "The legislative history of Section 705, and the case law elaborating the meaning of authority granted by that provision, clearly indicate that Congress intended both agencies and applicants to courts to demonstrate that irreparable injury would result if a stay were not granted and to take into account the effect of postponement on other parties who might be adversely affected by a postponement." For more information on the roadless rule, see the National Environmental Trust's web site. Back to Top Bush Agency Review Leads to Withdrawal of Increased Information on Chemical Accidents As part of the Bush Administration review of agency activities, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has withdrawn its proposed plans for providing additional access to information about potential off-site consequences of accidental chemical releases from industrial facilities. EPA had requested public comment on plans to meet the public's right to know about potential chemical accidents through a read-only system, as required under the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (P.L. 106-40). Facilities make public reports, called Risk Management Plans, to EPA, however public access to this worst-case scenario information is tightly restricted in an attempt to prevent its posting on the Internet. For a description of the major components of the restrictions, see OMB Watch's analysis. Back to Top Industry CRE-ates Mischief Against Right To Know Industry lobbyist Jim Tozzi and his Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, long a thorn in the side of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to inform the public of human health and environmental threats and foes or the public's right to know, are asking NIOSH to withdraw a notice for the safe handling of biosolids in agriculture. The March 6 letter also asks the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to move forward in issue guidelines to agencies on the "quality, integrity and objectivity" of information that federal agencies release to the public. Tozzi was successful in getting a rider attached to the omnibus appropriations law passed last year requiring OMB to issue such guidelines by September 30 this year. The data quality guidelines are widely seen as a Trojan horse for Tozzi and other industry lobbyists to bog down federal agencies in their efforts to safeguard workers and protect human health and the environment. Please contact us at ombwatcher@ombwatch.org if you would like to read the Tozzi letter; we'll be happy to fax or mail you a copy. Back to Top Bush Nominee Draws Fire for Hostility to Public Protections President Bush's nominee to head OMB's HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/index.html">Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), John Graham, is drawing heavy criticism for his past hostility to protections for public health, safety and the environment. 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 industry – any industry – seeking to hold off new regulation. For instance, according to a new Public Citizen report:

• Graham solicited funds for the Center from tobacco-giant Phillip Morris in 1991, and has subsequently downplayed the effects of second-hand smoke. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study published in 1993, on the other hand, found that second-hand smoke causes 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections – such as bronchitis and pneumonia – per year in children up to 18 months in age, and 400,000 to 1 million cases of asthma.
• 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.
• In March 1997, at a time when the National Highway and Transportation Administration was preparing to issue a proposed rule permitting vehicle owners to disable air bags, Graham announced his conclusions that the cost of passenger-side air bags was an unreasonably high $399,000 for each year of life saved. Once Graham's study was released, however, it became clear it had significant flaws. Graham was eventually forced to substantially revise his numbers, finding the cost of passenger-side air bags was actually $61,000 for each life-year saved, which justified the regulation. Yet this came after a host of press stories and television appearances in which Graham repeatedly, and misleadingly, called into question the value of air bags.
• In early 2000, Graham's Center produced a study questioning the health risks of emissions from diesel engines in comparison to natural gas engines, which not surprisingly echoed the position of its sponsor – Navistar – one of the few diesel engine manufacturers that does not also make natural gas engines.
• In 1999, the Center produced a study that argued against a ban on certain highly toxic pesticides, making the incredible claim that such a move would actually result in up to 1,000 premature deaths per year due to decreased food consumption. The study was funded by the American Farm Bureau Federation, which opposes restrictions on pesticides.

A confirmation hearing for Graham has yet to be set. Meanwhile, opposition to his nomination grows. Read the release from the Natural Resources Defense Council urging senators to oppose the nomination. For more detailed information on Graham, be sure to read Public Citizen's report, Safeguards at Risk: John Graham and Corporate America's Back Door to the Bush White House. Back to Top Tax Cut Frenzy Update With great fanfare, the House passed a bill last week (HR 3) containing the Bush tax rate reduction provisions by a vote of 230 to 198. All of the Republicans and ten Democrats – Sanford Bishop (GA), Bob Clement (TN). Cary Condit (CA), Robert Cramer (AK), Bart Gordon (TN), Ralph Hall (TX), Ken Lucas (KY), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), and James Traficant (OH) – voted to approve the measure. The bill is slightly different from President's Bush's proposal in that it would immediately create a temporary 12% bracket retroactive to January 1, 2001, for the first $12,000 of taxable income of a couple and $6,000 taxable income of an individual. The cost of the bill is estimated at $958 billion over ten years. It is not clear which parts of the President's plan will be considered next. Tentatively, the House Ways and Means Committee will begin marking up another tax cut piece on March 23, to go to the Floor on March 29, and yet another piece on March 28, for floor consideration on April 5. Final tax cut measures would be considered after the two-week congressional recess in April. Still remaining are the marriage "penalty" relief, the child tax credit, repeal of the estate tax, permanent extension of the corporate R & D tax credit, charitable giving tax changes like the non-itemizer charitable deduction, and possibly a pension reform bill. House conservatives are proposing a range of other tax breaks, such as a cut in the capital gains tax rate and increases in contribution limits to individual IRAs. Once the bills have passed the House, the Senate will have to decide whether to proceed with passage one-by-one or as a package. The overall amount of tax cuts will be established by the congressional budget resolution – which has not yet been considered – that contains the broad outlines of spending and revenue and is usually passed prior to making decisions on tax and other expenditures. The House Budget Committee is planning to mark-up its version of the budget resolution on March 21 and have the plan on the House floor during the week of March 26. The Senate is supposed to begin considering the budget resolution on April 2, before the two-week recess. The President's full budget, which contains his recommendations and proposals, is supposed to be released April 4. Watch out for Trigger While there are some Republicans in Congress urging passage of a much larger tax cut than President Bush's proposed $1.6 trillion (estimated by many to actually be much higher in cost), and many Democrats and a few fiscally conservative Republicans are arguing that a $1.6 trillion tax cut is too much, the idea of a "trigger" or a "circuit breaker" mechanism has been raised in an effort to convince lawmakers that they can vote for a tax cut that is much larger than they might otherwise want. Various proposals have been suggested. Working on the notion that the President's tax cuts are phased in, the "trigger" would disallow a scheduled tax cut if the debt were not being reduced as much as anticipated or if the surplus were not at a certain level. Besides the fact that it is almost certain that there would be ways around any kind of trigger or circuit breaker device, it is important to also keep in mind that once the tax cut is fully phased in, the trigger becomes meaningless. That is, at the point when Bush's tax cut plan begins to cost the most – following completion of the phase-in – there is absolutely no mechanism to turn it off, other than raising taxes. We're hoping that legislators who oppose the Bush tax cut will hold their ground – a $2 trillion plus tax cut over ten years is just too much, trigger or no trigger. For a summary of the threats the trigger poses, see the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis. Back to Top Senate Finance Committee Hearing on Estate Tax A Senate Finance Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight hearing about the estate tax was held Thursday, March 15. You might not have known the actual subject of it from the title of the hearing - "Preserving and Protecting Family Business Legacies" - a title that did not even suggest an impartial discussion of the merits or failures of the estate tax, but rather clearly indicated a bias. Indeed, Subcommittee Chair Donald Nickles (R-OK) began the hearing confessing that he had "strong opinions on the death tax," which he believes is intrinsically unfair. Ranking Member, Kent Conrad (D-ND), countered by explaining that "there is no death tax in America" and that the estate tax is a carefully assessed tax that addresses untaxed capital gains and affects only 2% of estates in the US each year. Despite these differences, even those speaking for retaining the estate tax agreed that it could benefit from some changes that would help to alleviate the concerns of the small businesses and farms. Sen. Conrad suggested an immediate change in the exemption level to $5 million for a couple and $10 million for a small business/farm, a significantly larger change than any previously proposed (and it remains questionable whether a $10 million operation is truly a small, family business or farm). Sen. Conrad also noted that such reform offers more significant aid to small businesses as it would take effect immediately as compared with the Bush proposal, which would be phased in over the next 10 years - much too late for many small farm and business owners. This was a compelling argument even to one of the repeal-or-nothing witnesses. Read more on the hearing in OMB Watch's Budget Analysis More general information on the estate tax is available on OMB Watch's Estate Tax Resource Page. Back to Top Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Charitable Giving On Wednesday, March 14, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax incentives to encourage charitable giving, including a charitable deduction for non-itemizers, tax free distributions of IRA accounts to charities, and an increase in the annual cap on corporate donations from 10% to 15% of a corporation's taxable income. These proposals are part of the Bush administration's "faith-based and community initiatives" which also include direct funding of religious congregations' social service activities. In the past week, the administration said it would take more time to study this component of the program, but move forward with generally non-controversial items, including the giving proposals. Most of the issues addressed in the hearing are widely supported by charities. At the hearing Finance Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) expressed support for allowing tax free direct rollover of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to charities, although he is uncertain if the issue will be addressed this year because the Bush administration has expressed a desire to limit tax cuts to their original $1.6 trillion plan. Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Iowa, said that allowing direct rollover of IRAs would increase giving to universities. Sen. Lugar (R-IN) urged support for his "Good Samaritan Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act" (S. 37) which would eliminate tax barriers in donations to food banks. He said a companion bill to make all businesses eligible for a tax deduction for in-kind donations of food will be introduced in the House. Doug O'Brien, public policy director of America's Second Harvest, testified that legislation like the Lugar bill would encourage increased donations to food banks like his. Eugene Steuerle, an economist for the Urban Institute, and Donald Alexander, a former IRS commissioner, both called for simplifying the administration's proposals and establishing a common floor for charitable donations for both those who itemize their tax deductions and those who do not. Mr. Steuerle said the goal of the floor would be to "expand the potential availability of a deduction to all taxpayers." However, Independent Sector and other groups are arguing against a floor, saying that a no-floor "first-dollar" deduction would create a stronger incentive to new charitable givers as well as simplify giving by making all contributions tax-deductible. For more information on the issues, see the Joint Committee on Taxation report on "Proposals to Expand Federal Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving". Back to Top Senate Begins Debate on Campaign Finance Legislation That Will Impact Charities Last week representatives of charities met with Senate staff to iron out problems with some provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill (S. 27). While it appears that substantial progress has been made, it is still possible that some nonpartisan activities of charities could be banned or regulated. Issues directly impacting charities are only part of a much larger debate that will unfold in the next two weeks. Hard money contribution limits, the soft money ban, media costs, so called "paycheck protection" and other issues will be the subject of amendments and votes. OMB Watch strongly supports campaign finance reform, particularly the hard money contribution limits and soft money ban in the McCain-Feingold bill. Campaign finance reform was listed as the number one issue of concern by nonprofits throughout the country in a survey conducted by the Advocacy Institute, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, OMB Watch, and The Union Institute a few months ago. (See the full survey and results.) Unfortunately, there are provisions in McCain-Feingold that could directly affect the advocacy voice of charities, particularly through limits on "issue advocacy." The original draft of the bill contained provisions that included a ban on any broadcast, satellite or cable communication by a corporation – which includes 501(c)(3) organizations – or labor union that refers to a candidate for federal office if made within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary or caucus. The bill would allow some nonprofits – 501(c)(4) social welfare groups and 527 political action committees – to make the broadcast communications during the 60/30 day window, but they would be subject to disclosure requirements and fundraising limitations. It also has a very broad definition of prohibited coordination with candidates and campaigns. The ban on issue advocacy by charities during the 60/30 day window will mean that charities cannot use broadcast media to lobby during that period. Unlike other corporations, charities are prohibited from supporting or opposing candidates, even indirectly. So the ban would have the unusual impact of squarely curtailing our First Amendment right to lobby. OMB Watch and other nonprofit groups have urged the bill's sponsors to exempt them from the issue advocacy provision. We have also urged more narrowly targeted coordination language. It now appears that amendments addressing concerns about coordination will be filed. Further changes are expected to clarify that nonpartisan candidate debates and forums are not prohibited during the 60/30 day window and that the bill refers only to paid advertising, not to all broadcast communications. However, the exemption for charities is still an issue. Three outcomes are possible:

• Charities are exempted from the bill
• Charities are treated like 501(c)(4)s and 527s, and subjected to donor disclosure and fundraising limitations
• It stays the same and charities are prohibited from doing "issue advocacy" during the 60/30 day window.

If charities are treated like 501(c)(4)s, they will be required to disclose if they spend $10,000 or more on a broadcast that refers to a federal candidate within the 60/30 day period before an election, and required to:

• File a report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) identifying their organization, the names of candidates identified, the amount and identity of payees of more than $200 and the names and addresses of donors of more than $1,000. This is in addition to the normal filings to the IRS on lobbying expenses.
• Pay for ads only with contributions from individuals (corporate and union money cannot be used for this purpose).
• If the group pays for ads from a special fund, only donors to that fund will have to be disclosed.

We have argued that treating charities like 501(c)(4) organizations is unfair, since 501(c)(4)s are allowed to support or oppose candidates and charities are not. If a charity wants to buy an ad for a grassroots lobbying campaign, it should not be limited to paying for it with contributions from individuals and should not be required to reveal the identity of its donors. The record keeping involved is duplicative and pointless, since charities are not part of the problem in the campaign finance system. On the contrary, since charities are focused on their public interest mission, and not on electing candidates, a strong public policy voice from charities is part of any real solution. Back to Top IRS Will Not Issue Guidance On Nonprofit Use Of The Internet This Year After receiving more than 4,000 responses to its Request for Comments on exempt organizations' use of the Internet for lobbying, voter education and fundraising unrelated to business activities, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced that its Workplan for 2001 will not include guidance on this issue. Instead, the IRS will undergo a careful review of the comments and possibly move ahead next year. It is also possible they will proceed with a project outside the context of a formal plan. Thomas Miller, IRS acting director of Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements, said last week that their review will focus on applying existing law to Internet activities, and that "use of the Internet shouldn't be a factor." Read OMB Watch's comments to the IRS. Back to Top New Study Assesses State Legislative Online "Entry Points" OMB Watch issued today a study of state legislative online resources, offering citizens and public interest groups a snapshot of electronic government at the state level. "Plugged In, Tuning Up: An Assessment of State Legislative Websites," prepared under the auspices of the Community Education Center at OMB Watch, highlights the progress and ongoing work of state legislatures to deliver on the promises of "e-government" through "one-stop" online legislative resource portals, as opposed to websites of individual House or Senate chambers. These centralized online legislative "entry points" represent activity to make state legislatures more accessible and understandable to the public. Too often, state legislative web resources are examined without respect to the constraints that determine available content and features. Yet these resources provide a large variety of information services to the public, while addressing a number of issues critical to civic participation. At the same time, these resources provide an opportunity to call attention to an often-overlooked set of approaches that rival, if not surpass, the federal government in terms of responsiveness to public needs Instead of ranking or rating states, "Plugged In, Tuning Up" is a collective assessment of state legislative online entry portal offerings, taken over a discrete time period, from a citizen's perspective. It is designed to point out potential items of consideration and promising practices around:

• Information on Legislators and How to Reach Them
• Explanations of Legislative Process
• Legislative Tracking and Monitoring
• Administrative Entities within the Legislature
• State Resources
• Statements Addressing User Expectations
• Site Design
• Site Navigation

This is an attempt to provide a starting point for citizens, public interest groups, and legislatures to evaluate and develop online resources that help meet the widest range of needs with the fewest barriers possible. "Plugged In, Tuning Up" will be made available in both print form for purchase and for free on OMB Watch's website beginning Monday, March 19, 2001. For more information, call (202) 234-8494 or e-mail Ryan Turner (turner@ombwatch.org) or Matt Carter (carterm@ombwatch.org). Back to Top E-FOIA Evaluations On March 16, the 250th anniversary of James Madison's birth, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on "Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments." The report looks at the level of progress at 25 major federal departments and agencies, and found that all 25 agencies reviewed have established electronic reading rooms. GAO found, however, that agencies have not made all required documents electronically available. They did find greater compliance than OMB Watch did in our 1999 report, but the GAO report does not specify what criteria they utilized in assessing agency compliance with such requirements as the inventorying of major information systems. Also, GAO apparently considered the posting of a Government Information Locator Service (GILS) record – even if only a single record for an entire department – as compliant with the requirement to describe the agency's records locator systems. This is in accord with guidance given by the Office of Management and Budget OMB, but it does not meet the requirements of the Amendments. GAO found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies have implemented the reporting provisions required, but that, while these reports provide a good overview of FOIA activities across the government, "data quality issues limit their usefulness." The report recommends that the Attorney General direct Justice's Office of Information and Privacy to a) encourage agencies to make all required material electronically available; and b) improve data reliability of FOIA annual reports by (1) providing guidance that addresses the data quality issues identified in the report and (2) reviewing agencies' report data for completeness and consistency. The report provides a good deal of information on agencies' progress in relation to the 20-day period for determining whether to comply with requests, and negotiation of scope with the requester, and the use of multi-track and expedited processing for improving agency responsiveness. Back to Top New Chemical Exposures Report On Wednesday the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Center for Environmental Health will release a report assessing human exposure to industrial chemicals in the United States. The National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals draws on data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and other sources, including samples from 5,000 people in the U.S. The data will be href="http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ncehhome.htm">available through CDC's web site. Understanding chemical exposures could change the way decision makers write new laws and regulations. Traditionally, policy makers examine industrial activities to understand the relative risk posed by them in assessing the need for environmental and human health safeguards. This "risk assessment" approach depends on little information and significant estimation, so risk assessment has been criticized for failing to consider adequately a person's exposure to chemicals and the public's right to choose whether to be exposed to these chemicals at all. John Graham, appointed to head the office within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that examines all new regulations, is a proponent of risk assessment. Back to Top Correction As a result of an editorial mistake, the March 5 issue's article on medical privacy stated that under the Congressional Review Act, a minor rule takes effect after 60 days. It should read that a major rule takes effect after 60 days. Back to Top Notes and Sidebars ESTATE TAX COALITION MEETING WEDNESDAY! If you're in the DC area, DON'T FORGET to attend the meeting of nonprofits opposing repeal of the estate/gift tax on Wednesday, March 21, 2001, from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. in the First Floor Board Room, AFSCME, 1625 L Street, Washington, DC. We're seeing growing movement in the Senate against repeal of the estate tax, but it is important that we keep up the momentum by focusing on both the House and the Senate as the effort to repeal the estate tax takes shape. This meeting will be informative but primarily about developing an action plan. State-by-State Estate Tax Info The National Priorities Project has just released state-specific two pagers showing the impact that repeal of the estate tax would have on your state. MoveOn.org has a petition against repeal with over 13,000 signatures, including comments, sorted by state. OMB Watch can provide you with paper or electronic copies of that information (e-mail ombwatcher@ombwatch.org. Finally, state estate tax and charitable bequest information has been compiled by the Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers and should be available on-line this week. OMB Watch's Patrice McDermott: A FOIA Hall of Famer On March 16 at the Freedom of Information Conference convened by the Freedom Forum, Patrice McDermott of OMB Watch and 10 others (including James Madison, posthumously) were inducted into the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame was established in 1996, the 30th anniversary of the FOIA, by a consortium of media and other organizations. The 2001 induction is the second in the award's history. The award recognizes "strong leadership in developing and defending federal legislation ensuring the right of the American public to know about the actions of its government." The other living 2001 inductees were Steven Aftergood, Rebecca Daugherty, Don Edwards, John Finnegan, Harry Hammitt, Beryl Howell, Kate Martin, John Podesta, and J. Laurent (Larry) Scharff.. Information about the original group of inductees can be found at online on the Newspaper Association of America's site . This year's round brought the number of Hall of Famers to 35, to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Act. Democrats Release Report on Bush Budget Cuts Last week, the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee released a report on the Bush budget proposal, entitled, "Stealth Budget: The Real Cuts in the Bush Plan." The eight-page report examines the cuts to non-protected agencies to counter Bush's claim that his very large tax cut does not come at the expense of programs impacting the well-being of the nation's farmers and workers. Some highlights: an 11.3 percent cut in the Department of Housing and Urban Development; a 9.4 percent cut in the EPA; a 7.4% cut in the Labor Department; a 15% cut in the Transportation Department.The full report is available through the Democrats' House Budget Committee site. Social Security Trustees Release New Report The Social Security Trustees have released their new yearly report about the state of the Social Security and Medicare trust accounts – slightly extending the dates of insolvency for both trust funds and finding that the projected financial status for both is "slightly" more favorable than estimated last year. Access the report or a summary. GAO Report on Technology and Regulation GAO surveyed five federal agencies responsible for health, safety, and the environment to identify innovative uses of technology to manage and enforce regulation. The report finds that most uses of technology have sought to improve traditional approaches, but GAO urges agencies to develop more interactivity. The report is now available on the GAO site. Records Management for a New Millennium: Back to the Basics and Into the Future The Association of Records Managers and Administrators International (ARMA) Gaithersburg, Maryland, Chapter will sponsor its Fourth Annual National Records and Information Management Week (NRIMW) Knowledge Management (KM) Extravaganza on Thursday April 5, 2001, from 7:30 AM to 1:30 PM. All are welcome and more information is available on the Maryland ARMA website You may also contact the Forum manager, John Milligan at gburgarma@yahoo.com. 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! A Good Tax Cut! A good tax cut! Groups continue to urge Congress to raise the child credit from $500 to $1000 AND to make it refundable, a move that could lift more than two million children out of poverty. See action alerts by the National Campaign for Jobs and Income and the Children's Defense Fund. IRS Seeks Comments on Form 1023: Application for Tax-Exempt Status for 501(c)(3) Organizations Nonprofits are invited to provide the IRS with comments on Form 1023 as part of an ongoing effort to reduce paperwork and ensure the usefulness of information collected. Comments are due April 16 and should be sent to Garrick Shear, IRS Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20224. For more information see the Federal Register Online, Vol. 66, Number 31, February 14, 2001. Social Justice Movements and the Internet The Peace Review Journal, an international and multidisciplinary journal of peace, social justice and human rights, is seeking papers for a special issue on social justice movements and the Internet. This issue aims to examine whether the Internet is really a significant force for progressive political practice and how social justice movements are using the Internet. More information, including the Peace Review's Writer's Guidelines and suggested topics, is available online. In addition, questions may be addressed by e-mail to Dorothy Kidd or Bernadette Barker-Plummer or by calling 415.422.6680. 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.