In This Issue Clinton Vetoes "Official Secrets Act"   Congress to Finish in Lame Duck   Appropriations Update   Tax Bill Still Pending   New Law Directs GAO to Evaluate Agency Rules   IRS Posting of PAC Disclosure Reports   Nonprofit Unified Financial Reporting   Data Mining of Voter Information   Tech Help: Internet Faxing   Notes and Sidebars   Clinton Vetoes "Official Secrets Act" On Saturday, November 4, President Clinton vetoed H.R. 4392, the "Intelligence Authorization Act." In doing so, he heeded the advice of many public interest organizations, the media, at least one former Director of Central Intelligence (James Woolsey), bi-partisan opposition in the Congress, and reportedly many within the White House and the Administration. The President's veto was occasioned by Section 303 of this legislation which, according to its many critics, would have for the first time in our history created an Official Secrets Act in the United States. This provision, pushed within the executive branch by the CIA and the Department of Justice, would have made it a felony, punishable by a fine and up to three years in prison, for a current or former government official or employee to willfully disclose "classified information" to any person known not to be authorized to receive it. Current law already bans classified leaks, and national security threats can be prosecuted but prosecutors have the burden of proof that the disclosure damaged national security. Section 303 would have removed that burden of proof. Moreover, as former DCI Woolsey noted, this provision expansively broadened the current law's definitional trigger for a leak investigation and would have made "potential felons of those who express themselves on any issue about which they have ever had access to classified information, if they now have "reason to believe" that someone, somewhere, sometime may have used a classification stamp on material covering the same subject." The chilling effect on speech to promote government accountability and of the "right of citizens to receive the information necessary for democracy to work" were strongly noted by the President in his statement. This provision was based solely on secret testimony by CIA officials, and was enacted without public hearings, without debate on the floor of the Senate or House, and by a voice vote. The President alluded to these in his veto statement and also alluded to DOJ support – earlier this year and ongoing – by noting a failure of thoroughness in Administration deliberations and, hence, a "failure to apprise the Congress of the concerns I am expressing today." It is likely that a more narrowly-drawn bill will be introduced in the next Congress and public hearings will be held. Because Congress had already adjourned, the President used his "pocket veto" authority to kill the bill. Back to Top Pretty Lame, All Right There will be a lame duck session of Congress after the elections to resolve the remaining appropriations and tax bills. (The term "lame duck" now refers to officeholders after an election, but its meanings originated from "politically bankrupt politicians" and generally "helpless, ineffective, and inefficient," i.e., a "lame" excuse.) Do those earlier connotations have even more meaning for this congressional session? The only thing more unusual than the lame duck session is the marked lack of interest by the national press in the inability of Congress to get its work done, even on issues where there is strong bipartisan support. We're already a month into the new fiscal year, and yet six appropriations bills have not been passed into law. Despite the fact that Congress did not leave earlier for national elections, there has been hardly any press coverage of congressional inaction. The Senate suddenly abandoned the floundering Congressional ship on November 1, after passing a continuing resolution that would extend government funding through November 14. The House remained in session passing daily continuing resolutions (which the Senate affirmed in pro forma sessions) and attempted to give the appearance of being hard at work. (Congress did actually approve a down payment on a $7.8 billion project to rehabilitate the Florida Everglades -- a real environmental victory - but most of the work during the last part of the week was meaningless.) After 13 one-day continuing resolutions and the election just four days away, the House finally gave up and passed the Senate continuing resolution that extends through November 14, and said it would return on November 13 to finish its business. Although the President agreed to sign the CR, and did so on November 4, he issued a strong statement of disapproval over Congress' failure to finish the work at hand. Few expected this type of legislative collapse. Most thought Congress would quickly wrap up the appropriations bills, giving the President much of what he wanted, so that they could go home to campaign. But as polls showed Vice President Gore and Governor Bush in a horse race for the presidential competition, the dynamics in Congress began to change. Moreover, the Gore campaign chose not to have President Clinton on the campaign trail, which meant there was no voice criticizing Congress. This also changed the political dynamics. These dynamics embolden a Republican Congress to pass tax legislation that was not nearly as strident in tone as last tax cuts bills making it difficult to starkly characterize, but still largely designed to benefit wealthy, powerful special interests. Clinton threatened to veto the bill. This added a major strain in resolving year-end business. At the same time, closed-door negotiations were occurring on the large Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. After long, hard negotiations where each side gave a little, a deal was struck after going into the early morning hours. However, when Republican negotiators brought the deal back to Republican leaders they reneged. This was the final blow to comity and any opportunity to wrap up business. This total collapse of the appropriations process, now over a month into the new fiscal year, is not unprecedented. A lame duck session to complete appropriations bills occurred in 1982, when the Senate didn't leave town until December 23. This kind of session is highly unpredictable, given that many of the lawmakers will no longer be in office come January and so are essentially unaccountable. The budget process this year -- getting the appropriations bills passed prior to the start of the new fiscal year and maintaining some accountability and openness during the process - has been a dismal failure, marked by real acrimony and numerous closed-door sessions. Although it is certain that, beginning on November 14, Congress will have to finish the appropriations bills, it is less clear what else will get done. There is a tax bill (see article below), which the President has said he will veto, and congressional leaders are hopeful of completing a bankruptcy reform bill. Beyond that it is impossible to forecast the course and full impact of 2000's lame-duck session until after tomorrow's election. Back to Top Appropriations Update The President has signed the following six appropriations bills into law: Agriculture, Interior, Military Construction, National Security and Defense, Transportation, and VA, HUD & Independent Agencies. He has vetoed Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and the Treasury Postal bill that was included with the Legislative Branch bill. The following bills are still outstanding:

• Commerce, Justice, State, & the Judiciary, with the attached District of Columbia appropriations bill, is under veto threat by President Clinton because it limits expanding immigration laws in line with the President's "Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act." Essentially, the District of Columbia appropriations bill is being held hostage to the objectionable Commerce bill provisions, which means that several new initiatives and programs scheduled to take place cannot begin -- although we're now in the second month of the new fiscal year.
• Labor/HHS/Education, which after lots of negotiation and presumed agreement, suddenly came to a crashing halt because of GOP opposition to moving forward with new federal rules to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries (the "ergonomics" provisions). The Labor/HHS/Education bill is now the vehicle for the vetoed Treasury Postal and Legislative Branch bills.
• Foreign Operations

Confused? We'll just have to wait until after the elections to see how future negotiations go! Back to Top Tax Bill Still Pending In addition to the appropriations bills discussed above, a ten-year $240 billion tax relief package, crafted by Republicans without consultation with the minority party or the Administration, also remains outstanding. The President has threatened to veto the bill as it now stands. While the bill has some good provisions that the President supports, including a $1 increase in the minimum wage over two years and some "New Markets" initiatives to encourage community renewal, most of the tax benefits go to people who need no favors -- especially the health insurance and pension provisions which are largely targeted away from the people who really need those benefits. According to analyses, the highest 5% of taxpayers would get a larger share of these benefits than the lowest 80%. In addition, President Clinton wants more extensive school modernization proposals, funding of his long-term care tax credit, and provisions to address issues around the lack of pension coverage for many low- and middle-income Americans. He also objects to large spending increases for HMO's without accompanying accountability provisions. Finally, the package does not cover many of the President's proposals for health insurance provisions for children, people moving from welfare-to-work, immigrants and people with disabilities. All in all, the bill is not as egregious as previous tax cut attempts, but provides more benefits to business and higher-income taxpayers than to low- and middle-income citizens. Again, we will have to wait until November 14 to begin to see what will become of this bill. Back to Top New Law Directs GAO to Evaluate Agency Rules President Clinton recently signed legislation that establishes an office within the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to evaluate agency rulemakings at the request of Congress, as part of a three-year pilot program. This legislation passed both the House and Senate by unanimous consent, and was not opposed by Citizens for Sensible Safeguards (CSS). It took awhile to get the details worked out, however. In the last Congress, Rep. Sue Kelly (R-NY) introduced a bill that would have created a Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis (CORA) to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis of all major rules. This legislation was strongly opposed by CSS for a number of reasons. Chief among them, such an office would simply not be able to conduct a cost-benefit analysis -- which often takes years for the agencies to do -- in the very limited time-frame permitted by the bill. As a result, Kelly had a very difficult time finding support from Democrats, and the legislation never made it to the House floor for a vote. In the next Congress, both Kelly and Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) made an attempt to answer some of the criticisms of the initial bill. Instead of creating a new congressional agency, they proposed establishing an office within GAO, which responded to concerns that CORA could become a political tool in the hands of the majority party. Yet other problems remained. Most significant, the wording of the legislation still seemed to imply that GAO was to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis, as well as develop its own regulatory alternatives, in a very small window of time. This was not something GAO wanted, which as Robert Murphy, GAO's general counsel, explained is "a role that is very different than our traditional responsibility of evaluating agencies' analyses." Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), along with CSS, sought to address this problem and forge a compromise with Thompson. Specifically, this meant narrowing GAO's responsibilities in a more responsible and practical way. Instead of requiring GAO to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis, Thompson agreed that GAO should simply "evaluate the agency's analysis" to examine "data, methodology, and assumptions." This is more realistic and fits much more naturally with GAO's skill, which lies in auditing agency activity, not in developing regulation. Ultimately, this, as well as a number of other changes, allowed the bill to move forward and pass the Senate by unanimous consent. In the House, on the other hand, Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN) -- whose subcommittee held jurisdiction over Kelly's bill -- dug his heels in. Democrats urged that he accept the compromise Senate version, but instead he pushed a bill out of the Government Reform Committee on a party line vote. It quickly became apparent, however, that McIntosh might not have enough votes to win passage on the floor; Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA), a leading Blue Dog, had introduced a bill identical to the Senate version and was planning to offer it as a substitute amendment, which likely would have succeeded. This caused McIntosh to capitulate and accept most of the Senate version. There were a few areas where the House version (H.R. 4744) that ultimately passed differed from the Senate version (S. 1198), and in some respects, it was more problematic. Most notably, the House version directed GAO to complete its review of a proposed rule before the agency's public comment period had closed "if practicable." The Senate version by contrast granted GAO 180 days irrespective of the comment period. If the House bill had prevailed, GAO would have been put in the position of a super-commenter on behalf of Congress (which could blur the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch). In the end, however, the House was forced to accept the Senate version -- as a clearly disappointed Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) explained -- and passed it by unanimous consent on October 3. Shortly after that (on October 17), President Clinton signed the legislation into law. Back to Top IRS Posting of PAC Disclosure Reports Won't Be Finished Until After The Election The IRS is using the Internet to post reports from political organizations, called "527" groups, required to disclose soft money contributions and expenditures under a new campaign finance law passed this summer, but said it may not have all reports available before the election. The new law only requires that the reports be made public, and does not provide deadlines or require Internet posting. Reports filed in mid-October are being reviewed prior to posting, and where problems are found the report is returned to the filer to straighten out the problem. Currently, only "perfected" reports are being posted on the IRS's web site. Back to Top Relief from Duplicative Reporting: Guide Creates System for Unified Financial Reporting for Nonprofits Tired of slicing the same financial information ten different ways for ten different reports? If so, your organization will want to see the new publication, "Unified Financial Reporting System for Nonprofit Organizations," by Russy D. Sumariwalla and Wilson C. Levis. It aims to reduce the costs and burdens of nonprofit financial reporting as well as promote public trust in the nonprofit sector by improving the quality of reporting. The guide presents a new tool, the Unified Chart of Accounts, which can produce a single report that can then be used to generate financial statements for government, foundations, boards of directors and the public, "with the click of a mouse." It is written for nonprofit treasurers, accountants, staff and regulators, and includes special guidance for smaller nonprofits. It covers the key building blocks needed for a unified system and the types of reports that can be produced, including IRS Form 990, all reports required for compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), government grant budgets and reports and foundation reports. These are illustrated with examples. IRS Form 990 is central to the unified system, since over 35 states accept it for reporting purposes and it follows accounting guidance from the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The guide points out that many local, state and federal grant reporting requirements are not consistent with the IRS, GAAP or state standards, resulting in inconsistent information and wasted resources. It proposes a model developed in Tennessee that aligns government grant reporting requirements with Form 990 and GAAP. The Tennessee unified system is the result of a cooperative effort between nonprofits and state government, with help from national groups such as the National Grants Management Association, author Wilson Levis, the IRS and OMB. The result was a directive from the state's Department of Finance and Administration requiring all state agencies to standardize their budget and reporting for nonprofit grantees. The requirements are consistent with Form 990, OMB Circulars A-122 and A-133, Secretary of State solicitation reports and generally accepted accounting principles. Publication of the "Unified Financial Reporting System for Nonprofit Organizations" was sponsored by CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, a California based consulting and training firm. For more information on the guide, see CompassPoint Nonprofit Services or call 415/541-9000. Back to Top Data Mining of Voter Information Some private companies are "mining" the information gained from market research and public records to enable campaigns to target individual voters. Because the primary source of this information is public records (such as motor vehicle databases) and commercial data sources (such as bank and credit card transactions), it is often collected without user knowledge or permission. The use of these records is there for the taking, and is not restricted by regulations, but rather by access fees. Several high profile lawsuits have centered on unlawful acquisition and selling of personal information, and some guidelines are beginning to form. To learn more about whether your personal information is available, see this Information Policy article. Back to Top Tech Help: Internet Faxing Accounts for e-mail and even Internet access itself can be found for free. But what about faxing? Has the promise of speed, efficiency, and cheap (especially free) online tools expanded to include the most basic form of electronic document reproduction and transmission technologies? Well, yes and no. Internet faxing usually follows one of three approaches, depending upon the service. User might enter telephone numbers and text of a message into a Web interface, and then the information is transmitted to a fax machine. An e- mail message (with attached documents) may be sent to a fax number. Or, software tools downloaded to a user's machine will simply dial a fax number and transmit information. There is, however, an equally important consideration-- receiving faxes. Some services allow users to both send and receive, others only one or the other. Some receive-only services do, however, also allow receipt of voice, e-mail, and other messages. Usually the more free the service, the narrower the range of options, including most importantly, the ability to send documents versus simple text messages. Until this summer, the free fax powerhouse was a service called Fax4Free, which literally offered free Internet fax. It was, however, acquired by JFax.com (http://www.jfax.com). JFax is one of a number of free services that lets you receive -- but not send -- faxes. Other services, like Faxaway (http://www.faxaway.com), which do not have a per-page fee, do have a per-minute charge, depending upon where the fax is being sent. There are services which have per-page, but no per-minute fees. It seems the receiving part is easier to provide for free than the sending part, especially when you factor in the cost of long-distance phone calls and such. Therefore, a lot of the free services only allow you to send one fax at a time, usually via a web interface, and may in fact track usage from a particular machine, fax number, or IP address, possibly blocking usage from those persons who are, in their opinion, overusing the service. That said, there are a few services available worth exploring: Exportall FaxMission FreeatLast Freefax Hotcorp (ad-supported) Intellifax (free-trial) MetroFax NetFax OurFax (affiliate-based service allowing users to add a fax interface to their websites) TPC Fax -- a collection of free Web-based fax servers uReach ZipFax Also, although it is not a free service, an interesting approach to providing the lowest-cost/toll-free faxing around the world is @fax. Lastly, there is a collection of international fax servers allowing Internet faxes to be sent. Subscribe to NPTalk Back to Top Your comments are always welcomed! Notes and Sidebars College Crime Statistics Now Available on the Web Gauging the safety of a college just got a little easier. For the first time, students, parents and the public can log on to find and compare crime statistics from U.S. college campuses. The deadline has passed for the nation's 6,700 public and private colleges that receive federal money to report campus crime statistics to the U.S. Department of Education and the agency is now posting three years of crime figures through 1999 on its Web site. POGO Wins (For Now) As reported in the OMB Watcher in February and May, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) became the target of what appeared to be a retaliatory attack on the part of Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Chair of the House Resources Committee. POGO had been part of a law suit against the oil industry addressing underpayments to the federal government. Young had subpoenaed the phone records of POGO and its Executive Director; those subpoenas were followed by dozens more. In July, Rep. Young introduced a resolution to have POGO staff and board members held in criminal contempt of Congress, an action not taken since 1983. Young withdrew his resolution on October 27, after falling 35 votes short. He withdrew the resolution a second time on November 1, despite a majority of Republicans on the House floor. For more information, visit the POGO web site. Spending on Campaign Ads The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University is doing an ongoing analysis of spending on political ads based on information provided through campaign finance disclosure laws. You can take a look at the results at The Brennan Center for Justice. Call for Papers The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) announces its Sixth Women's Policy Research Conference, "The Status of Women: Facing the Facts, Forging the Future," to be held June 8-9. IWPR is currently accepting paper and poster proposals that focus on policies that affect women and their families, and on the intersections between policymaking and research. Proposals are due by December 15, 2000 and applications are available online or by calling IWPR at 202.785.5100. CDC to Issue National Exposure Report Card The Centers for Disease Control will soon provide on-line information on how the chemicals we are commonly exposed to impact our lives. For more information on this National Exposure Report Card, see the CDC's press release. Watch This Space: As reported in earlier Watcher Articles, a set of policy recommendations to help the nonprofit sector is being developed by a group of over 25 nonprofit leaders for the next presidential administration. They will be posted on the OMB Watch website when they are drafted and comments on them from nonprofits will be appreciated.