In This Issue EPA Goes Offline   Online Survey on EPA Shutdown   Biennial Budgeting   Corporate Taxes Falling   States' Welfare Surpluses   Briefing on Nonprofits and Lobbying   Online Survey on Lobby Disclosure Proposal   House Committee Attacks A Nonprofit   Chamber Tests Changes to Circular A-110 Government Performance and Results Act Information      FOIA Exemption for Businesses   Environmental Worst Case Scenarios   Online Resources for Voter Education   Tech Help: Collecting Data   Notes and Sidebars Access Denied: EPA Goes Offline The Environmental Protection Agency pulled its Web site offline last week after Rep. Thomas J. Bliley (R-VA) allowed details of security concerns to become public. Business and community groups, insurance companies and educators, attorneys and students, all of whom rack up millions of visits to EPA's website every month, were unable to access any part of the site or communicate via e-mail with EPA employees. Called a "publicity stunt" by some and an attempt to roll-back right to know policies at EPA by others, Bliley issued a press release on February 16th, entitled, "GAO Finds Cyber Insecurity at EPA." The press release was based on findings of a General Accounting Office investigation that showed computer security deficiencies at EPA. EPA has been working with GAO to strengthen its computer security and was set to release in the next few weeks new data on industrial toxic chemical pollution in the United States. Bliley issued the press release with little warning, giving the EPA no time to prepare for the release of the findings. That night, EPA shut down its Internet services, claiming that Bliley's press release was an implicit encouragement to hackers to try to breach the system. EPA is now slowly putting its site back online. While Bliley was correct in pursuing computer security problems at the EPA -- which has known about these problems for some time and been slow to act -- going public, especially since EPA was fixing the most severe problems, was the wrong approach. This inside-the-Beltway wrangling between EPA and Bliley only does a disservice to meeting the public's right-to-know. For more information, read the OMB Watch analysis. We're taking a survey on your thoughts about the EPA website shutdown. We'll report back in the next issue on the survey results. The survey tool is free and can be used by anyone. Back to Top Biennial Budgeting Sen. Dominici (R-NM) again introduced a bill (S.92) to change the federal budget, appropriations and authorization processes from a yearly cycle to every two years. It has been placed on the Senate legislative calendar and will likely be considered within the next few months. Here's a quick primer: Why biennial budgeting? The argument is that a biennial budget cycle would streamline the budget process, provide more focused time for congressional oversight, and enhance the ability of agencies to manage their operations. It sounds good, but would this really help, or cause a yearly unscheduled train wreck, rather than the usual and anticipated yearly wreck? Following are a few of the problems: The yearly budget process requires working on budgets far in advance. Biennial budgeting would increase this forecasting, quite possibly leading to decisions that are outdated. Appropriations for the second year of the budget cycle would be decided well more than two years in advance. For instance, economic changes could require an adjustment of fiscal policy; normal oversight findings on various government programs could indicate the need for more or less resources; or epidemics, social issues, or international crises could arise that weren't contemplated when the budget was prepared. The budget would then have to be adjusted mid-stream, leading to more, rather than less, careful deliberation, and more, rather than less, emergency and supplemental appropriations, making for a messier budget decided in an ad hoc fashion. Biennial budgeting would be more likely to preserve the status quo, reducing important changes in budget decisions. Budget decisions frequently involve incremental changes from year to year, and biennial budgeting would lock in these small changes over two years. In the appropriations process, Congress would have less ability to divide up limited discretionary funds in a way that reflects changing needs and priorities. Decisions to reduce funding to a program that wasn't working, increase funding for a program that was important but struggling, or provide funding a new and innovative program addressing some unanticipated need could only be made every two years, not when the need is evident. Agency oversight is also a significant part of the yearly appropriation process requiring agencies to justify and defend their programs each year. This would reduce, not enhance, that yearly opportunity for oversight. We think that the budget process needs the flexibility of operating on a yearly basis to appropriately allocate monies as some needs recede in importance and other needs arise or increase. Unfortunately, Congress has not been able to get the job done each year within the allotted time. So, biennial budgeting, even with its flaws, may become the only choice. Back to Top Corporation Tax Rates Are Falling Corporations are increasing their profits, but paying less tax. According to a New York Times article (2/20/00), corporations paid 26 cents on every dollar of profit in 1990, but by 1997, they were paying only 20 cents. The Times stated that a major reason for this substantial slide in tax revenue is the increasing use of corporate tax shelters. Corporations are greatly benefiting from the booming economic climate in the United States but rather than pay taxes based on their rising profits, they are becoming more adept at reducing their tax burdens. If corporations were paying their fair share of taxes, federal budget surpluses would be even higher and we’d have more resources to address the needs of those who are not prospering. The Washington Post today identifies the problem in another way, by looking at corporate profits reported to the IRS versus to shareholders for companies with assets of $1 billion or more. The Post notes that in 1992 the profit reported to the IRS and shareholders was roughly the same. But in 1996, companies reported $119 billion less in profits to the IRS than to shareholders. The Treasury Department yesterday announced a campaign to target tax shelters in order to recover lost corporate taxes. The IRS will issue regulations, retroactive to yesterday, requiring companies to disclose with their tax returns information that might indicate use of tax shelters. It is estimated that this could raise as much as $10 billion per year. However, these regulations will not likely have powerful penalties unless Congress change the tax code to add enforcement actions, an action that is unlikely in an election year. Back to Top States Hoarding Welfare Surpluses The National Campaign for Jobs and Income, a coalition of anti-poverty groups, recently released a report finding that states are hoarding $7 billion in unspent federal funds earmarked to help low-income Americans. The surplus funds are a result of the decrease in the number of Americans receiving welfare--due to the booming economy and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) eligibility limits. The National Campaign believes that this money ought to be used by states to help the many Americans who are not benefitting from the country's overall prosperity and the surpluses should not be saved or spent on tax cuts or other state programs. California had the most, with $1.6 billion, while Utah was in the bottom third of states, with a $17.8 million surplus. See the full report and find out how much money your state is holding Back to Top Briefing on Proposals to Regulate Nonprofit Lobbying The Let America Speak! Coalition is sponsoring a briefing on Friday, March 3, in Washington, D.C., to discuss proposals that would increase reporting requirements on charitable organizations that lobby. As discussed in the last issue of the OMB Watcher Online, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation made the proposals as part of its recent report dealing with confidentiality and disclosure provisions in federal tax law. The proposals would require 501(c)(3) organizations to report expenditures to produce nonpartisan analyses that contain a "limited call to action," and to use the "self defense" exception to lobbying. The Joint Committee proposals would also require charities to provide a detailed narrative describing the organization's lobbying activity. The JCT proposals could have a major impact. We'd like your thoughts on the proposals. Click here to fill out an online survey. We'll report the results in the next issue. The online survey tool is free and easy to use. The briefing on the JCT proposals will be held on Friday, March 3, from 10 am to 11 am in the offices of Independent Sector at 1200 18th Street, NW, Second Floor, in Washington, DC. Representatives from Let America Speak! Coalition member groups will summarize the proposals and lead a discussion about the possible impact they might have on 501(c)(3)s. Let America Speak! is a coalition of community and national organizations working to defend the advocacy rights of America's nonprofit community. The Let America Speak! Coalition is co-chaired by the Alliance for Justice, Independent Sector, and OMB Watch. For more information contact Heather Hamilton at OMB Watch, 202-234-8494 or <hbhamilton@ombwatch.org>. Back to Top Retaliation By House Raises Concerns Put a bullseye on the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) -- a nonprofit government watchdog group -- for doing its job. On February 23rd, Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Chair of the House Resources Committee, served POGO with a subpoena to obtain various pieces of information, including phone records of the organization and the home phone records of the Executive Director. The subpoena seeks the name of the companies that provide phones services to the organization and seeks the phone numbers of each Board member, implying that the House committee will seek records from the phone companies. So what is this all about? Is POGO the subject of a criminal investigation? Well... no. POGO and Young have been wrangling over POGO's successful campaign to expose fraud in the oil industry, some affecting Young's Alaska constituency. POGO has won several court decisions over the last year, relying on whistleblower testimony. There are issues about uses of money: were funds used to pay whistleblowers; what was the role of the executive director; etc. Without regard to who is right in the POGO-Young confrontation, it is rather startling that Young has used subpoena power to attack POGO. Subpoenas of this sort are considered highly unusual and some think the scope of the subpoena raises serious constitutional questions. Can a member of Congress, even a chair, provide implied threats that he or she can go to private companies and obtain records about you or your organization? Can a committee, which disagrees with your actions obtain your phone records to learn more about your activities and who you communicate with? If so, this raises significant concerns about constitutional protections afforded under our right to freedom of association and freedom of speech. In the case of POGO, the subpoena raises even larger concerns about protecting the anonymity of whistleblowers. It appears, however, that such tactics are becoming increasingly common for the House Resources Committee. In the last two years, they have issued subpoenas to monitor nonprofits dealings with government agencies and to acquire documents on behalf of the industry litigants with the federal government, as well as requesting the identities of federal government employees belonging to specific environmental groups. This sort of retaliation on the part of any government office poses a threat to all nonprofits. A sign-on letter has been circulated, and on February 28th, POGO held a press conference to announce its refusal to betray whistleblowers by complying with Young's subpoena. We'll see what happens next. But Young could then push to have POGO held in contempt of Congress. For more information on what you can do or to follow the issue, you may want to contact the Project On Government Oversight website or Beth Daly, 202-466-5539, at POGO. Back to Top Chamber Tests New Circular A-110 In December, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce took steps to test new changes to Circular A-110, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations." OMB made changes to Circular A-110 to comply with a legislative rider to the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL). The Shelby amendment makes all data produced under a grant subject to the "procedures established under the FOIA" and would permit the granting federal agency to impose a user fee on the requestor equaling the incremental cost of obtaining the data. The Chamber of Commerce has been supportive of extending FOIA to nonprofit grantees because it will enable businesses to challenge agency regulations that are based on nonprofit grantees' research. It may also make it more difficult for nonprofits to conduct studies if they cannot guarantee confidentiality to research subjects. Some examples of regulations the Chamber wants to target: protection against second-hand smoke; warnings about breast implants; workplace ergonomic standards; clean air rules; environmental justice claims; and EPA's right-to-know programs. Last December, the Chamber requested data from the EPA on research conducted at Harvard University. The National Institutes of Health had granted funds to Harvard University to collect and analyze data that was used by the EPA in determining how to write a rule central to the Clean Air Act. Presumably, the Chamber wants the underlying data that Harvard generated so they can re-analyze it and criticize the EPA regulatory policy. EPA has publicly provided aggregated data used in its risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, but has not provided the underlying information which is retained by Harvard. The Chamber's request seems to be designed to provoke a lawsuit testing the new changes to Circular A-110. It is highly likely that more suits will follow, over both access to information, and OMB's interpretation of the statutory language. Click here for more information Back to Top The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) OMB Watch recently completed a series of reports from a project funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and others to increase nonprofit involvement in the implementation of GPRA. The following papers are on our Government Performance web page:

• Facts sheets about GPRA, performance measurement lingo, and issues for nonprofits.
• Results of a survey of Congressional Committee staff and OMB Watch's government performance email list.
• An analysis of the childcare and TANF performance measures and indicators in the Administration for Children and Families Performance Plan.
• A conference paper about how environmental groups could use GPRA to improve environmental quality and the effectiveness of the EPA.

Back to Top Freedom of Whose Information? Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) have indicated plans to introduce legislation that would exempt some information that businesses voluntarily provide to the government from portions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ostensible aim is to foster private sector cooperation with the government on protecting the nation's critical infrastructure -- such as telecommunications and computer communications. The Clinton Administration has made cybersecurity a high priority and as a result of Presidential Decision Directive 63 a number of interagency organizations have been created to address critical infrastructure and security issues. One of these, the Critical Infrastructure Information Sharing Group circulated draft legislation language late last year -- on which OMB Watch commented (along with the Center for Democracy and Technology, the National Security Archive, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Center for National Security Studies). This proposed language has many flaws -- in particular, it would allow businesses to merely request a special exemption of their information, but establishes no clear criteria for approval or rejection of a confidentiality claim, sets no real time limit on the exemption and requires no proof or affidavit. More importantly, it does not clearly articulate why the exemptions already afforded by FOIA- for confidential business information and trade secrets- are inadequate to meet the concerns of businesses sharing their information with the government. It is generally assumed that the Davis-Moran language will build on the language already developed by the Critical Infrastructure Information Sharing Group. If the intent of this legislation is to address concerns that there are potential harms from the sharing of information about computer and telecommunications security problems and the resolution of these problems, then these concerns should be addressed within the context of the FOIA and the case made in a free exchange of ideas and concerns. However, it seems that the logic being pursued in this legislation is similar to that pursued in other recent attempts by the business community to limit the public's access to information: if the information cannot legitimately be exempted from disclosure under FOIA, then an attempt will be made to circumvent the law. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently in the process of drawing up rules to protect other kinds of voluntarily-submitted information from FOIA. And a special exemption of required information has occurred in the case of limiting public access to portions of the Risk Management Plans submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Clean Air Act. This trend to end-run the exemptions already provided by the FOIA and to shut the public off from the information on which our government is basing its policies and practices needs to be followed and resisted. HREF="/article/articleview/566/1/1/">Click here to view OMB Watch's comments to the Department of Justice on FOIA exemptions Back to Top (Chemical) Accidents Do Happen: But Will You Know About the Risks? On January 27, 2000, President Clinton delegated authority to EPA and the Department of Justice to study the benefits and potential risks of posting chemical accident "worst case scenario" information on the Internet. Based on the assessments, EPA and the Justice Department will jointly write rules governing the distribution of this information. The Attorney General is authorized to "assess the increased risk of terrorist and other criminal activity associated with the posting of off- site consequence analysis information on the Internet." The Administrator of EPA, in turn, is authorized "to assess the incentives created by public disclosure of off-site consequence analysis information for reduction in the risk of accidental releases." The rules likely will allow chemical companies to keep the public in the dark about potential chemical accident "worst case scenarios" reported to EPA under the agency's Risk Management Plan. The study and new rules were precipitated by a law passed last year (P.L. 106-40) that severely curtailed public access to worst- case scenarios. Click here for more on the law RTK NET provides summaries of the worst-case scenarios at www.rtknet.org (click on "Risk Management Plans"). Back to Top Online Voter Education Resources The Internet is playing an increasingly important role in bridging the gap between voters, elected officials, and candidates. Within the last two years, the Internet has helped to facilitate not only political discussion and disclosure of candidate information, but also a growing number of collaborative efforts, public-private ventures, and free/for-fee online projects involving nonprofits, not-for-profit efforts, and commercial ventures that seek to educate and engage the voting public. What does the new online landscape mean for nonprofit voter education activities? If you were subscribed to NPTalk, you would already know! View Online Voter Education Resources Join NPTalk Discussion List on Nonprofits and Technology Back to Top Tech Help: Collecting Data The need for nonprofits to collect information and survey others is critically important. There are usually two limitations: cost and expertise. There are a number of new online tools that may make it easier and less costly to do surveys. One free service called Flashbase touts itself as a "personal data processing center." Through Flashbase, anyone with access to a web browser and a free subscription to the service can develop Web-based forms and host online databases. The range of applications can include polls and surveys, mailing and subscription lists, reservation forms, and signup sheets. Forms are created by selecting the type and order of data fields, and entering the text of specific questions you want to ask. A unique Web URL is then generated that points visitors to that form for entering data. The forms and the data are password protected, so only the administrator of that form can modify it. Responses can then be examined individually or collectively onthe web through a set of built-in statistical tools, or all data can be downloaded to a local PC in a spreadsheet table. If you edit or update any responses, the old versions are automatically saved so that you can compare them later. One interesting feature is that you can set up a reference response against which all subsequent responses can be measured. Another application might be to look at all responses that fit a certain range of criteria and then look at how responses are distributed across other items on your form. Data can be independently edited by more than one user, although only one response can be edited by one user at a time. Since multiple individuals can access the forms, you can track who has made what changes. One good feature is the ability to link to and from your organization web page to the survey page and back again, and the ability to process credit card transactions (available only to paid subscribers of the service). Another similar service is Zoomerang. Zoomerang differs from Flashbase in that it is specifically a survey research tool as opposed to a general purpose online database hosting service. You can select from over 100 customizable survey templates or create your own from a blank form. After editing your form, you can then elect to make your survey available as a web-based or e-mail-based survey. While you are limited to 20 survey questions per form, you can choose from 12 different types of questions, including matrix scales, open response, and date/timestamp formats. Two limitations: (1) you cannot download survey results to your machine, and (2) you cannot link back to your organization's web page from the survey. If you conduct an e-mail based survey, however, you can compile a personal and confidential contact address book for later use. Since the services are free, there are some caveats. Free acounts can only receive a limited number of responses, and must contend with banner ads at the top of the screen. Also, data and responses are stored on the respective companies' servers, however you access and download data from any machine with a web browser. Paid subscribers can access a range of higher end customization tools. We have two surveys, based on some of the issues you just read about, to provide you with an idea of how these tools work. From Flashbase: Please let us know your thoughts on the EPA website shutdown From Zoomerang: Please share your thoughts on the JCT proposals on disclosure of nonprofit lobbying We will report on the results from the two surveys in the next issue of the Watcher. Back to Top Notes and Sidebars New Online Daily Newspaper for Nonprofits Nonprofitxpress (http://www.npxpress.com), which launched February 2, publishes state, national and international news on fundraising, giving, managing, volunteering, innovation and technology in the philanthropic community. This web-based newspaper, a publication of the A.J. Fletcher Foundation in Raleigh, N.C., also features editorials, opinion columns, letters, job opportunities and electronic links to nonprofit resources. Readers can submit and post announcements about people, organizations, grants, gifts, events and fundraising results. Nonprofitxpress also publishes a free weekly email newsletter and will conduct and publish electronic surveys on critical issues facing nonprofits. And the site offers a free headline service for organizations that want to publish nonprofit news on their Web sites. Nonprofitxpress aims to expand to other states the kind of local coverage it provides in its home state of North Carolina. This publication is free to all readers, and includes paid advertising. EPA Delays Release of Toxics Data Last minute fixes have apparently pushed back EPA's public release of the latest data on toxic chemical releases in the U.S. The data, collected under EPA's Toxics Release Inventory throughout 1998, shows releases and transfers of more than 600 chemicals by manufacturing facilities. The data includes first-time data on pollution from electrical utilities, mining activities, and other industrial sectors. EPA officials had hoped to release the data to the public as early as this week, however EPA is still making last-minute corrections to the data. In past years, the release of TRI data has been delayed for months. Officials hope this year's TRI data will not encounter similar delays. For background on the TRI, see EPA's TRI Homepage. Search TRI using RTK NET Attend the National Freedom of Information Day Conference, Access & Technology: Recovering the Promise, sponsored by the Freedom Forum in cooperation with the American Library Association, on Thursday March 16, 2000. This free conference, being held at the Freedom Forum Rooftop Conference Center, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, begins at 8:00 am, with breakfast, includes lunch, and lasts until 5:00. Topics to be discussed: Database access and personal privacy, the 'digital divide', restrictions on access to satellite imagery, a series of "FOI updates" on government secrecy, new legal decisions, international FOI, and state and federal legislation developments. To register, contact Virginia Wright at 703-284-3512 or or via email. Click here for more information. View OMB Watch's comments to the Office of Management and Budget regarding its cumulative cost-benefit report. The OMB report was mentioned in the last issue of the OMB Watcher Online. Click here to view the last issue and learn more about regulatory accounting. The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) is holding an open meeting to consider the proposed closure and transfer of functions of National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The Commission has been studying a proposal to close the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and transfer its collections, functions, services, and assets to the Library of Congress. In an effort to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to be heard, NCLIS has scheduled a meeting to review a draft of the Commission's findings. The deadline for speaking has passed, but the meeting is open. The Commission will review all comments, before making its final recommendation to Congress and the Administration. The meeting is Tuesday, February 29, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Place: 253 Russell Senate Office Building. All comments received will be made publicly available on the NCLIS website.