Government Executive - Authors - Alyson Klein

White House veto threat looms over postal bill negotiations

Alyson Klein — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:00:00 -0500

Aides in both chambers say it will be relatively easy to reconcile House and Senate differences, but resolving issues dealing with the White House's looming veto threat is another matter.

The administration opposes language to transfer the agency's $27 billion military pensions obligation from the Postal Service to the Treasury and give the agency access to money slated for an escrow account.

During Senate consideration, Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., expressed concerns about the bill's budgetary impact and placed holds on the measure.

Although those holds were lifted, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., issued a statement when the bill cleared the chamber by unanimous consent last week, saying the Senate would not consider the conference report unless it met budget targets.

An aide for Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., the bill's House sponsor, said that language might not be binding.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she would keep DeMint and Sessions apprised of talks on the bill's budget impact in conference. She said she expected to see "vigorous debate."

Although aides expect a smooth conference once budgetary issues are resolved, the bills differ in other key areas.

The Senate bill creates a more prescriptive rate-setting structure than the House measure, McHugh's aide said.

He said McHugh considered similar language, but went with a more flexible structure to win the support of House Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

The American Postal Workers Union prefers the worker's compensation provisions in the House measure. In a statement, the union said the Senate bill "would shift a significant portion of the cost of on-the-job injuries from the USPS to postal workers."

Lobbyists close to the negotiations say the Senate's approach will likely prevail on most differences. "I think by and large the Senate bill is the bill we're going to be focusing on," said one postal lobbyist.

He said many of the issues expected to cause clashes in conference were worked out during negotiations over the Senate legislation, including language allowing mailers to challenge rates set for individual products, such as first-class mail.

Postal lobbyists and aides predicted the White House would ultimately convince lawmakers to use at least part of the escrow account to pre-fund health benefits and expected the Postal Service to pick up the tab for part of its military pensions obligations.

The Postal Service has historically opposed the administration's position on those issues, but lobbyists and aides say the agency relinquished a good portion of its negotiating posture when it came out against the bill last month.

"I'm not sure how much credibility they will have going into the conference," McHugh's aide said.

The Senate has appointed its conferees; the House has not.

]]>

Postal overhaul bill finally passes Senate, heads to conference

Alyson Klein — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:00:00 -0500

The manager's amendment included language offered by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, that would change a provision in a 2002 law that requires the Postal Service to deliver mail using newer, larger planes. Small airports in Alaska cannot accommodate those planes.

The revised language would give the Postal Service the option of using smaller planes so that rural Alaskans can continue to get mail service, a spokeswoman for Stevens said. "These rural communities rely on the small carriers for access," Stevens' spokeswoman said.

Stevens' amendment held up the measure Wednesday night because some senators wanted assurances from the Office of Management and Budget that the proposal was budget neutral.

The manager's amendment also included language, requested by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, calling for the Postal Service to solicit broader public comment before consolidating mail facilities. A large mail facility in Sioux City, Iowa, could be closed, he has said.

Finally, language worked out between the measure's sponsors and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would revise term limits and qualifications the original bill set for members of the Postal Service's board of governors.

The measure now faces a contentious conference. The administration objects to language that would transfer payment of the Postal Service's military pensions, about $27 billion, back to the Treasury and give the agency access to money slated for an escrow account.

The House bill, which was approved overwhelmingly last year, contains the same provisions. The White House has threatened to veto the bill if the language remains intact.

]]>

Senators lift holds on postal reform bill, paving way for vote

Alyson Klein — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:00:00 -0500

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., also had a hold on the bill, which he released earlier this week, postal lobbyists said.

Sessions' spokesman said he placed the hold last month so he could further examine the legislation before allowing it to pass by unanimous consent. "We wanted an opportunity to review the bill. Several senators spent a considerable amount of time looking at the legislation. We believe it's better than the House legislation and our hope is that it will be improved in conference," Sessions said in a statement.

Sessions' concerns, which centered around the bill's budget impact, were eased when staff for Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she would consider changes to language that gives the Postal Service access to money slated for an escrow account and shifts the agency's $27 billion military pensions obligation to the Treasury, congressional aides and postal lobbyists said.

The administration has expressed similar concerns, threatening to veto the bill if those provisions remain unchanged.

But a congressional aide said Sessions made it clear he could renew his opposition if his concerns are not addressed in conference. A spokesman for DeMint did not return calls. Sessions' decision to release his hold means the bill could be approved by unanimous consent as early as Wednesday night, but postal lobbyists say contentious debate over an asbestos measure could delay consideration.

"That's going to be the complicating factor this week," one lobbyist said.

]]>

Panel weighs bill to deny corrupt public servants federal pensions

Alyson Klein — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:00:00 -0500

Davis plans to introduce a narrowly tailored ethics overhaul measure denying retirement benefits to federal policymakers -- including members of Congress -- who engage in public corruption.

It is still unclear whether Davis' proposal, which the panel is examining in a hearing, will become part of a broader ethics package to be introduced by Rules Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., or put forward as a stand-alone measure, a spokesman for Davis said.

The legislation would apply to any crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment, including accepting bribes, conspiracy, fraud and falsifying statements or documents. The bill is "clearly a no-brainer," Davis' spokesman said.

Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he was "pleased that Chairman Davis is holding a hearing concerning the ethics in the federal government. The recent scandals involving Jack Abramoff and others have underscored the need for a comprehensive review of how well our ethics laws and regulations are working."

Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, who is scheduled to testify Wednesday on Davis' bill, praised the legislation, but recommended further changes in ethics enforcement.

Pingree noted that pensions for members of Congress and top federal employees are often higher than the average annual salary for most Americans. "The fact that public servants who have seriously violated their duties to the public would be rewarded by a lifetime pension seems grossly unfair," Pingree said in a statement.

She said she would also testify about the need for an independent commission, rather than the Ethics committees, to investigate complaints against members suspected of breaking the rules. "Peer review simply is not the answer when it comes to a fair, firm process that ensures that members live by ethics rules on the books," she said.

The commission, which would report its findings to the House and Senate Ethics committees, would be comprised of five members selected by party leaders in both chambers, a spokeswoman for Common Cause said.

She recommended that the panel be made up of retired judges to avoid criticism that members might be beholden to the lawmakers who appointed them, a charge sometimes leveled against the FEC, whose members are also selected by chamber leaders.

The spokeswoman said that, so far, none of the ethics proposals put forth by members of Congress have adopted the suggestion, although Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's, D-Nev., bill would establish an Office of Public Integrity.

]]>

Senate panel leaders slam FEMA's Katrina response

Alyson Klein — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0500

At a hearing Monday on the response to the storm, Collins noted that committee staff had found a memo showing that local officials had asked FEMA for rubber rafts to use to rescue victims.

The request was denied. Given the forecasts for a major Category 4 or 5 storm, Collins said, "It's puzzling to me that FEMA wouldn't have said, of course, we'll get them to you instantly."

Collins also noted other instances that she said revealed a lack of coordination among state, federal and local agencies.

She noted that New Orleans officials had attempted to use empty buses to evacuate local residents, only to find themselves slowed by paperwork. They had to resort to trucks and other less-efficient vehicles instead, Collins said.

New Orleans officials also requested high-water boats from the National Guard, but were told that the boats needed to remain in the Guard's barracks, which later flooded. Collins said the situation represented "a systemic lack of communication" among agencies responsible for responding to disasters. "Don't you all talk to each other?" she asked witnesses.

William Lokey, operations branch chief for FEMA's response division, defended his organization, saying that it is FEMA's responsibility to aid state and local officials, not coordinate evacuation efforts.

"FEMA does not have the authority to go in and take over," he said. He also noted that his division generally specializes in rescuing individuals from collapsed buildings, not flooded areas.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., asked why FEMA did not step up when it became aware of the weather forecast. "It's like there were flashing neon lights saying 'this is the big one,'" he said.

Tim Bayard of the New Orleans Police Department said at least some of the blame rests with local government. "The New Orleans Office of Preparedness failed," he said. "We did not coordinate with any state, local or federal agencies. ... We relocated evacuees to two locations where there was no food, water or portable restrooms. We did not implement the pre-existing plan."

]]>

Postal overhaul bill held up in Senate

Alyson Klein — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0500

Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., are among the senators questioning the bill's handling of an escrow account and language that shifts payment of the military pension of agency employees back to the Treasury, according to a postal lobbyist.

A spokesman for Sessions confirmed that he had placed a hold on the bill, but did not say whether Sessions' concerns necessarily stemmed from the bill's budget impact.

"It had just moved and Sen. Sessions wanted to read it before it went on unanimous consent," the spokesman said.

A spokesman for DeMint did not return calls by presstime.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who also placed a hold on the bill, has concerns about a possible consolidation of mail processing facilities in his state. The proposal could shift facilities from Sioux City, Iowa, to Sioux City, S.D. -- possibly affecting services in the western part of the state, Harkin's spokeswoman said.

"This bill would be our opportunity to address that," a Harkin aide said. She said Harkin views the measure as the best vehicle available for a possible legislative solution. "We didn't want to give up our piece of leverage," the aide said.

Collins and Carper, as well as mailing industry lobbyists, are working to address other senators' questions. "They don't pay five seconds of attention to the post office most of the year," said one lobbyist. "There are a couple senators who feel they need a better understanding of what's going on."

A spokesman for Carper was optimistic the bill would be approved soon.

Meanwhile, the Postal Service has been expressing its own concern with the legislation. The agency said this week that the bill would lead to record rate increases and questioned language calling for the agency to use money slated for an escrow account to finance employee health benefits.

Aides for Carper and Collins circulated a statement attempting to dispel those claims. They said the escrow language was intended to force the Postal Service to "be more financially responsible ... The Postal Service currently owes its employees and retirees upwards of $45 billion in health care benefits. They are largely ignoring these costs, knowing that future ratepayers or even the taxpayers will pick up the tab when the bills come due."

]]>

Postal Service lobbies against reform bill

Alyson Klein — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0500

Taking up the bill under unanimous consent became possible Wednesday after Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Collins, the bill's sponsor, reached an agreement with Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., who placed a hold on the measure last year. But the Postal Service, which had supported the bill, sent a letter to every senator Monday opposing it.

"The letter was a bit troubling and, frankly, a little confusing," said a spokesman for Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., also a sponsor of the bill. "We've worked closely with the Postal Service over the past year and even the past few days."

In the letter, the Postal Service noted that the White House opposes a provision transferring to the Treasury Department the cost of employees' military pensions. The agency said that language could prompt a presidential veto.

A Postal Service spokesman said the USPS fears that once the bill goes to conference, lawmakers will agree to the administration's position on the military pensions, burdening the agency with the $27 billion in pension costs. If that happens, he said postal rates could jump as much as 20 percent.

Lobbyists for bulk mailers said the agency also is concerned about new management powers the bill gives to the Postal Rate Commission. The Postal Service's spokesman agreed, saying the legislation would "severely limit the Postal Service's ability to manage itself."

Collins and Carper tried to ease Postal Services concerns with a managers' amendment that would give USPS more flexibility in implementing banking provisions in the bill. The Postal Service's spokesman said those changes will make little difference.

The Postal Service also is opposed to the compromise Bond and Collins negotiated to move the legislation forward. That agreement would call for the Postal Service to set rates that are "reasonable and just," which postal lobbyists say would give small mailers a chance to challenge rates that they see as inequitable without slowing down the rate-setting process.

Bond originally wanted Collins to include language in the House version -- and approved by the full chamber in July -- calling for rates to be "fair and equitable." That provision was requested by mailers who rely on first-class mail, including Hallmark, which is headquartered in Bond's home state.

Bond said he was concerned that without the "fair and equitable" language, the Postal Service would set rates on first class mail unfairly high. But Collins said the provision could lead to a litigious rate-setting process.

L.L. Bean, which sends out larger parcels and is headquartered in Collins' home state of Maine, also opposed the "fair and equitable" clause.

The "reasonable and just" language placated small mailers, according to postal lobbyists. "They feel they've been taken care of," one lobbyist said.

But the agreement was not as warmly received by the Postal Service, which worries the language would limit the agency's ability to set rates and had opposed the "fair and equitable" provision.

The compromise "doesn't make any difference, it has the same net effect," the Postal Service spokesman said.

]]>

Funding shortfalls cited for setbacks in storm response drill

Alyson Klein — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0500

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, described a series of planning setbacks and funding shortfalls that caused the simulation -- first envisioned in 1999 -- to be put off until July 2004.

"Delay followed delay," Collins said. "Then FEMA reduced the funding allocation so the scope of the exercise had to be scaled back."

She said that states had planned an exercise that would simulate an evacuation from a storm that breached the levees. With cutbacks, they did not plan an evacuation and simulated a less severe storm.

Collins also noted that a follow-up session was postponed and not rescheduled until July of 2005, just a month before Hurricane Katrina hit. The result was that "no additional planning documents were generated before they were so urgently needed," she said.

Still, state and local officials argued that, despite widespread criticism of the response to Katrina, ideas generated during the exercise, called Hurricane Pam, were implemented, mitigating damage and loss of life.

Collins also noted that officials responsible for responding to storms, including the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans, did not participate in the Hurricane Pam simulation. She said the governors of New Jersey and Connecticut were on hand when those states conducted an exercise simulating a terrorist attack.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., argued that the Hurricane Pam planning documents refuted Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's assertions that the department could not have anticipated the damage caused by Katrina.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said the Justice Department as well as the HHS were still not cooperating in the panel's Katrina investigation. Those departments "have produced much less than half the information we asked for," Lieberman said.

]]>

House bill sets up corporation for Katrina redevelopment

Alyson Klein — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0500

The measure also would direct the spending of $17 billion already appropriated for hurricane relief to rebuilding communities and providing temporary housing for evacuees.

The bill (H.R. 4100), sponsored by Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., cleared the committee on a roll call vote, 50-9, with a handful of conservative Republicans voting to defeat it. Several GOP members put forth amendments that they say would have added increased accountability to the measure, but those provisions were largely defeated by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Committee Chairman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio.

Baker called the measure a necessary first step in rebuilding Louisiana's infrastructure. He said it provides "urgently needed financial options to tens of thousands of Louisiana citizens who right now face terrible choices, between continuing to pay the house note on a destroyed home they will never live in again or accepting foreclosure and an impaired credit record."

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, D-Texas, put forth five amendments that he said were aimed at making sure "a human tragedy for this generation does not turn into a fiscal tragedy for the next." Four were defeated.

The bill establishes the Louisiana Recovery Corporation, which supporters say would act as a public corporation. The start-up money for the corporation, $100 million, would be financed using dollars already appropriated this year to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for Katrina relief. After those funds are spent, the corporation would be financed through Treasury bonds, not appropriations. The president would decide how much money could be issued for the bonds. The corporation's authorization would sunset after 10 years.

The agency would buy properties destroyed by the hurricane from interested original owners at approximately pre-Katrina values. It would then work with local governments to refurbish the land. The original owners would be given the first shot at repurchasing their land - or a property comparable to the one they had owned - after it has been refurbished. If they declined, the property would go to the highest bidder and the proceeds of the sale would be returned to the Treasury.

The corporation would be run by a board of directors, consisting of seven members appointed by the president, three of which would be nominated by the governor of Louisiana. No more than four of the members could be from the same political party.

Under an amendment introduced by Hensarling and modified by Baker, the corporation would not be able to issue more than $30 billion in bonds at any one time. Hensarling's original amendment would set the $30-billion cap throughout the corporation's existence, but Baker argued that amount would be too restrictive. But he agreed that the corporation should not have more than $30 billion in outstanding debt at any given period. The revised amendment passed on voice vote.

Oxley introduced a substitute amendment, drafted in consultation with committee Democrats, including Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., the head of the Congressional Black Caucus. The amendment would direct the use of $17 billion in funds already appropriated to FEMA for disaster relief. The money would finance housing and community development programs in the Gulf region. It would provide $13 billion for Community Development Block Grants, $100 million for reconstructing public housing structures damaged by the storm, $100 million in grants to local public housing officials to rebuild properties, $1.5 billion in grants to low-income homebuyers and $2.5 billion in emergency housing vouchers for individuals displaced by the storm.

Rather than specifying these amounts for the funds, the original version of the measure simply allowed appropriators to determine how much funding would be necessary, a committee aide said. The substitute passed by voice vote, although a handful of GOP members audibly voted against it.

Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, put forth an amendment, modified during the markup by Watt, that would have deducted any insurance payments from the amount the corporation would give homeowners for their property. Leach's original provision had instructed the corporation to subtract any assistance money the property-owner had received. Watt asked him to revise the amendment so that homeowners would not be penalized for getting public assistance or charitable donations. Still, the amendment failed on voice vote.

Leach put forth another amendment that would have removed the language in the bill allowing the original owners the first right to repurchase their property. Leach said the provision could lead to excessive profits for some homeowners and make the properties less attractive to potential buyers, lowering its value. Baker said there were already provisions in the bill prohibiting "windfall profits." Leach withdrew his amendment.

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., sponsored an amendment that would require the corporation to repay any money it borrows to the Treasury. He said the provision would encourage the agency to be more cautious in spending the bonds. But Baker said the provision could needlessly inhibit recovery. The amendment failed on a roll call vote, 40-12.

Hensarling put forth four additional amendments. One would have shortened the sunset provision for the corporation's authorization from 10 to five years. That amendment was withdrawn when Baker asserted that it could take a substantial amount of time to appoint members to the Board and get the corporation up and running. The second proposal, defeated 43-11, would have prohibited the corporation from making payments to property owners who chose not to purchase flood insurance prior to Hurricane Katrina.

Another Hensarling amendment would have lowered the authorization for community development block grants from $13 billion to $1.5 billion. That amendment also failed on a roll call vote, 43-12. Finally, the fourth would have required states and municipalities to provide a 25 percent match for the CDBG funds. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., argued that would be nearly impossible for local governments, since most of their tax base was destroyed by the storms. The amendment was defeated on voice vote.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., put forth an amendment that would have allowed funds already appropriated for the Department of Housing and Urban Development to be used to provide housing counseling to families displaced by the storm. The amendment was accepted on voice vote.

In an interview after the markup, Baker said he was not sure whether the measure would be enacted before Congress adjourns for the year. He said it could be attached to a broader bill and was working with House leaders to determine the best way to proceed.

]]>

Panel approves bill creating fertilizer registry at DHS

Alyson Klein — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0500

The bill sponsored by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., and Homeland Security ranking member Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., cleared the panel on a 9-0 roll call vote.

Ammonium nitrate was used in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

The measure calls for any individual who produces, sells or buys ammonium nitrate to register with the Homeland Security Department.

Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks Subcommittee Chairman John Linder, R-Ga., introduced a substitute amendment, accepted on voice vote, that added record-keeping requirements, including requiring sellers to record the purchaser's drivers' license number or other photo-identification and the amount of ammonium nitrate purchased. Sellers would have to keep these records for at least three years.

The legislation calls for the Homeland Security Secretary to monitor and audit the records periodically. Purchasers, producers or sellers found to be in violation would be fined up to $50,000 per violation.

Although the legislation does not authorize new appropriations, it would allow DHS to give states as much money as necessary to enforce the law, a subcommittee aide said.

To address the concerns of some agricultural organizations, Linder's substitute added a provision clarifying that DHS should work with state officials as much as possible when enforcing the law and that state regulators could conduct the audits during the course of other inspections of fertilizer facilities.

In a hearing on the legislation prior to the markup, Gary Black, president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council, said that while he supported the bill, he "would prefer that the states maintain the inspection authority since state inspectors already perform duties designed to ensure the integrity and quality of fertilizer products."

Linder said before the markup that the clarifying language had been added in the substitute to assuage concerns raised by Black and others that the bill would impose more burdens on farmers.

Linder said is not sure when the full committee or the House will vote on the bill, but he expects it to be "soon." He said it is possible the full committee would approve the measure by voice vote as soon as Thursday.

A similar measure has been introduced in the Senate by Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss. It was referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May but has not been marked up.

]]>

White House announces levee reconstruction plan

David Hess and Alyson Klein — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0500

At a briefing for reporters, officials said $1.6 billion will go toward an immediate shoring up of damaged levees -- including corrections to earlier construction flaws that caused the collapse of barriers struck by Hurricane Katrina storm surges. Scheduled for completion by June 1, those repairs also will restore the levees to their proper height.

In addition, President Bush will ask Congress for another $1.5 billion to reinforce the main levees with concrete and stone, close three internal canals that overflowed and flooded large sections of the city, as well as install a new state-of-the-art pumping system to help rid the city of high waters that might get into lower city precincts.

This second phase of the project will take two years to complete, officials said. Of the total, about $250 million will be directed to restore coastal wetlands. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin welcomed the administration's new commitment and urged residents, scattered to other places, to return to the city.

Nagin's comments came as a Senate panel released transcripts indicating that federal engineers trying to stop the New Orleans flooding were unsure who was in charge of fixing the levees amid the confusion of Katrina.

In a Nov. 15 interview with investigators for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Army Corps of Engineers Col. Richard Wagenaar recounted an instance after Katrina hit when federal workers attempted to fill in the breached London Avenue canal and were told to stop, the Associated Press reported.

That led to a discussion of "who is in charge?" Wagenaar said. "I mean, where's the parish president? Where is the mayor? And then the state, well they work for DOTD," Wagenaar said in the interview, referring to the Louisiana's Department of Transportation and Development, while adding: "At some point, you know, you've got to make some stuff happen. Because this was a bad situation."

At a hearing held by the committee Thursday, lawmakers suggested that officials at all levels of government -- federal, state, and local -- should share in some blame. "All of you didn't do the job that you were supposed to be doing," declared Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.

In other developments related to the aftermath of Katrina, the Congressional Black Caucus said Thursday that FEMA guaranteed it would not displace hurricane evacuees from hotel rooms or temporary housing units in February as planned. After a meeting with FEMA Acting Director David Paulison, Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., the CBC chairman, said members discussed the "growing sense of urgency" among evacuees about shifting housing deadlines.

The program was set to end this month, but was extended until Jan. 7, then Feb. 7 for those working with FEMA to receive housing assistance. "There is a lot of frustration, and this meeting was a result of that growing frustration," Watt said during a morning press conference.

Paulison acknowledged that "perhaps we're not communicating as well as we should be" with evacuees about housing. He said FEMA representatives will go door-to-door to hotel rooms and temporary housing units to talk to people to ensure they are registered with the agency to receive aid.

Also addressing the housing issue, the House Financial Services Committee approved a bill, sponsored by Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., establishing the Louisiana Recovery Corp. to redevelop areas of the state devastated by Katrina. The measure, which cleared the committee on 50-9 vote, would allocate $17 billion in funds already appropriated for disaster relief to Community Development Block Grants, housing vouchers and grants for low-income homeowners.

Nine GOP members, including Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas voted against the measure, saying it did not have enough provisions to ensure the funds would not be mismanaged or misused.

"I don't want a human tragedy of this generation to become a fiscal tragedy of the next," Hensarling said in introducing an amendment, later withdrawn, that would have shortened the 10-year sunset on the corporation's authorization to five years.

Staci Zavattaro contributed to this report.

]]>

Attempt to broker postal reform deal unravels

Alyson Klein — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0500

The deal would have allowed the bill's approval by unanimous consent, as its sponsor, Collins had advocated.

In exchange, Bond, who placed a hold on the bill in August, would be able to offer an amendment on the floor that would require the Postal Service to ensure that rates set for individual products -- including first-class mail -- are "fair and equitable," a Senate aide said. A similar amendment is in the House version of the bill.

Bond, who had previously said he wanted to give the full Senate a chance to consider his language, declined the offer, an aide said.

A spokesman for Bond did not confirm the move, but said, "There were some discussions, but until we know that ordinary Americans are going to be protected from unfair rate increases, Sen. Bond's position remains unchanged."

A Senate aide said Collins was willing to accept Frist's offer. Collins' spokeswoman said if the legislation "is killed in the U.S. Senate, postal consumers both large and small, will be forced to pay billions of dollars more in future rate increases that they would not have had to otherwise pay."

The Postal Service recently announced a rate increase that will go into effect if the legislation is not approved this session.

Bond has cited concerns that businesses and individuals that rely on first-class mail -- including Hallmark, which hails from Missouri -- worry the Postal Service might set prices at unfairly high rates.

A Senate aide and mailing industry lobbyists said a coalition of mailers reached a deal this fall on compromise language, but L.L. Bean -- located in Collins' home state of Maine -- rejected it.

Collins said this month it is too simplistic to view the holdup as a dispute between L.L. Bean and Hallmark.

She said Bond's language is opposed by the Postal Service, the financial services industry, postal workers' unions and other retailers, including Target and Williams-Sonoma.

She said Hallmark's proposal would continue the current "long, litigious and expensive rate-setting process."

]]>

Lawmaker concerned flu plan is too costly

Alyson Klein — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Barton accused the administration of throwing money at an undefined problem and said he would vote against the proposal if it is offered on the House floor. HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, who testified before the panel, argued that the administration has proposed the funding as a one-time emergency supplemental because of the imminence of a pandemic threat.

"We need to be moving quickly," Leavitt said. But Barton noted that his panel has jurisdiction over nearly every HHS-administered program and had just spent months trimming them -- including Medicaid -- as part of the reconciliation bill. Barton asked whether Leavitt would help him find offsets to cover the cost of avian flu preparation.

While the virus has the potential to be catastrophic, he said not enough is known about it to add to the budget deficit.

"Too often, our response to potential threats is to hide behind a wall of money," Barton said. "The theory seems to be that every dollar will make that wall higher and thicker, and we'll be that much safer. ... I think wasting taxpayers' money will not keep people from catching the flu."

He said he would like to hear whether Congress can increase vaccine manufacturing capacity by offering incentives for companies to invest in technology and by protecting them from legal liability.

Committee Democrats argued the president's plan does not offer enough money to help state and local governments prepare for the threat. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said the $100 million proposed for state and local aid, or about $2 million per state, would "not go very far" in California.

But Leavitt said the president's plan calls for the federal government to cover the bulk of the cost of medications and that states must "be engaged" on the proposal. He said states "can't be counting on the federal government to put a pill in everybody's palm."

But Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said states might not have the resources to distribute the medication, particularly since "we're cutting their Medicaid."

]]>

Administration avian flu plan questioned by House panel

Alyson Klein — Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0500

While Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., praised Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, who testified before the panel, for being "proactive," he said he has "already heard concerns from the Department of Health in my home state of Virginia about the limited amount of money for stockpiling the federally recommended amounts of anti-viral treatments."

Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif, expressed similar concerns, citing the comments of Arkansas GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee, among others. But Leavitt noted that the federal government would be responsible for purchasing 70 percent of the necessary anti-viral medication and would assist states in distributing it.

Earlier this week, the administration unveiled its strategy for combating a potential pandemic, asking for $7 billion for drug production, containment and surveillance. But panel members were divided over whether the approach would be effective.

Waxman was skeptical that the agencies responsible for handling the emergency are up to the task. "The administration has given a key role to the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA ... But given the abysmal performance of [those agencies] in responding to Hurricane Katrina, this is a huge misjudgment."

Some GOP panel members were equally critical. Criminal Justice Subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder of Indiana said the administration's plan was belated and "insufficient" to head off the "inevitable devastation" of a pandemic. But others, including Rep. John Duncan of Tennessee, suggested the administration and Congress may be overstating the scope of the problem.

When members asked why the administration was not doing more to stockpile and distribute the anti-viral Tamiflu, Leavitt explained that Tamiflu has only been shown to be effective at reducing the duration of the common flu. It has not yet been proven as a treatment for avian flu. "Any sense that Tamiflu is synonymous with preparedness is wrong," Leavitt said.

He said while increasing the availability of the drug is a key component of the administration's strategy, having a plan that hinges on "one anti-viral that may or may not be effective would be a mistake."

Davis and several other panel members acknowledged that they had not known Tamiflu was not a proven cure. In light of that information, Davis added, the administration's proposal to invest in developing effective anti-virals was a good step.

]]>

Bill makes DHS secretary eligible for presidential succession

Alyson Klein — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The bill (H.R. 1455) sponsored by Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., cleared the panel on voice vote, with little discussion. Since the bill changes policy, but does not authorize appropriations, there is no cost associated with it, a committee aide said.

The bill would make the department subject to the same laws governing contracting and training that apply to the rest of the federal government. This is only a technical change to current law, a committee aide explained. Since its inception, the department has been operating under the assumption that is an "executive department" and already complies with those regulations, he said.

The legislation would also place the secretary of Homeland Security eighth in line to succeed the president in the event of an assassination, impeachment or other emergency, putting him or her behind the vice president, speaker of the House, Senate president pro tempore, secretary of State, secretary of Treasury, secretary of Defense and attorney general, and ahead of the secretary of Interior and the rest of the cabinet officers.

Ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who supported the bill at markup, noted that, in the past, the heads of new agencies were placed at the end of the line of succession, rather than somewhere in the middle. He said that his vote in the favor of the legislation was "not necessarily an endorsement of the line of succession."

A spokesman for Davis defended the decision saying, "We feel that placing Secretary of Homeland Secretary toward the top of the presidential succession list accurately reflects the expertise needed to take over the reins in the event that a national emergency wiped out the federal government's senior leadership."

The legislation is expected to be approved on the floor of the House, a committee aide said.

]]>

Bill to revamp law enforcement benefits expected

Alyson Klein — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The proposal, to be offered by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Government Management Subcommittee Chairman George Voinovich, R-Ohio, House Government Reform Chairman Davis and Federal Workforce Subcommittee Chairman Jon Porter, R-Nev., could determine whether inspectors at the Customs and Border Protection bureau will receive the same benefits as federal law enforcement officers.

Lawmakers began working on the proposal more than a year ago, after OPM released a report, requested by Congress, highlighting disparities in benefits among law enforcement officers.

"Something needs to be done to correct the inconsistencies and inadequacies that currently exist for the men and women risking their lives to ensure our safety in today's post-9/11 environment," Porter said in a statement. "We simply cannot afford to lose talented, highly motivated employees because the current system governing pay and retirement benefits for federal law enforcement officers is built on an inflexible patchwork of outdated concepts."

Still, the proposal, or "concepts paper," will be a jumping-off point to generate discussion, Porter said. Lawmakers will ask for reaction from agencies, unions and others before introducing a bill, possibly early next year. A subcommittee aide declined to discuss details in the proposal until it is introduced, likely later this week or next.

But the National Treasury Employees Union hopes the draft will incorporate language in a measure introduced by Reps. John McHugh, R-N.Y. and Bob Filner, D-Calif., granting Customs and Border Protection officers status similar to other federal law enforcement officers, said NTEU President Colleen Kelley.

"Surely, there is no lingering shred of doubt that the people protecting our ports and borders from terrorists and drug runners should be granted law enforcement officer status," she said.

A spokesman for OPM said the agency was sticking by a request, included in last year's report to Congress, for broad authority to determine law enforcement employees' classification, pay and benefits on a case-by-case basis. In the report, OPM officials said that would "reduce the likelihood that particular groups would obtain higher pay and benefits through the legislative process in a piecemeal fashion."

But Kelley said pay and benefits for law enforcement officers, "shouldn't be left to the whim or discretion of any administration." She said under that system, OPM could "give it one year, then take it away the next year" making it difficult for employees to plan for retirement.

]]>

Postal workers' union criticizes reform bill provisions

Alyson Klein — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Earlier this month, the board sent a letter to the bills' principal sponsors, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., and Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., that criticized the measures' creation of a regulator to oversee rate hikes and operations.

The governors said the regulator would undermine the board's authority and concluded that if the legislation remained unchanged the agency would be better off under its current system.

APWU President William Burrus echoed that contention in his own letter sent late last week to the same lawmakers, as well as the bills' leading Democratic sponsors in both chambers: Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., House Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill.

Burrus wrote that the union shared some of the board's concerns and hoped they would be addressed as the bills move forward.

"I can't understand why they waited so long to articulate their views," Burrus said in a statement. "But several of their concerns are valid. And a bad bill is not worth having."

In a statement on its Web site, the union noted that shifting control over rates to the new regulator and limiting them to the Consumer Price Index could result in wage caps. That might undermine collective bargaining, which the union has pushed hard for.

The House bill passed in July. The Senate measure, which cleared Collins' panel in June, is awaiting floor action.

Danny Davis, a labor champion, said the union and the board both had input into the bills as they were drafted. "Every stakeholder group within the industry has strong thoughts and ideas about what's in the best interest of their group, as one would expect them to," he said. "Our concern is what's in the best interest of the entire system."

A spokeswoman for McHugh said the lawmaker "has said this is not a perfect bill ... But it's been 10 years of thoughtful input from all parties." She noted that the APWU had sent a letter to McHugh in August praising him for his leadership on the legislation.

Other unions, including the National Association of Letter Carriers, said they had similar concerns, but lambasted the board for presenting its criticisms at the last minute and offering no other solutions to the agency's financial woes.

]]>

DHS personnel ruling will affect Pentagon, senator says

Alyson Klein — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0400

U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, in throwing out the rules, said they do not provide for collective bargaining. Collins said this week she was concerned that DHS drew up regulations that did not "reflect congressional intent."

A spokesman for House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., whose panel also oversees federal workers, would only say of the ruling's ramifications: "It's too early in the process to predict the outcome of the litigation or how it will affect other systems."

DHS announced last week that it would delay implementation of the new personnel system, scheduled to go into effect in January, for at least a year. It is not clear whether that decision was related to the court ruling, or what changes -- if any -- would be made before implementation. Ward Morrow, assistant general counsel for the American Federation of Governmental Employees, the largest of four unions that filed the suit, said DHS may ask to simply revisit the labor relations portion of the regulations, rather than rewrite the whole system. A spokesman for the Justice Department, which is handling the court case, did not return calls.

The Pentagon plans to continue tweaking its personnel rules before releasing them this fall, according to a spokeswoman for the National Security Personnel System, which is responsible for drafting the regulations. She said NSPS has "gone through an extensive meet-and-confer process with our unions" and received thousands of public comments on its draft regulations. She said the office would be making changes but attributed those revisions to the feedback it received, not the court ruling. Still, Morrow said AFGE was likely to challenge the Pentagon's regulations after they are released because, in the union's view, NSPS did not follow Congress' guidelines for the comment process.

When introduced earlier this year, the revamped Homeland Security and Pentagon personnel regulations were heralded as models for a new, governmentwide human resources system. Although OMB circulated draft legislation this spring overhauling the federal personnel system, Collins and Davis have yet to act on it. House Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who applauded the court ruling, said in a statement that it "should send a signal to both the administration and Congress to slow down on any government-wide personnel changes."

]]>

Bill targets tax-evading contractors

Alyson Klein — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0400

After a panel investigation found that at least 27,000 Pentagon contractors owed about $3 billion in taxes, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich., sponsored a bill directing the Pentagon to create a registry of contractors for tax purposes. The bill, which a subcommittee aide said was a "major priority" for Coleman, was referred to the Armed Services Committee.

Heidi Blumenthal, director of tax and fiscal affairs for the Associated General Contractors of America, said her organization "does not believe that allowing the Department of Defense to do the job of the Internal Revenue Service or take over activities of the Treasury Department would be an effective method of ensuring our tax laws are followed." She said the association was discussing the issue with Coleman's staff.

The subcommittee aide said the bill was likely to receive bipartisan support. "Bless them if they want to lobby against it," he said.

A spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee said the panel will examine the legislation but is unlikely to mark it up as a stand-alone bill this session. He said it might be added to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill after the August recess. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the bill, citing the agency's policy against offering views on proposed legislation.

The subcommittee's examination of tax evasion prompted the introduction of another bill to increase penalties for operators of tax havens who help individuals and corporations shield assets to avoid paying taxes. A spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee, where the bill was sent, noted that Finance Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, helped enact tax shelter legislation last year. In a joint statement, Levin and Coleman acknowledged provisions passed last year that require violators to pay penalties equal to 50 percent of their profits.

But they said Congress should "take stronger action by denying persons who promote tax cheating not only all of their illegal profits, but also requiring payment of a stiff fine on top of that." The Levin-Coleman bill would require tax shelter operators to turn over all profits, in addition to paying the 50 percent penalty. A Senate Finance Committee aide said Grassley considered similar language before and "would like to pass the harsher penalties that Sens. Coleman and Levin have proposed, but we have been stymied by the House."

]]>

White House postal plan missing Senate stamp of approval

Alyson Klein — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., said the administration proposals also are opposed by the Postal Service.

The White House proposed allowing the agency to borrow up to $3 billion a year for the next two years, instead of giving it access to money slated for an escrow account, as provided in the legislation. The administration also proposed paying for some military pensions of postal employees while requiring the Postal Service to cover them in the future. The legislation would shift the pension payments to the Treasury Department.

Collins said she was "pleased to see the administration move on military pensions" but that "the borrowing is strongly opposed by the Postal Service." Carper shook his head when asked about the White House's proposal. "We can do better," he said. "The administration should listen to the recommendations of its own commission," which the bill would implement.

In a Statement of Administration Policy released hours before the House passed the bill on a 410-20 vote last Tuesday, the White House threatened to veto the bill if it would affect the budget adversely. The shift in the escrow account would add to the federal deficit, while the borrowing proposal would not.

The administration also reiterated its concerns about the labor language, saying the Postal Service should be given more flexibility to grant workshare discounts, which are lower rates for bulk mailers in exchange for tasks usually done by the agency. Collins, who along with Carper introduced the Senate version, said she will continue working with the White House to reach a compromise before the Senate vote.

A spokeswoman for Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., who sponsored the House version, said he also objected to the borrowing option but called the administration's military pensions proposal "a positive step." A spokesman for House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., declined to comment.

A mailing industry lobbyist said bulk mailers will tell Congress to "hang tough" on the escrow issue, though most would rather see the Postal Service borrow the money than raise rates. Still, they do not plan to urge lawmakers to accept the White House proposal.

"The administration has enough clout to lobby on their own," said one industry lobbyist.

The Postal Service filed a request in April for a 5.4 percent hike but said passage of either bill would make the increase unnecessary.

Meanwhile, aides say the differences between the House and Senate versions are not substantial enough to bog down the bill. The Senate measure includes a stronger rate cap and more restrictive language on workers compensation. The administration is pushing the Senate provisions, although the American Postal Workers Union, the largest of four unions backing the bill, prefers the House language (HR 22).

But "the major differences aren't between the House and Senate," McHugh's spokeswoman said. "The biggest challenge is going to be reconciling the bills with the administration. ... It's going to be tough, but we'll work it though it."

Carper said he expected to see the bill go to the Senate floor this fall. Collins, who has been meeting with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., on the legislation's budget impact, said she was working with leadership to get a date for a floor vote.

]]>

Lawmakers rip Pentagon plan to relocate civilian employees

Alyson Klein — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and others said at a hearing that it is unclear why Defense Department employees -- many of whom are civilians -- need security standards separate from those for other federal workers.

Davis pointed out that the Rayburn House Office Building, where the hearing was held, does not meet the Pentagon's standards. He said Pentagon officials used those requirements to "justify seemingly arbitrary recommendations to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, including a recommendation to vacate a significant percentage of the National Capitol Region," which includes Davis' district.

Other panel members expressed similar concerns. "I don't think Cleveland ever stood a chance," said Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio. He asked whether Homeland Security officials monitoring the "chatter" of terrorists groups had heard threats against "the accountants" working at a Defense office building in his area.

Get Moy, director of Installations Resource Management at the Defense Department, said the agency developed its standards to protect personnel. He defended the requirement that leased buildings be set back a substantial distance from the road, saying it was meant to keep employees safe from "vehicle-borne explosives," which he called "a significant threat."

But Davis said he wanted to see more documentation explaining how the agency had arrived at its conclusions. He warned that Congress might not provide the financing for the relocations.

"You're being very shortsighted," Davis said. "You're not going to get funding through this House; you're not going to get funded through the Senate."

Davis also accused the Pentagon of putting security concerns ahead of other priorities, including recruiting qualified workers.

"I can give you something that's foolproof," he said. "You can put personnel in underground bunkers in the middle of the desert and surround them with soldiers. You won't be able to hire anyone; you won't get the job done. But at least they'll be safe."

]]>

White House floating compromise on postal overhaul bill

Alyson Klein — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The legislation would shift the Postal Service's payments for military pensions to the Treasury Department, a move the administration opposes. Under the White House proposal, the Postal Service's $27 billion in payments to date for military pensions could be used to finance the agency's retiree health benefits.

The agency would be required to make the military pension payments in the future.

The White House also has suggested allowing the Postal Service to borrow at least $2 billion in each of the next two years, instead of giving the agency access to money slated for an escrow account, as dictated by both House and Senate bills, according to the lobbyists. Those borrowed funds could be used to help hold down rates in the short term, while ensuring the legislation does not contribute to the federal deficit, lobbyists said.

"What they have is a basis for agreement," said Ben Cooper, who tracks legislation for the Printing Industries of America. "It isn't finalized by any standard yet."

The proposal is unlikely to find its way into a manager's amendment or other amendments offered by House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., when the House considers the bill, according to Cooper and Gene Del Polito, president of the Association of Postal Commerce.

Cooper said if an agreement is reached, the new language would be more likely to be added when the Senate considers its version of the measure, or in conference because of the "delicate politics" behind the legislation. A spokesman for Davis said, "It's not clear yet whether a manager's amendment will be offered." But he noted that the White House has not objected to floor consideration despite its reservations about the bill. He said that indicates "substantial progress," adding, "The bill wouldn't have been able to move forward without at least a wink from the administration, and that has just happened. It appears that the administration is comfortable enough with the amount of reform in the bill to let it come to the floor."

The Postal Service has said a rate increase will take effect in early 2006 if the bill is not passed this session. The military pensions and escrow issues have long held up the legislation, which did not go to the floor last year of either chamber despite approval by the House Government Reform Committee and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees. A spokeswoman for Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Collins said negotiations on the legislation are ongoing.

]]>

Bush administration, House at odds over 2006 pay raise

Alyson Klein — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

OMB contends the annual pay adjustment should not apply to blue-collar workers, or Homeland Security Department and Pentagon employees who are slated to operate under a different personnel system from other federal workers.

Extending the raise to those two agencies would undermine efforts to "begin using authorities conferred upon them by Congress to design and implement a modern personnel and pay system that best meets their needs," OMB officials wrote in a statement of administration policy on the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, approved by the House last month.

OMB also argued that adjusting pay for blue-collar employees at the same rate as General Schedule workers "could result in paying [them] at higher rates than the local labor market would support."

OMB asked that federal workers be given a 2.3 percent pay hike instead of the 3.1 percent scheduled for military employees. OMB officials noted the House pay raise would cost nearly $1 billion more than what President Bush proposed.

But lawmakers say the heftier increase is necessary to entice qualified workers to the civil service, which generally pays less than the private sector.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who championed the across-the-board increase as a member of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, said: "The Bush administration's complaints ignore the fact that fair pay is a key tool in the federal government's effort to recruit and retain quality employees ... At a time of war it is even more important that the 900,000 Defense and Homeland Security employees who work side-by-side with the military receive a fair pay adjustment."

House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., whose panel oversees the federal workforce, agreed. "Chairman Davis supports the efforts at DoD and DHS, but until those systems are fully up and running, pay parity is the means to help ensure pay comparability with the private sector," Davis' spokesman said.

But OMB officials wrote in the statement that, "Any recruitment or retention problems facing the Government are limited to a few areas and occupations and do not warrant such an arbitrary, across-the-board increase."

Jacqueline Simon, director of public policy for the American Federation of Government Employees, said the union is optimistic that the across-the-board raise will be approved.

"The fact that it passed the House by such a large margin is pretty good news," she said of the Transportation-Treasury bill, approved 405-18. She said the union will work to get a similar provision in the Senate version of the measure, but added, "I never like to underestimate this administration in terms of what it can get done in conference."

]]>

OMB, lawmakers spar over bid to overhaul civil service

Alyson Klein — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

In its report on the bill, which was approved by the House last week, the Appropriations Committee said it was denying the $2.6 million the White House requested to explore allowing each agency to create its own personnel system.

The panel instead instructed the Office of Personnel Management to "continue the implementation and refining of the new human resources management systems at the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security before bringing the system to other agencies and departments."

Although the language is nonbinding, it reflects the appropriators' wariness of the proposal, which OMB officials say is a top priority. In its Statement of Administration Policy, OMB criticized appropriators and said the spending reduction would "impede ... the President's management agenda." A spokesman for the committee said the language "speaks for itself" and attributed the provision to Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Joseph Knollenberg, R-Mich.

The report language mirrors statements made by House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., whose panel oversees the federal workforce. OMB officials have lobbied Davis to draft legislation to give each agency the authority to create its personnel systems, similar to the authority previously granted to the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department. A Davis spokesman declined to comment directly on the appropriators' language but said Davis continues to believe: "Any decision to expand personnel reforms on a governmentwide basis should be based on the experiences of DHS and DoD. However, Chairman Davis remains open to working with the administration and is amenable to less extensive, common-sense reforms for other agencies."

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., a member of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, was approached by OMB about expanding the personnel flexibility to other departments, but he was not supportive and backed the report language. "It is important that we fully understand the implications of personnel changes before we expand their reach," he said.

Federal employee unions praised the spending bill's language. One union advocate said she planned to approach Senate Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., and ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., about including a similar provision in the Senate version.

The American Federation of Governmental Employees, the largest federal employees union, remains staunchly opposed to the governmentwide proposal, which will be the focus of a Capitol Hill protest next week. Still, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who voted against the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, has met with OMB to discuss possible legislation. A Flake spokesman said he is still writing the bill and might introduce it this session.

]]>

House, Senate spar on protecting DHS whistleblowers

Alyson Klein — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee and federal employee unions are urging Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., to adopt the Senate's version of the measure, sponsored by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine. That bill would apply to nearly all government employees -- except those who work in intelligence, counterintelligence or at the Transportation Security Administration.

But the House bill, sponsored by Government Reform Government Management, Finance and Accountability Subcommittee Chairman Todd Platts, R-Pa., also would make an exception for Homeland Security personnel. It would give those agencies the authority to determine if the provision applied to their employees.

The House panel was slated to consider the bill last month -- but postponed the markup because of concerns on the part of Government Reform ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and opposition from federal employee unions.

A Davis spokesman said negotiations are ongoing and the panel's leaders "remain open to working with the minority and whistleblower groups to get a bill that can be approved sometime in the near future." The spokesman added, "Agencies that primarily conduct foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities have never had the same whistleblower protections as others because of national security concerns." But Waxman said he strongly opposes the "language allowing the president to waive whistleblower rights for employees who deal with homeland security."

Davis' spokesman declared, "As much as some folks would love to claim that we were pulling a fast one, the provision's been there since the bill's introduction and the committee unanimously reported a bill with the same provision during the 108th Congress." He said the markup was put off because "Democrats were confused and apparently didn't know what language had long been in the bill. We felt it was best to give them time to bone up on the legislation."

But Waxman said that provision was slipped into a manager's amendment during the markup last year. He said the majority's description of the amendment was inaccurate, adding, "If that provision had come to light last year, I would have strongly opposed the provision and fought to delete it from the legislation."

Meanwhile, union advocates say they are "taking their cues" from champions of the Senate bill -- Collins and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii -- on what to expect in the final version. Beth Moten, legislative director for the American Federation of Government Employees -- the largest federal employee union -- said her organization is not willing to endorse the House bill as written but could not say what compromises are acceptable for the final version.

]]>