Government Executive - Authors - Lisa Caruso

DHS presses ahead with plan to use Social Security records to enforce immigration laws

Lisa Caruso — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Despite protests from businesses, organized labor, and immigrant-rights groups, the Homeland Security Department is pressing ahead with a controversial rule to use Social Security records to enforce immigration laws.

The department's bid, critics say, will harm legal workers and the U.S. economy without solving the problem of illegal immigration because it relies on inaccurate information. The rule, officially published on March 26, amounts to a politically motivated push by Republicans to crack down on employers who hire illegal workers, opponents contend.

"They've got to show their base that they're enforcing the immigration law even they say is flawed," said Laura Foote Reiff, a partner at Greenberg Traurig and counsel to the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a group of businesses and trade associations that lobbies for immigration reform.

DHS spokeswoman Veronica Nur Valdes said that the agency is just trying to do its job and help employers follow the law. "We have a responsibility to protect our nation and enforce our immigration laws. Since Congress didn't give us the tools we need, we're using the tools we have."

Since 1994, the Social Security Administration has sent "no-match" letters to most employers if the name and Social Security number on a worker's W-2 form do not agree with the agency's records. The letter asks the employer to correct the discrepancy within 60 days so Social Security can properly credit a worker's earnings. The letter explicitly states that the inquiry does not involve an employee's immigration status. There are no penalties if an employer does not respond.

Homeland Security wants to send employers its own letter giving them 90 days to correct the problem -- and outlining the steps they need to take -- or fire the worker. Businesses that show they took the appropriate action would be granted "safe harbor" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement using the no-match notification to prosecute them for illegal-hiring practices. Those that don't "place themselves at obvious risk and invite suspicion that they are knowingly employing workers who are here illegally," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in December.

Employers are subject to civil fines of as much as $16,000 per worker for knowingly employing illegal immigrants, and those who make a practice of it face criminal charges that carry a maximum prison term of five years.

Many illegal workers use fake Social Security numbers to get jobs, but opponents of DHS's plan point out that mismatches can occur for legitimate reasons, such as clerical errors, unreported name changes, and inaccurate employment records. Social Security's inspector general found that discrepancies in approximately 17.8 million (4 percent) of the 435 million records in the agency's database could result in mismatches, and that more than 70 percent of discrepancies -- 12.7 million people -- involve native-born U.S. citizens.

Even if the rule could accurately target illegal aliens, said Angela Kelley, director of the American Immigration Law Foundation's Immigration Policy Center, "we're kidding ourselves if we think these undocumented workers are going to quietly pack their bags and go home. What they're going to do is work in the [illegal] cash economy, go farther underground, or get another Social Security number, and the problem will only get worse."

AFL-CIO attorney Ana Avendano said that DHS's own estimates suggest that as many as 70,000 legal workers could lose their jobs because of the rule. "On balance, what does this letter accomplish?" Avendano asked. "By law, Social Security won't tell DHS who gets the letters, so [DHS] can't target employers who receive no-match letters."

Marielena Hincapie, director of programs for the National Immigration Law Center, predicted that "inaccuracies in the database will lead to discrimination primarily against people of color or people perceived to be immigrants," regardless of their immigration status. She said that the center has already received numerous reports of employers firing workers they suspect might be in the country illegally.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the House Judiciary Committee's ranking member, praised the rule as "an important step toward addressing illegal immigration by putting an end to the job magnet that encourages so many to come here illegally and stay. The sooner DHS can implement this rule, the sooner we can seriously begin to address the problems posed by the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country."

The department proposed the rule in June 2006, but it has been on hold since August 2007 because of a legal challenge by labor, business, and civil- and immigrant-rights groups.

]]>

Education hits roadblocks on bringing accountability to colleges

Lisa Caruso — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0500

In the spring, the Education Department held negotiations on regulations holding colleges and universities accountable for whether their students are learning, but it couldn't reach consensus. In July the Senate passed a bill blocking further regulatory moves. Next week's House Education and Labor Committee markup of legislation to renew the law governing higher education may be the department's last chance to push its accountability agenda, because congressional leaders have already kicked over until next year legislation to reauthorize No Child Left Behind.

Spellings wants to extend the results-oriented approach of the K-12 program to higher education, pushing institutions of higher learning to measure and report on their students' academic performance, as the secretary's Commission on the Future of Higher Education called for last year.

The vehicle the department chose for enforcing accountability was accreditation, a process meant to ensure academic rigor that is carried out by private associations and is vital to schools that want to receive federal dollars. To protect its nearly $2 billion annual investment in higher education, the Education Department sets standards for and recognizes accrediting bodies. Only institutions and courses of study accredited by agencies that pass muster with the department are eligible to offer federal financial aid and receive federal money.

Concluding that accreditation "has significant shortcomings," Spellings's commission called for schools to use such gauges of student achievement as test scores and graduation rates as a condition of their accreditation, and urged accreditors to give these measures greater weight in evaluating schools.

But opponents in Congress and among the schools and accrediting agencies charged that the department wants to federalize higher education and impose a "one-size-fits-all" standard that ignores the independence and decentralization that has made American postsecondary education successful. And they say that the department and its commission unnecessarily alienated potential allies with its strong condemnation of the accrediting process, its "we-know-best" approach to changing it, and its attempt to use the regulatory process to force change.

"They definitely handled it with a tin ear," said a congressional aide who asked not to be named. "They came at it with the attitude that higher education is broken and we're so smart that we know how it should be fixed, and if you're not with us you're against us." The aide added, "We could have accomplished a lot. Now we're trying to make lemonade out of lemons."

Judith Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, said that "from day one," the messages about accreditation from the commission, which was convened in October 2005 and issued its final report in September 2006, "were negative, and that produced a very strong reaction" from higher-education leaders. Her group represents and recognizes accrediting bodies.

Through the accrediting process, a school or program evaluates whether it is accomplishing its mission and undergoes review by representatives of the accrediting agency. "Institutional" accreditation applies to an entire college or university; "programmatic" accreditation governs specific academic programs, departments, or schools within an institution, such as nursing, law, or engineering degree programs, as well as to freestanding professional and specialized schools. Eight regionally based accrediting organizations, 11 national accreditors, and 61 programmatic groups collectively accredit more than 6,800 postsecondary institutions and 18,000 programs of study, according to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Critics charge that the system is closed and clubby because schools that belong to the various accrediting associations evaluate one another in reviews that are not easily accessible to the public.

Announcing her plan to act on the commission's report, Spellings said that accreditation "is largely focused on inputs, more on how many books are in a college library than whether students can actually understand them.... We need to make higher education more accountable by opening up the ivory towers and putting information at the fingertips of students and families."

Beginning in February, the department held four negotiating sessions on its accreditation proposals with representatives of higher-education interests. Two of the most controversial were aimed at outlining specific quantitative and qualitative standards for measuring students' success, and setting strict rules governing transfer credits between institutions. When the talks concluded on June 1, participants had reached agreement on only five of the department's 15 proposals. But before Education could proceed with formally proposing regulations, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee wrote to Spellings on June 14 urging her to defer action until Congress had reauthorized the Higher Education Act. The department backed off.

Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, said that colleges feared that the draft regulations "would force accreditors to use a very limited and inflexible set of standards to look at institutions." Department officials, he said, were acting "outside of the legislative process and pushing the edge of the envelope in terms of their statutory authority" to regulate academic affairs under the Higher Education Act.

In a statement to National Journal, Undersecretary of Education Sara Martinez Tucker responded, "Far from circumventing Congress, we adhered to the [regulatory negotiating] process they established ... to clarify and improve existing laws. The purpose of our efforts was not to federalize higher education. All we want to do is help more students gain access to it."

Martinez Tucker added, "We were not calling for a one-size-fits-all measure of quality. We simply want the current system of accreditation to better emphasize student learning and achievement, as the law requires. The proposed regulations would have placed responsibility where it belongs -- with colleges and universities. They would set educational objectives tailored to their unique mission and determine how they should measure effectiveness."

The regulatory effort alarmed higher-education lobbying groups, collectively referred to as "One Dupont Circle" for the Washington address where most are located. The education groups are heavy hitters on Capitol Hill because practically all members of Congress have postsecondary learning institutions in their district or state.

By the end of July, Congress dealt the accreditation overhaul twin blows. Appropriators cut off funding for the regulations in the still-pending Labor-HHS-Education spending bill, and the Senate unanimously passed a Higher Education Act reauthorization bill that prohibits the secretary from issuing specific standards for accrediting agencies to use in reviewing institutions and programs.

Leading the charge was Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a former Education secretary, former president of the University of Tennessee, and a senior member of the HELP Committee. In a May 24 floor speech, Alexander criticized the department for "proposing to restrict autonomy, choice, and competition."

A member of the Spellings Commission disagrees. "The commission was saying you need to bolster the accreditation process and maybe have more review by the federal government, but the Dupont Circle crowd didn't want it and they were successful," said Arthur Rothkopf, senior vice president and counselor to the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "They outlobbied the department."

Accreditation critic Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, complained, "Good ideas often go to die at One Dupont Circle, and the forces in favor of the status quo run up to Capitol Hill and, unfortunately, are listened to. There isn't much of a constituency for greater accountability."

Neal wants Congress to sever the link between accreditation and federal aid, end regional agencies' "monopoly" on accrediting schools within their region, and require all accreditors to compete for schools' business. Although such radical change is unlikely, Rep. Tom Petri, R-Wis., a senior member of the House Education and Labor Committee and Neal's husband, has a proposal to let schools opt out of the current system and maintain their accreditation if they report data on admissions requirements, affordability, and student success, among other consumer concerns. Petri said he will offer his language at next week's markup if the committee bill doesn't include such an alternative.

For their part, higher-education advocates are pleased so far. "In telling the secretary to cut it out, the Senate bill pretty well got it right," said Susan Hattan, senior consultant for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, which represents the major private institutions. "We would hope the House bill would take a similar position."

]]>

As repair needs mount, highway trust fund faces shortfall

Lisa Caruso — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Now Congress needs to tackle the politically tricky question of where to get the money to improve the transportation system, even as the highway trust fund that pays for it is facing a multibillion-dollar deficit.

The accident involved one of 1,135 bridges in Minnesota and 73,518 spans nationwide that the Transportation Department has labeled "structurally deficient" -- in poor condition and needing repair but not unsafe. The Interstate 35W bridge was years away from being replaced; instead, the strategy was to patch it and inspect it. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently said he would consider increasing state gas taxes to pay for infrastructure repairs; he had vetoed two such measures in the past.

Minnesota Democratic Rep. James Oberstar, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said this week that his priority for the fall would be to establish a new trust fund for bridge repairs. Pete Ruane, president of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, said, "The tragedy of Minnesota simply dramatizes and underscores" that the nation's bridges, highways, and other transportation arteries are old, outmoded, and under tremendous strain -- and that the country isn't spending enough to maintain its existing infrastructure, let alone expand it for a growing population.

While federal highway spending this year is set at $40 billion, Ruane's ARTBA and other industry groups put the 2007 cost to improve existing highways and bridges at $155.5 billion. Over the next five years, the American Society of Civil Engineers says it will take $1.6 trillion in capital investment by all levels of government to keep the current system up to date. That's almost six times the $286 billion in federal funds that the 2005 highway bill provided to the states for transportation construction and repairs through 2010.

To make matters worse, the trust fund that finances the federal highway program through fuel and other highway-use taxes faces a $4.3 billion shortfall in two years, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Unless Congress plugs that hole, the government will have to slash more than $16 billion from the $43 billion in aid that the states were promised for 2009.

Transportation wonks have known all along that a deficit loomed, but the day of reckoning is approaching sooner than expected. In February, OMB projected that gas-tax receipts would fall $200 million short of the level guaranteed in the law in 2009; last month's revision widened the gap past $4 billion.

That jump "has been a major wake-up call," said Jack Basso, director of management and business development for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. His organization and other industry groups are urging the federal government to use a variety of funding approaches to invest hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 50 years to nearly double the capacity of U.S. highways and public transportation.

Gregory Cohen, president of the American Highway Users Alliance, said the potential hole in the trust fund is "a real problem, and we're going to have to find a solution. It's not in anyone's interest to allow the federal highway program to go bankrupt."

But heading into a presidential election, Cohen doesn't expect politicians to raise fuel taxes to stave off the 2009 deficit. Meanwhile, he says, the trust fund's purchasing power has declined by 30 percent because of inflation and skyrocketing construction costs -- so the country is spending less today in constant dollars than when federal fuel taxes were last increased 14 years ago.

Policy makers and transportation experts are kicking around several ideas to address the 2009 shortfall besides increasing taxes, which have stood at 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents a gallon for diesel fuel since 1993.

Those possibilities include ending state and local governments' gas-tax exemption; crediting the trust fund with interest; and combating tax evasion by organized crime. Other potential revenue streams include claiming the proceeds of the so-called gas-guzzler tax imposed on low-mileage vehicles, which now goes to general revenue, and dedicating a portion of customs fees to the trust fund.

Taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel provide nearly 90 percent of the trust fund's revenue, with taxes on heavy-vehicle use, truck tires, and truck and trailer sales making up the rest. The highway program distributes money to the states to build and maintain major roads according to a statutory formula that this year guaranteed all states a minimum return of 91.5 percent of the receipts they contribute to the trust fund. A separate, smaller account within the trust fund supports mass transit.

Many transportation lobbyists are still stewing about the 2005 legislative fight over the current law, when the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee used the Transportation Department's own estimates to write a $375 billion bill and the White House played hardball to force the total down to $286 billion.

"We've got an administration that doesn't get it," said one lobbyist who insisted on anonymity. It has "a strong anti-tax sentiment, and over time it's been harder and harder to discuss funding." The lobbyist also faulted Congress for diverting highway program dollars to an increasing number of earmarks. "We need to have a national transportation system because it's important to the national economy. Instead, it has become all about 'what do I get?' "

Even if Congress can keep the trust fund solvent through 2010, it will face daunting political challenges when it writes the next infrastructure spending bill. Industry groups say that by 2015 it would take $73 billion -- financed by a 10-cent increase in the gas tax -- just to restore the fund's purchasing power. The legislative effort "is going to have to be bipartisan," Cohen said. "If not, we're going to have to face up to major cuts in the highway program, and the states are going to have to come up with their own solutions."

Congress and the new administration would also have to sell a gas-tax hike to a skeptical public that has little appetite to underwrite more "bridges to nowhere."

"There's no question that the number of earmarks, and some of the earmarks, in [the 2005 bill] created the perception the whole program is pork. And that's not true," said former House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chief of Staff Jack Schenendorf, who is now with the law firm of Covington & Burling.

Robert Poole, director of transportation studies for the free-market Reason Foundation, argues that Congress should fundamentally rethink how the government doles out the money it raises through fuel taxes. The current system, which collects more money from big states with large populations than they get in return, to subsidize highway construction in sparsely populated states, is "perverse," Poole said. "If we aren't willing to change the way the federal system allocates resources, then don't waste the political capital" to raise taxes, he said. Instead, "make sure that private capital can be used as much as possible."

The high price of gas and concerns about global warming are spurring the development of alternative energy sources -- which may be good for the environment and for national security but cut into gas-tax revenues even as the cost of maintaining the highway system and the demand for greater capacity increase.

"We need a whole package of new financing mechanisms," said Basso of the state transportation officials' group. He cited such options as private financing and such means as federal loan guarantees, private activity bonds, investment tax credits, congestion pricing, and toll roads. Other proposals include taxing alternative fuels, indexing fuel taxes to inflation, and eventually replacing the gas levy with a mileage-based fee that taxes drivers according to the number of miles they travel rather than how much fuel they use.

The ARTBA's Ruane wants to create a multibillion-dollar program, financed by freight user fees outside the trust fund, to build "critical commerce corridors." He said the interstate initiative, which would include truck-only lanes, could accommodate the "tsunami" of freight that U.S. ports, rails, and highways must move in the future, as well as to relieve congestion and improve safety.

"We have a huge problem ahead of us as a nation," said Schenendorf, who serves as vice chairman of a committee established by the 2005 law to study the future of financing surface transportation programs. "Our very way of life, our very economic survival is a stake. As a country, we have really lived off the vision and the investment of our grandparents. We've become complacent."

]]>

Senate to focus on military part of Iraq supplemental

Peter Cohn and Lisa Caruso — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 -0400

"I would like to be able to tell the House how the Senate feels about the military side and await consideration of what the House does on the reconstruction side," Stevens said on the Senate floor.

The House Appropriations Committee is currently scheduled to mark up it version of the supplemental next Thursday and that bill will reach the House floor the week of Oct. 13.

Of the $87 billion, the $20.3 billion set aside for Iraq reconstruction-$1.1 billion is for Afghanistan-has raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle. A bipartisan group of up to 14 senators, arguing that Iraq's massive oil reserves are more than enough to pay for reconstruction, has approached Stevens about reshaping at least $15 billion earmarked for infrastructure projects into a loan program.

While Senate GOP leaders and the administration oppose a loan or loan guarantee, Stevens said Tuesday there would likely be a compromise on the Senate floor on the issue of reconstruction funds, although he personally favors direct aid.

Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, filed an amendment to convert $10 billion of the $20.3 billion into loans and loan gaurentees for essential services and infrastructure projects. Her amendment is co-sponsored by Senate Govermental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said on the floor Wednesday that Democrats will have a series of amendments focused on strict reporting requirements before reconstruction funds are released. These include ensuring the president steps up efforts to increase international assistance; rolling back tax cuts for the top 1 percent of income-earners to pay for the bill; and transfering control of Iraq reconstruction from the Defense to the State Department "which has expertise and experience in nation building."

Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., took the floor today to chastise the administration for getting involved in the war and then not doing enough to secure international assistance for reconstruction. He noted the upcoming Madrid donors' conference Oct. 23-24.

"Could we be overbilling the American people even before the conference begins?" Byrd asked. Byrd offered an amendment to strike the Iraq reconstruction funds from the bill and consider them separately.

House Republican leaders Wednesday indicated they are open to changes and are exploring ways to balance members' concerns with the Bush administration's goal of not driving Iraq further into debt.

Following the weekly House Republican Conference meeting, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said that while members are concerned that U.S. taxpayers are being asked to foot a hefty bill, they are more concerned about existing foreign loans made to the Saddam Hussein regime. Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce of Ohio later said members fear Iraq would use the U.S. loan money to repay its $200 billion in debts to countries such as France, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Blunt said the Republican Conference and GOP leaders want to help President Bush challenge foreign governments that lent money to the Hussein regime to not stick those bills to the new Iraqi government. "I think what the leaders would like to see-what I would like to see-is a debt-free Iraq."

But Blunt said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., would include a provision in his bill prohibiting any oil revenues from going to repay debt to nations that lent Saddam money. A similar provision is in the Senate bill.

Young and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., are opposed to making the reconstruction funds into a loan, as are House GOP leaders and key Democrats like Rep. Norman Dicks of Washington. A House Democratic aide noted support is building in that chamber for a loan, but added that if successful, "It'll be a 'pay us back someday' kind of thing."

Blunt said House leaders would consider making the $20.3 billion request into a loan or loan guarantee program if it were tied to forgiveness of Iraq's prior loan obligations. "That may not be the course we take in the House," Blunt said, but he added that GOP leaders would be open to discussions in conference with the Senate about some form of loan program in lieu of direct aid.

Blunt later hinted that any acceptance of loan language might be cosmetic at best, aimed more at attracting votes than a strict timetable for Iraqi debt repayment. He said leaders would be open to the idea "if it was beneficial for us to characterize" the Iraq reconstruction funds as a loan or loan guarantee.

Also Wednesday, House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox of California and Ahmed Chalabi, head of Iraq's Governing Council, told reporters a loan program was the wrong option. Chalabi said it would be "immoral to ask the people of Iraq to repay the money that was lent to Saddam" and was used to commit atrocities against his own people.

"The people who financed" Saddam's regime "ought not to have a return on their investments," Cox added.

]]>

Justice Department launches probe of CIA leak

Keith Koffler, Lisa Caruso, and April Fulton — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:00:00 -0400

In a message sent to all White House aides, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said the Justice Department has opened an investigation into the matter, and that the department would soon send a letter to the White House indicating with greater specificity the materials it may want to see.

"In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department's investigation," Gonzales' message stated. "The president has directed full cooperation with this investigation."

The CIA agent is the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, who said this summer that during an earlier trip to Niger he found no basis for President Bush's State of the Union speech claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan declined to say whether Bush has spoken with any of his staff about the matter. But McClellan said nothing has come to the attention of the White House that might indicate a White House aide had leaked the information.

Meanwhile, efforts by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to offer an amendment to the fiscal 2004 District of Columbia appropriations bill regarding the CIA leak today complicated plans to bring the floor. The Schumer amendment would be a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution calling on Attorney General John Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel to investigate who leaked the name of the CIA agent.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the two sides had agreed to two hours of debate on the Schumer amendment, at which point Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., would lodge a point of order.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., questioned the ability of Ashcroft to direct a Justice Department investigation into the leak. "If he won't even go after [Enron CEO] Ken Lay, why would he go after someone who appointed him?" Daschle said of Aschroft.

The rhetoric was equally charged on the House side. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., asserted that if a similar leak occurred during the Clinton administration, Republicans would be issuing subpoenas and launching an investigation, and "[former Government Reform Committee Chairman] Dan Burton [R-Ill.] would be in high dudgeon."

Hoyer called the preliminary probe launched by the Justice Department "a step in the right direction," but said the appointment of an independent counsel "would be well-advised. John Ashcroft is a very political attorney general ...very partisan."

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, today said Democrats' call for an independent counsel "makes no sense," pointing out that the White House is very upset about the matter and is "trying to get to the bottom of this-nobody's covering anything up-no one is obstructing anything."

As for whether Ashcroft is too partisan to conduct a credible independent investigation, DeLay remarked, "I imagine those charges are coming from partisan people."

]]>

House to introduce hefty temporary funding measure Wednesday

Peter Cohn and Lisa Caruso — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Congressional leaders are negotiating the contents of a continuing resolution to fund the government through Oct. 31, which House Appropriations Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., will introduce Wednesday.

"I have the feeling it's not going to be too clean," Young said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the CR would contain "must-do" items, which House and Senate GOP aides said were extensions of the expiring Airport Improvement Program, which funds airport infrastructure projects from aviation tax revenues; federal highway and mass transit programs, which also expire Sept. 30 and could otherwise furlough employees at several agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration; and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. But aides said talks were ongoing, and that some provisions could still be considered separately.

Meanwhile, the House Wednesday approved by a 407-15 vote the conference report on a $368 billion fiscal 2004 Defense appropriations bill, making it the first appropriations conference report to be approved this year in either chamber.

At presstime, the House was considering the $29.4 billion fiscal 2004 Homeland Security spending conference report, which faces objections from Homeland Security Appropriations ranking member Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn., and other Democrats. Sabo has offered a motion to recommit the bill and come back to one with one more similar to what the House passed earlier this month. It would require all cargo carried on passenger aircraft to be screened by Oct. 31, 2004, and boost funding in other areas. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., distributed a memo urging Democrats to support the motion, arguing the report "underfunds key homeland security priorities."

The House is scheduled to take up the fiscal 2004 Legislative Branch appropriations bill later Wednesday, and the Senate also could vote on House-approved conference reports Wednesday and later this week, Frist said. The Senate is considering the fiscal 2004 District of Columbia spending bill today, which could run into Democratic efforts to remove or modify a provision funding a school voucher program. A White House Statement of Administration Policy expressed support for the bill and "strongly urges the Senate to retain" the $13 million voucher program.

]]>

GOP may drop privatization language from FAA bill

Lisa Caruso and John Stanton — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Earlier in the day, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called the provision a poison pill and said he did not think it could pass the House. Hoyer also slammed GOP leaders for inserting the language in conference when neither the House bill nor the Senate bill included it.

"This is the kind of egregious process that ought to outrage the American people," Hoyer said.

In July, members of a House-Senate conference committee agreed to scrap provisions in the versions of the bill passed by each chamber that would have prevented the FAA from outsourcing air traffic controllers' jobs. They also scuttled a Senate-passed provision that would prevent the FAA from competing the jobs of 2,700 flight service specialists at 58 stations across the country, the biggest job competition in government. Flight service specialists provide weather briefings to pilots and assist with search and rescue activities, but they do not separate air traffic.

In place of these provisions, conferees adopted language that would bar outsourcing of air traffic controllers until fiscal 2008. But they exempted 71 low- and medium-activity towers from this ban, giving the FAA leeway to outsource jobs at these towers. The FAA has already privatized jobs at 218 low-activity towers.

DeLay said GOP leaders committed to moving language to extend the program's authorization before it expires Oct. 1. "I don't know how we're going to do it," DeLay added as he listed several procedural options for getting it through, such as taking up a stand-alone bill or adding it to the supplemental or the continuing resolution.

]]>

House plans month-long temporary funding measure

Peter Cohn and Lisa Caruso — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 -0400

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., Wednesday confirmed the House plans to pass a continuing resolution next week to keep the federal government funded through the end of October. At presstime, the Senate leadership had not weighed in on its CR strategy.

Speaking to reporters after the weekly House Republican Conference meeting, Blunt said members were not concerned about leaving town tonight because of Hurricane Isabel-even if the Senate stays in session. The House was roundly criticized when it did not convene immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the Senate did. Asked whether members objected to closing up shop tonight, Blunt said, "Not a one." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., were meeting at presstime to determine the Senate's schedule for the remainder of the week.

Meanwhile, Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said Wednesday he was likely to offer an amendment to the $19.6 billion fiscal 2004 Interior spending bill, currently on the Senate floor, to boost spending on wildfire suppression. He called the $319 million included in the fiscal 2003 emergency supplemental bill "totally inadequate," and said the Interior Department will have borrowed $850 million by the end of the month.

The fiscal 2003 firefighting money is contained in the fiscal 2004 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which was used as a vehicle for supplemental funding and which conferees are expected to approve Wedensday afternoon. "We need to repay those accounts soon and we need to repay them in full," Burns said. He did not offer a timetable for offering his amendment, but said he was aiming to complete the entire spending bill "by tomorrow [Thursday]." The schedule could be affected if Senate leaders decide on an early hurricane-related exit this week, however.

Another controversial amendment could be offered to further block the administration's competitive sourcing initiatives, which prompted a veto threat from the White House in a Statement of Administration Policy issued Wednesday. Interior Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., was discussing with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Minority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev., whether to offer the amendment, a Dorgan spokesman said.

Also Wednesday afternoon, conferees are expected to approve the fiscal 2004 Homeland Security spending bill. But Democrats-led by Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd of West Virginia, House Appropriations ranking member David Obey of Wisconsin and Rep. Martin Olav Sabo of Minnesota-plan to offer an amendment to boost spending by $1.25 billion. The amendment would include $400 million for aviation security, $375 million for port security, $200 million for first responders, and $125 million to hire more Customs inspectors, among other provisions.

Conferees are also set to convene a closed meeting at 6 pm to reconcile the fiscal 2004 Defense spending bill, while White House officials Wednesday said the $87 billion supplemental spending request for military and rebuilding activities in Iraq and Afghanistan will be sent to the Capitol Wednesday, probably later Wednesday afternoon. Officials said they want Congress to move the package as a single vehicle instead of breaking it up into its constituent pieces.

]]>

Panel extends aid to emergency responders

Lisa Caruso — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee took on emergency preparedness and energy conservation Wednesday, approving bills to aid first responders and increase the energy savings and environmental benefits from certain federally funded projects committee on unanimous voice votes.

The first, the "Emergency Preparedness and Response Act of 2003," would establish a program to provide first responders and urban search and rescue task forces with funds to enhance their ability to prepare for and respond to all hazards.

The bill (S. 930) would authorize $3.34 billion for first responder grants for fiscal 2004 and $3.46 billion a year for fiscal 2005 through 2007. For urban search and rescue task forces, it would authorize $160 million for fiscal 2004 and $42 million a year for fiscal 2005 through 2007.

States and the District of Columbia would receive a base amount of funds equal to 0.75 of the authorized amount for each fiscal year and a percentage of the remaining funds based on the existence of high-threat areas and other vulnerability criteria, such as population, location of critical infrastructure, location of public buildings and location of nationally significant sites.

Any of the 28 urban search and rescue task forces designated by the Department of Homeland Security at the time of the bill's enactment could expect at least $1.5 million a year for operational costs and may receive additional discretionary grants for other costs, including equipment, training and transportation.

Ranking member James Jeffords, I-Vt., noted that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has reported a similar bill authorizing funding for first responders, and said he looked forward to working with Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., and the Governmental Affairs panel to bring a bill to the floor.

Without debate or dissent, the committee granted unanimous consent to accept the Inhofe-Jeffords manager's amendment containing clarifying changes to the bill.

Among other things, the manager's amendment would increase the federal share of an eligible project's cost from 75 percent to 80 percent, and allow direct funding to limited number of localities based on the governors' recommendations, but permit the department to bypass a governor's recommendations "in extraordinary circumstances."

Also adopted by voice vote were two second-degree amendments by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to authorize funding for a first-responder training center in Sacramento and for four multi-state regional academies to train first responders.

The committee reported out the bill by voice vote.

In other action, the panel approved legislation (S. 793) to increase the use of "recovered mineral component" in cement and concrete purchased by the Department of Transportation and other federal agencies that buy material for cement and concrete projects.

The bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency and relevant agency heads one year after enactment to implement all procurement requirements and incentives component in cement or concrete projects.

It would direct agency heads to give priority to achieving greater use of recovered mineral component in projects that historically have used little to no recovered mineral content. The bill defines recovered mineral content as ground-granulated blast furnace slag, coal combustion fly ash, and "any other waste material or byproduct recovered or diverted from solid waste" that EPA determines should be treated as recovered mineral component for use in cement or concrete projects.

The measure also calls for the EPA and the Transportation and Energy departments to determine the extent to which procurement requirements, when fully implemented, produce energy savings and environmental benefits due to the substitution of recovered mineral component in cement used in cement or concrete projects.

]]>

House panel approves supplemental without AmeriCorps funding

Peter Cohn and Lisa Caruso — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 -0400

VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., voted with Republicans against the AmeriCorps amendment.

As approved, the supplemental is about $100 million more than the administration's $1.9 billion request, and includes an extra $30 million for ongoing forest firefighting efforts over the $189 million request.

It also contains $32 million to cover expenses incurred by the federal judiciary related to additional district judgeships and an anticipated shortfall in attorney payments and fees for civil jurors, as well as $60 million for Army Corps of Engineers flood control efforts, both of which were not requested by the White House.

The measure contains $1.55 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief efforts and $50 million for recovery expenses related to the space shuttle Columbia accident, as requested by the administration.

The Senate version of the supplemental, also worth $2 billion, is essentially the administration's request plus the additional $100 million for AmeriCorps, setting up a potentially difficult conference this week over the fiscal 2004 Legislative Branch funding measure, in which the Senate supplemental bill is included. House Appropriations Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., said Monday he aimed to complete the conference this week.

House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., also offered an amendment to the House version of the supplemental that would have provided $50 million for the Transportation Security Administration to prevent the agency from making cuts in its sky marshal program. The amendment lost on a 32-21 vote.

In other action Monday, the House panel approved a $90 billion VA-HUD spending bill by voice vote after striking a provision supported by the administration that would have established a $250 enrollment fee and increased co-payments for prescription drugs from $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply for veterans whose illnesses are not service-connected or who make more than $24,000 annually.

The amendment by Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., passed on a voice vote and would offset the $264 million cost of reinstating the benefit by taking the funds from Veterans Affairs Department administrative expenses.

An earlier version of the amendment by Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, would have offset the enrollment fee elimination by reducing the 2001 tax cut.

The House may consider the VA-HUD bill this week, Young said.

Meanwhile, the Senate took up a $28.5 billion 2004 Homeland Security spending bill Monday, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he aims to complete this week.

Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., offered an amendment to add almost $1.8 billion in funds for first responders and border, port, transit, air cargo and chemical facility security.

The House was expected to take up a $17.1 billion 2004 Foreign Operations bill Tuesday.

]]>

House appropriators approve VA-HUD spending bill

Lisa Caruso — Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 -0400

After rejecting Bush administration proposals to make some veterans pay an annual enrollment fee for health insurance and a higher co-payment for prescription drugs, the House Appropriations Committee Monday approved the $90 billion fiscal 2004 VA-HUD bill by voice vote.

Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., said he hoped to get the bill on the floor Friday, so it could pass the House before members go on recess at the end of the week.

Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., offered the amendment, which calls for eliminating the $250 annual enrollment fee that Category Seven and Eight veterans-those who do not have service-related illnesses or injuries, or who are not impoverished-would have had to pay, and nixing the proposal to increase their co-payment from $7 to $15. Goode used a $264 million cut to the Veterans Health Administration's medical administration account to offset the cost of his amendment, which passed by voice vote. The medical administration account funds the agency's management and administrative expenses, including those associated with operating the VHA headquarters, all information technology hardware and software, legal services, billing and coding acitivities, and procurement.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, presented a substitute to Goode's amendment that also called for eliminating the enrollment fee and the increased co-payment, but would have offset the costs by cutting 1.5 percent of the new round of tax cuts going to people who make more than $1 million a year. His amendment failed by a straight party-line vote of 25-31.

The VA-HUD bill itself represents an increase over both the president's request of $89.4 billion and the fiscal 2003 enacted level of $87.1 billion. It would provide a total of $27.2 billion to the VA-$1.4 billion more than in FY03-including $4 billion for VA medical facilities and $408 million, or $11 billion more than in fiscal 2003, for veteran's medical and prosthetic research.

The bill would direct $37 billion, or $942 million over fiscal 2003 and $98 million over the president's request, to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Section 8 vouchers program would receive $12.1 billion, allowing it to fully fund the renewal of all authorized vouchers. This amount is $810 million more than fiscal 2003 and exceeds the administration's request by $205 million.

Among the independent agencies funded by the VA-HUD bill, the Environmental Protection Agency would get $8 billion ($375 million more than Bush requested but $74 million less than fiscal 2003), the troubled Americorps program would get $480 million ($96 million more than fiscal 2003 but $118 million less than the president wanted), the National Science Foundation $5.6 billion ($329 million over fiscal 2003 and $158 million over the administration request) and NASA $15.5 billion (a $201 million increase over fiscal 2003 and $158 million over the president's request).

But the panel deferred on funding the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle program, the Orbital Space Plane program and next generation launch technology until the report by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board is released. The committee will use the report and NASA's response as the basis for final action on the fiscal 2004 NASA budget.

Despite widespread praise of Subcommittee Chairman James Walsh, R-N.Y., for doing the best job he could with the allocation he was given, full committee ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., said he could not support the bill. Obey lamented what he considered weak funding levels for the EPA's state revolving fund program to reduce water pollution, the cut in the HOPE VI program for revitalizing dilapidated public housing, from $570 million in fiscal 2003 to $50 million for fiscal 2004. The White House did not request any funds for this account.

"It is my job to blow the whistle," Obey said, "not that anybody's going to hear it."

In the only other recorded vote of the markup, the committee shot down, on a party-line vote of 26-32,an Edwards amendment to increase funding for veterans' programs by $2.2 billion, to VA medical care for all categories of veterans, offset by cutting the tax cuts for taxpayers making more than $1 million a year by 12.5 percent.

The committee also acted on the following amendments:

A Walsh manager's amendment containing technical changes to the bill and additional report language, which was adopted by voice vote.
An amendment by Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., which was inadvertently left out of the manager's amendment, to increase funding for the National Technology Transfer Center and the Highlands Action Program, was approved by voice vote.
An amendment by Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, to rename a local VA hospital passed by voice vote.
An amendment by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., to add report language directing EPA's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to help the New York State Department of Health with public health activities related to potential exposure to volatile organic compounds in the Village of Endicott, N.Y. It was cleared by voice vote.
An amendment by Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., to add report language directing EPA to work with authorities in Washington and Idaho in cleaning up the Coeur d'Alene basin. It passed by voice vote.

]]>

Lawmakers, aides debate role of administration in spending process

Lisa Caruso — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:00:00 -0400

At first, the following turn of events might seem unremarkable to Washington insiders: After weeks of inconclusive meetings among themselves, top congressional appropriators and leaders head to the White House to try to break a logjam in the appropriations process. With the president's blessing, the group cuts a deal that allows the spending bills to move through Congress.

Such a scenario is nothing out of the ordinary in the fall or winter, when Congress is trying to wrap up its annual appropriations bills in a way that's amenable to the White House and then adjourn for the year. But the most recent high-level talks weren't endgame negotiations. Instead, these White House talks occurred last month, before lawmakers had even started to work on their 13 fiscal 2004 appropriations bills.

The negotiations centered on the total dollar limit for the spending bills. Specifically, key lawmakers and White House officials hashed out how to provide extra funds that appropriators said they needed-and how much money to devote to President Bush's priorities-so that the bills won't get hung up at the end of the year.

Congressional Republican leaders and Bush administration officials hailed their upfront agreement on spending as a model of efficiency and a blueprint for an orderly appropriations process. After all, the last spending season was a debacle: Congress did not complete 11 of the fiscal 2003 appropriations bills until February, nearly five months after the fiscal year had begun on October 1. This time around, Republicans are determined to show that with Congress and the White House in their hands, they will not allow another proverbial train wreck.

So what, if anything, is wrong with this picture?

Plenty, say some current and former appropriators, who worry that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are ceding undue authority to the executive branch-and diluting Congress's power of the purse in the process. These experts say that the danger of allowing such White House involvement is that elected members of Congress, who best understand the needs of their districts and their states, lose control of deciding how and where to spend federal resources.

One former Appropriations Committee aide conceded that reaching a deal with the White House before spending bills are even written may indeed make things run more efficiently, "but at what price?" The aide added: "You've lost the ability to debate spending priorities between the two bodies, in committee, and on the floor."

Some insiders are also troubled by the fact that as Congress haggled over its differences during the first third of fiscal 2003, the federal government ran on automatic pilot through a "continuing resolution" that merely extended fiscal 2002 funding levels. One former Appropriations staffer warned that conservative foes of higher spending might argue that the government could just as easily run for an entire year on a CR, a situation that gives Congress little ability to reshuffle funding priorities. The next step, the former staffer cautioned, could be a "permanent" CR, a move that would render the annual congressional debate over spending obsolete.

More than other congressional panels, the Appropriations committees breed institutionalists who care deeply that the legislative branch remains equal to the executive branch in determining how taxpayer dollars are spent. Many appropriators see it as their personal responsibility to uphold and defend the Constitution in every bill they write. That is why some are so alarmed about how this year is unfolding. Former Appropriations Committee staffers from both chambers and both parties contend that the administration is having far too much input in spending decisions. One incensed former aide huffed: "This Congress is walking away from the Constitution."

Republican pragmatists in Congress and the White House brush aside such hand-wringing. They say that paving the way for an orderly and on-time appropriations cycle is far more important than academic arguments about the separation of powers, especially after last year's fiasco.

"There is also the institutional responsibility to work together" to do the people's business, said one Republican leadership aide. The aide added that concerns over congressional prerogatives must be balanced against the facts that the GOP majority is slim, particularly in the Senate, and that money is tight, given the costs of the war, the latest round of tax cuts, and the pending Medicare prescription drug benefits bill. The situation could have made for a very difficult appropriations season without some agreement at the outset.

Republicans are also quick to point out that from the time they took over Congress in 1995 through Bush's election in 2000, then-President Clinton and his advisers routinely insisted on being closely involved in reaching final agreements on spending bills. Top Clinton aides were often in the room on Capitol Hill as year-end deals were being cut, and they negotiated legislative language line-by-line, GOP sources on the Hill and at the White House recall.

But House Appropriations Committee ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., said in an interview that although Democrats controlled the White House and Congress in 1993 and 1994, the Clinton administration deferred to its congressional partners. "We had a good relationship, but they never dictated to us what we could spend," said Obey, who chaired the committee in 1994. The Clinton administration, he added, was "much more closely involved than [then-Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman] Bob Byrd would have wanted-and sometimes more than I did, too.... But in the end, they had to listen to us."

Likewise, one former Appropriations staffer said that while intrusive, the Clinton administration was only involved in the appropriations process at the final stage, when the bills got to House-Senate conference committee. In contrast, "this administration inserts itself very early on in the process," the source complained. And Obey declared: "I think this administration thinks that Article I of the Constitution was a fundamental mistake."

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., disagrees. In fact, Young was the one who initially involved House Republican leaders, and ultimately the White House, in this year's early spending negotiations. Young said the move was necessary because the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed this spring had gaps in discretionary funding that left his committee unable to proceed with the annual exercise of distributing the pot of money among its 13 subcommittees.

The budget resolution gave appropriators a total of $784.7 billion in fiscal 2004 discretionary dollars. The deal reached in June with the White House freed up an extra $5.2 billion for them to work with-by reducing defense spending by $3 billion and by moving $2.2 billion in education funds into fiscal 2003-without exceeding the $784.7 billion spending limit.

In an interview, Young said he did not allow the White House to weigh in on how to allocate the money among the 13 subcommittees. He emphasized that he only wanted both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to agree on an overall spending figure and the accounting maneuvers necessary to come to that figure.

"We're the majority party, and it is essential that we work together, while not invading each other's constitutional prerogatives," Young said. The agreement is already bearing fruit, he added. Young said that his committee intends to mark up all 13 appropriations bills, and pass 11 through the House, by the August recess.

Young was also motivated by one of the first rules of politics: cover your tail. He and other appropriators have been frustrated in the past when they labored to fill in funding shortfalls, only to be criticized by GOP leaders and the White House as spendthrifts. So Young sought to involve the higher-ups from the start so they could not later accuse the Appropriations Committee of being out of control, congressional appropriations sources confirmed.

Practical considerations aside, critics contend that the combination of the Bush administration's direct input at the beginning of the process and the increasing involvement of the congressional leadership inevitably means the diminution of the Appropriations committees' power. Yet Office of Management and Budget spokesman Trent Duffy defended the steps the White House has taken. "The White House is working with [the congressional] leadership and the Appropriations Committee chairmen at the beginning to try to make the process work better this year," Duffy said.

A Republican leadership aide agreed that the Bush administration has played a more influential role at the outset of the appropriations process than its predecessors, but chalked that up to the fact that Bush's budget request and the congressional budget resolution set the same limit on fiscal 2004 discretionary spending. "So [the administration] probably felt they ought to be part of any negotiations about that number," the source said. In addition, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., wanted the White House involved, the source added. And as key lawmakers and the White House negotiated over funding, it was only natural that the administration would want to protect the president's priorities, the source pointed out.

But the Republican leadership aide also cautioned that with resources stretched thin, despite last month's agreement to free up $5.2 billion, "we're not out of the woods by any measure" on the 13 appropriations bills. The aide said that a crucial test of whether the agreement will hold up will be the administration's willingness to be flexible and to engage in the necessary give-and-take of the legislative process.

"If they are hidebound by their request, and anything over their request is not negotiable," the aide said, "then they're probably setting us up for a situation in September where we have to do CRs." And that, of course, is the very thing that the administration, Republican leaders, and the Appropriations Committee chairmen were seeking to avoid in the first place.

The author is a special correspondent for National Journal's CongressDaily.

]]>

Senate panel unanimous in adding new AmeriCorps funding

Lisa Caruso — Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The draft spending measure was reported out of committee by unanimous consent and is expected on the Senate floor today, said Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Stevens said the Senate plans to pass the Legislative Branch bill containing the fiscal 2003 disaster supplemental Thursday so that it can go to conference with House, which passed its version of the bill-without the supplemental spending-early next week. That way, Congress can adopt the conference report and send it to President Bush for his signature by the end of next week, Stevens said.

The supplemental includes $1.55 million in disaster relief funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $50 million for NASA to investigate the Space Shuttle Columbia accident and $289 million to fight wildfires out West, as well as the $100 million for AmeriCorps.

In committee, Stevens offered the amendment to attach the administration's supplemental request to the Legislative Branch bill. VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., offered the second degree amendment to add the AmeriCorps funds on behalf of herself, VA-HUD Chairman Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., Stevens and Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. Both were accepted by unanimous consent.

Demonstrating the broad support the AmeriCorps program enjoys in the Senate, nearly every senator present at the markup asked to be added as a co-sponsor to the Bond-Mikulski amendment. After the markup, Stevens told reporters he considered the funding shortfall that AmeriCorps now faces "a serious mistake" that has to be corrected.

To address concerns raised by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., that enough disaster relief money will be available now that hurricane season is under way, the committee unanimously adopted report language requesting that FEMA respond immediately, to the extent to which it can, to use its funds to make emergency repairs to levees.

]]>

Senate panel OKs $9B military construction bill

Lisa Caruso — Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

With minimal debate and just one technical amendment, the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday approved the $9.16 billion fiscal 2004 military construction bill by unanimous consent.

The bill (S. 1357) provides slightly more money than President Bush's fiscal 2004 request of $9.12 billion but $1.5 billion less than fiscal 2003 levels. It includes $3.96 billion for service-wide construction, $691 million for the reserves, $370 million for base realignment and closure, $169 million for the NATO security investment program, $3.9 billion for family housing and $55 million for the section 118 general provision.

Also Thursday, the House voted by an overwhelming 428-0 margin to pass its remarkably similar $9.2 billion version of the military construction bill. The Senate bill could be on the Senate floor as early as the week senators return from next week's July 4 recess.

Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, speaking for herself and ranking member Mary Landrieu, D-La., emphasized the "special attention" they paid to beefing up spending on quality of life improvements for the troops, and the sizeable increase in the bill for the National Guard, which she said performed so ably in the recent war in Iraq.

But Hutchison focused her opening statement on the panel's only "major difference" with the Bush administration, over spending on overseas military bases, and explained why the subcommittee did not fund that account at the level the administration requested.

She said that until the Defense Department and an independent commission report back to Congress about how they plan to overhaul the entire network of overseas bases-which are still concentrated in Europe even after the end of the Cold War-the subcommittee would only selectively fund that account.

In the only amendment, Landrieu got unanimous consent to add a provision on the construction of military charter schools.

]]>

Despite regrets, panels approve Labor-HHS spending bills

David Hess and Lisa Caruso — Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

After passionate debates on the cost of tax cuts and the hiring practices of faith-based organizations, the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday reported out its $138 billion fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS spending bill on a straight party-line 33-23 vote.

The bill funds a vast array of social programs devoted to education, health care, job training and medical research, and represents a slight increase over President Bush's $137.99 billion fiscal 2004 request, and a more than $5 billion jump from the fiscal 2003 level of $132.4 billion.

But Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., continued his arguments that the bill falls short of funding many promises made in the fiscal 2004 budget resolution in order to pay for the recently enacted $353 billion tax cut. Obey's two amendments to redirect money from the tax cut that millionaires would get to increase spending on programs across the bill and to reinsuring children who have lost their health insurance lost by party-line votes of 35-28 and 35-29.

But it was the amendment by Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, concerning the hiring practices of federally funded faith-based groups that sparked the most heated debate. The Edwards amendment was ultimately defeated 32-27, with GOP Reps. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania voting with a united Democratic bloc.

Meanwhile, the Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee approved its version of the Labor-HHS spending bill and sent it on to the full Appropriations panel, where it is likely to be taken up Thursday afternoon. The bill's price tag-$137.6 billion-is $445 million below the companion House bill and $389 million under President Bush's budget request.

Even Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., acknowledged that many education, healthcare, research and worker training programs were underfunded. Specter said the subcommittee "did the best it could given the limitations on us" imposed by the fiscal 2004 budget resolution. The bill, in many respects, he said, is "not remotely satisfactory."

Some Democrats agreed. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., noted that the bill fell $8.7 billion short of what had been earlier promised in the president's "No Child Left Behind" law that calls for higher teacher and pupil standards nationwide in secondary and elementary education. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, defended the bill's contents. He reminded the panel that education spending since 1996 has been increased by 107 percent. Budget cutbacks for next year, Craig said, were necessitated by a flat economy.

]]>

White House endorses Homeland Security spending bill

Keith Koffler and Lisa Caruso — Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The White House Tuesday released a Statement of Administration Policy supporting passage of the fiscal 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill as reported out by House committee.

The SAP lists several concerns, however, noting that the bill costs $1 billion more than proposed by the Bush administration. But it does not specifically demand that the legislation be trimmed, pointing instead to the need to maintain overall fiscal discipline.

"The administration applauds the committee for reporting this important bill in a timely manner and looks forward to working with Congress to ensure that the fiscal 2004 appropriations bills ultimately fit within the top line funding level agreed to by both the administration and the Congress," the SAP stated.

It also said that first responder programs should be better coordinated and consolidated; that the U.S. VISIT border security system should be funded at President Bush's requested level and placed within the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; and that the headquarters facility project should be fully funded. The SAP objected to provisions that "would purport to require committee approval before executive branch execution," saying only notification of administration action is required.

But Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., and Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn., Tuesday charged in their dissenting views on the bill that, without adequate information from the Homeland Security Department, "many of the windows of opportunity for terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda are as nearly as widely open today as they were a year and a half ago, and we seem to be stalled in terms of putting in place a program that will close those windows."

Although rejected by the Rules Committee, Obey will try to offer his amendment during today's debate to redirect $1 billion from the recently passed tax cut-taking the money only from the cut that taxpayers making more than $1 million would receive-to beef up homeland security spending.

Obey's amendment, which was defeated in subcommittee and full committee, would provide additional funds for port security, border security, airport security, maritime security and infrastructure security. But Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., defended the bill by saying: "I'm simply not interested in throwing money at a problem ... We need to spend our money smartly. Let there be no mistake, we are adequately funding homeland security and any comments to the contrary are just political opportunism."

At presstime, House Democrats failed to get included in the debate two amendments by Texas Democratic Reps. Chet Edwards and Sheila Jackson Lee, to block the department from using its resources for activities unrelated to homeland security. The amendments stem from a redistricting fight in which Texas Democratic state legislators blocked action on a new congressional redistricting plan by fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the state House a quorum. During that incident, the Homeland Security Department was asked to find a plane being flown by one of those Democratic legislators.

]]>

House panel approves fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS approps bill

Lisa Caruso and Lori Sharn — Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Preferring to voice their objections rather than amend a bill they oppose, Democratic members of the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Thursday highlighted what they see as deficiencies in the $138 billion fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill the panel reported out on a 11-7 party-line vote.

Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., led the charge, saying that Democrats wanted people "to see clearly what this bill does as a consequence of [the Republican-led Congress'] tax-cutting binge." Obey added that it was only fitting that the subcommittee was voting on the fiscal 2004 Labor-HHS spending bill one day after the House "voted to use up $800 million" to repeal the estate tax, a move "that cost us critical reductions in programs [in the Labor-HHS bill] that help working families. We're stiffing an awful lot of good people today."

The bill, which represents a roughly 3 percent increase over the fiscal 2003 level of $132.4 billion, will go to full-committee markup Wednesday. The $138 billion bill also provides a small increase over the president's fiscal 2004 budget request of $137.99 billion. Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, called the measure a "well-balanced bill," adding, "We've done the best we could with the hand that was dealt us." But Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said: "Our side does not agree with the trade-offs you've made. ... You're cutting our ability to collectively take care of our country."

Obey and Reps. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ran down the litany of program cuts and funding shortfalls to which they objected. Those included: $8 billion less for No Child Left Behind than authorized by law; Title I funding for the disadvantaged, $334 million short of what was promised in the fiscal 2004 budget resolution; $1.2 billion less than promised in the budget resolution for special education; a freeze in the maximum Pell grant; a 2.5 percent increase over last year for the National Institutes of Health, compared to last year's 15 percent increase over fiscal 2002; a $150.8 million cut from last year's level for community service block grants; and $200 million less than the president requested for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Meanwhile, the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee Thursday approved a $2.7 billion fiscal 2004 spending bill under which all legislative agencies will get less money next year-but no staff positions will be cut and cost-of-living and other pay-related cost increases will be fully funded.

The $2.7 billion bill, to which Senate spending will be added later, is $34 million less than enacted in fiscal 2003, a drop of 1.2 percent. It is 10 percent and $290 million lower than the budget request. The measure has wide bipartisan support and passed on a voice vote.

The Capitol Police will not get any more officers, but remain at the current staff level of 1,895. That is an increase of 512 positions since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but the committee was wary of further growth in the force without a better evaluation of how many officers are needed. In response to growing concern about costs for the Capitol Visitors Center, the bill does not fund any new major construction projects through the architect of the Capitol.

]]>

House panel puts its stamp on homeland, military construction bills

Lisa Caruso — Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The committee voted 33-25 to reject an amendment by Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., to divert $1 billion from the tax cut that millionaires would receive this year to the Homeland Security spending bill. The committee later rejected 34-24 a similar Obey amendment on the Military Construction spending bill.

Before Obey's first amendment, the committee approved by voice vote an amendment by Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn., to require the General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Sciences to study the feasibility and ramifications of the Transportation Security Administration's Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System before it can be funded.

The underlying bill contains $9 billion for border protection and related activities, $4.4 billion for first responders, $100 million for port security grants-a figure Obey has widely criticized as inadequate-and $890 million for the "Bioshield" initiative.

Both Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo noted the problems they encountered trying to work with the department. Said Sabo: "This subcommittee received very little support from the new department in putting together this bill. I think the verdict is still out on the Department of Homeland Security."

Rogers, who previously chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, aimed his most pointed remarks at the troubled Transportation Security Administration. Noting that the bill retains the current 45,000-member cap on the airport screener workforce, Rogers said, "There are still too many screeners, too many loose ends and too many idle resources at TSA."

The report accompanying the bill criticizes the agency for low-balling several accounts, including procurement and installation of explosive detection devices, and slams its proposal to use federal air marshal appropriations to fund other TSA shortfalls.

Before taking up the bill, the committee approved new 2003 subcommittee allocations, which reflect the recent deal among the House, Senate and administration to give appropriators another $5.2 billion in 2004 funds. In his weekly news conference today, House Majority Whip Blunt told reporters he expected the deal to hold through 2004.

The revised 2004 allocations move $10 million in budget authority from the Labor-HHS spending bill to the District of Columbia spending bill, an amount Obey said would be used to finance a school voucher program. The new allocations also take $30 million in outlays from Agriculture, $272 million in outlays from Homeland Security and $5 million in outlays from Labor-HHS, while adding $252 million to Defense, $5 million to the District of Columbia and $50 million to VA-HUD.

]]>

White House, in reversal, to seek more supplemental spending

Lisa Caruso — Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Another $52 million would cover the cost of sending taxpayers the additional $400 in per-child tax credits they are owed under the recently enacted $330 billion tax cut.

The administration is expected to send its request to Congress soon, according to one GOP source.

While the administration's request is not for more money for war-related expenses-the main subject of the previous supplemental-fiscal conservatives on Capitol Hill are nevertheless miffed by the request. They were already skeptical about the deal cut Wednesday by the White House, the Republican leadership and the Appropriations chairmen to give appropriators another $5.2 billion in fiscal 2004 funds to sprinkle among the domestic accounts. They have stressed they would accept the deal only if it were the sole time that money is added to the appropriations process.

Asked about the upcoming supplemental request, one conservative GOP source said: "There's no doubt that any supplemental creates the opportunity to undo the fiscal discipline we're trying to establish. It's the usual concern. We all know that emergencies occur-but the key element here is that [appropriators] would find items that would normally be funded in the regular appropriations process [and] put them on the 'emergency train,' " to free up room for more new spending in the 2004 bills.

Another conservative source said this new supplemental will be met with "a relative coolness" from conservatives, particularly because of the timing. But because it comes from the White House, the source predicted the reaction "will be muffled screaming into pillows" rather than open revolt by disgruntled conservatives.

This source also said that, in general, conservatives are skeptical about FEMA accounting and whether the agency truly needs supplemental funds.

GOP sources said they intend to attach the administration's disaster supplemental to one of the first 2004 appropriations bills to hit the floor, rather than move it as a stand-alone bill.

]]>

House subcommittees finally get spending allocations

Lisa Caruso — Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

This year's budget resolution gave appropriators in both chambers a total of $784.7 billion in discretionary dollars to divvy up among their 13 subcommittees. But appropriators have objected to constraints in the budget resolution that effectively reduced their total allocation-that this year's congressional budget resolution is more than $2 billion less than the budget Bush proposed, and that GOP leaders and the Budget Committee added $7.6 billion in spending to the budget that they did not offset. As a result, appropriators and GOP leaders have for weeks been at loggerheads over how to cover those shortfalls.

Contrary to what they took to Bush Tuesday, which called for rescinding $3 billion from the fiscal 2003 wartime supplemental and re-appropriating it to the regular 2003 defense accounts, they agreed to simply reduce the 2004 defense spending allocation by $3 billion, according to a GOP source.

On top of the $3 billion reduction, they also plan to move $2.2 billion in advanced 2004 appropriations-primarily for education-back into 2003. In total, the plan gives appropriators another $5.2 billion to work with, without exceeding the $784.7 billion spending limit.

The House Appropriations Committee consequently has made the following 2004 allocations. In the list below, they are compared to each subcommittee's 2003 enacted allocation and what Bush requested in his 2004 budget. The 2003 enacted number listed does not include the 2003 supplemental, and the 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations number is adjusted to reflect the shift of the $2.2 billion back into 2003:

AGRICULTURE: $17 billion; $17.4 billion this year ; $17.1 billion under Bush.

COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE: $37.9 billion; $36.3 billion this year; $37.7 billion under Bush.

DEFENSE: $368.7 billion; $364.3 billion this year; $371.7 billion under Bush.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $456 million; $509 million this year; $421 million under Bush.

ENERGY AND WATER: $27.1 billion; $25.8 billion this year; $26.9 billion under Bush.

FOREIGN OPERATIONS: $17.1 billion; $16.2 billion this year; $18.9 billion under Bush.

HOMELAND SECURITY: $28.5 billion; $21.9 billion this year; $27.5 billion under Bush.

INTERIOR: $19.6 billion; $19.76 billion this year; $19.55 billion under Bush.

LABOR-HHS: $138 billion; $134.4 billion this year; $137.99 billion under Bush.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: $3.5 billion; $3.3 billion this year; $3.8 billion under Bush.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION: $9.2 billion; $10.5 billion this year; $9.2 billion under Bush.

TRANSPORTATION-TREASURY: $27.5 billion; $27.78 billion this year; $27.8 billion under Bush.

VA-HUD: $90 billion; $87.1 billion this year; $89.4 billion under Bush.

]]>

Cheney signals White House support for spending plan

Lisa Caruso — Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

"We're flexible, and we're working with our colleagues up here on the Hill," Cheney said. "I'm confident we'll get the job done."

Today's meeting came on the heels of a Tuesday session among GOP leaders, appropriators and President Bush at the White House at which the group reached an understanding on finding more money for 2004 appropriations bills, although the administration still had concerns about the defense element of the plan. That prompted today's meeting among Cheney, Young and Stevens.

A spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee said the only issue left to work out is whether the $3 billion slated to be moved into the regular 2003 defense accounts should come out of the supplemental or the 2004 defense allocation. The president favors the latter course, the spokesman said.

They also intend to "re-credit" back into FY03 $2.2 billion in domestic appropriations-primarily education funding-that had been advanced into 2004 under the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill Congress passed in February. But adding another $2.2 billion back into the 2003 pot would subject the plan to a budget point of order for exceeding the cap and allocation for 2003 spending set in this year's budget resolution.

Because all but the final details have been hammered out, the House Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee was scheduled to mark up its 2004 bill Wednesday, and the Homeland Security Subcommittee will mark up its bill Thursday. The Defense spending bill, which the administration wants to be the first on the House floor, is slated for markup next Wednesday.

The committee spokesman said the vice president also reiterated other points Bush made at the Tuesday meeting: to make sure that his priorities, such as the global AIDS initiative, are not underfunded, and that this increase be the only spending increase this year.

That point should provide some reassurance to GOP conservatives, who have said the same thing. Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, chairwoman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said the group would support the deal only if it means that the 2004 tab will not be increased again later this year.

"We want it to be the end of the game, not the beginning," Myrick said.

On Tuesday, the leadership group, which also included House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., also agreed that appropriators would move earlier on some of the spending bills they normally hold until the end of the process.

To that end, Young said Tuesday that in addition to the Military Construction, Homeland Security and Defense spending bills, he and Stevens plan to act quickly on the Labor-HHS spending bill.

]]>

Hill leaders reach deal on fiscal 2004 spending levels

Lisa Caruso — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The four want to use up to $3 billion from defense and up to $2.2 billion from domestic accounts to effectively boost 2004 domestic spending, according to knowledgeable sources.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., plan to take their agreement to President Bush early next week, to get his blessing so appropriators can start marking up bills. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., said the meeting with Bush could come Monday or Tuesday.

Bush's support would enable them to counter potential complaints from defense hawks and fiscal conservatives. Republicans also are well aware that as the party in control of both Congress and the White House, they cannot allow a year-end appropriations train wreck like last year's.

Appropriators in both chambers, as well as their respective leaders, have been struggling for weeks to figure out how to divide the $784.7 billion provided under the budget resolution among their 13 subcommittees.

Because they must contend with a congressional budget that is $2.2 billion less than the Bush budget and contains $7.6 billion in spending increases that were not offset, appropriators have said they cannot make the cuts needed to stay within their limit and still write passable bills.

To avoid exceeding the $784.7 billion fiscal 2004 cap and still come up with the extra money they need, GOP leaders and the two chairmen want to rescind up to $3 billion from the fiscal 2003 wartime supplemental while reappropriating the same amount to the regular 2003 defense accounts, according to the sources.

By adding back extra 2003 money for defense, the leaders and Appropriations chairmen could then reduce the 2004 defense spending allocation by the equivalent amount, so that defense does not suffer a net loss of funds over the two fiscal years.

Lowering the 2004 defense allocation by up to $3 billion would then give appropriators that much headroom under the overall 2004 spending cap to beef up other accounts that might otherwise have to be cut.

On top of that $3 billion in headroom, appropriators may also use an accounting maneuver to "re-credit" $2.2 billion in appropriations that had been advanced into 2004 back into 2003, creating up to $5.2 billion in total 2004 headroom, the sources said.

This scenario balances out without assuming an 2004 supplemental later in the year. The White House has been adamant in saying it would not request another supplemental to cover war costs.

House Defense Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said he supports the proposed approach.

"It's not unreasonable at all to consider it," Lewis said. "There is little doubt-there is money in the pipeline" for multiyear contracts or other long-term initiatives that could be tapped, Lewis said.

Lewis, a defense hawk, added, "But certainly I wouldn't want to cut off our head to fill a hole in our pocket."

Despite the holdup in producing so-called 302(b) Appropriations subcommittee allocations, Young said he has already given many of his subcommittees preliminary allocations so they can begin preparing bills.

"For those where I know where I'm going to be close [to the final allocation], I gave them a number," Young told reporters.

Young added that he wants to get at least six bills through subcommittee markup before the end of June. According to one knowledgeable source, the bicameral leaders and committee chairmen are considering making the Defense, Military Construction and Labor-HHS first out of the gate.

]]>

White House may step in on appropriations bills

Lisa Caruso — Thu, 05 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Ultimately, Hastert and Frist want President Bush to back them up so that GOP conservatives and defense hawks do not revolt and refuse to go along with a proposal to rescind money from the fiscal 2003 supplemental spending bill and distribute it among subcommittees that would otherwise suffer potentially unsupportable cuts.

For more than a month now, appropriators have been stymied in their efforts to arrive at their respective 302(b) allocations, saying they cannot produce passable spending bills under the budget resolution's $784.5 billion spending limit-particularly when they are effectively starting out with $10 billion less than what they were allotted.

A succession of meetings between appropriators and leaders in both chambers has failed to produce a solution. The latest meeting, between Hastert and Young, took place Wednesday.

This year's congressional budget was roughly $2 billion to $3 billion less than President Bush's budget. In addition, it contains $7.6 billion in spending increases members insisted on-such as those for education, veterans and the National Science Foundation-that is not offset.

Starting that far in the red, appropriators say, means writing fiscal 2004 bills that would require significant cuts in programs members support.

House appropriators have proposed taking from $5 billion to $7 billion in unspent funds that were provided in the supplemental and adding it back into defense accounts later this year when Congress takes up a 2004 supplemental to cover further expenses incurred in the war in Iraq and its aftermath.

But because defense increases have become almost politically untouchable, Hastert reportedly wants to limit any rescission to around $3 billion.

Senate appropriators have been considering a number of different scenarios, but said they are willing to work with their House counterparts to arrive at a common solution. But Senate appropriators want to take the unprecedented step of producing joint subcommittee allocations with the House, while House appropriators insist on retaining the freedom to set their own spending priorities.

Bringing the White House into the expanding pool of negotiators-which only Wednesday grew to include House Majority Leader DeLay-represents a new wrinkle in the process and a change that has guardians of Congress' power of the purse worried that Congress is ceding too much power to the White House.

]]>

Outgoing OMB chief laments lack of progress in cutting government

Lisa Caruso — Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

"We did not make nearly the headway we should have made in affecting individual programmatic reform," Daniels said in an interview Thursday with National Journal Group publications. "Our batting average was not very good."

On the massive government reorganization required to create the Homeland Security Department, Daniels said it was the best way to coordinate antiterrorism policy across the government and less costly than letting 22 agencies tackle the problem independently.

But he added that managing homeland security policy will be "one of the biggest issues" the administration will face in the future as it determines "what risks are we going to defend America against" given the vast "continuum of threats" the country faces.

Daniels gave himself an "incomplete" on his aggressive efforts to curb the rising tide of congressional budget earmarks.

"It's one of those issues that lives on," he conceded.

Daniels said he thought OMB "made very legitimate [points], but in the end this is Congress' to decide." He did regret "letting the [issue] become too contentious, or letting it assume too much importance in people's eyes" compared to the many other problem areas OMB must tackle.

Nevertheless, Daniels said his successor, Josh Bolten, who has been deputy White House chief of staff for policy, will face "the same inherent tension" between OMB and congressional appropriators.

As for the continued growth in government spending during his tenure, Daniels emphasized the increase has been "heavily concentrated" in the areas of defense and homeland security necessitated by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the war in Iraq and the ongoing war on terrorism.

In the rest of government, he continued, "There's been a real deceleration in spending."

]]>

Lack of senior officials at Homeland Security stymies Congress

Lisa Caruso — Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 -0400

The Homeland Security Department has yet to fill many senior level positions, so the subcommittees still lack some of the information they need to write their bills.

In particular, appropriators say they have not received budget justifications, or have received incomplete justifications, from several agencies within the department, including the sprawling Transportation Security Administration.

Budget justifications explain the thinking behind the administration's funding requests and how it plans to spend the requested funds.

In fact, House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., ended a hearing on the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection budget request after giving his opening statement because the bureau had not submitted its budget justifications. The bureau has since done so.

Vacancies at many important posts in the department, including in the budget and legislative affairs offices, have prevented committee members and staff from forging the working relationships necessary to ensure clear communication between the homeland security panels and the Homeland Security Department.

But subcommittee leaders say they understand the enormous task the administration faces in pulling together 22 different agencies with different cultures and missions into one entity.

While the creation of the Homeland Security Department is the largest reorganization of the federal government since the Defense Department was assembled more than 50 years ago, Rogers said, "I think it's a lot more complicated and difficult to achieve."

So far, the subcommittees have experienced few bumps in the road internally, although the House and Senate Appropriations committees did get into a spat initially when House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., reorganized his panel to create the subcommittee, but failed to inform Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, before the new structure was made public.

The chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate panels all say they work well together and have assembled a knowledgeable and experienced staff.

Rogers is teamed up with ranking member Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn. The two were chairman and ranking member respectively of the Transportation Subcommittee in the last Congress and already enjoy a rapport, both said.

In the Senate, Agriculture Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., also is the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. Full committee ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., serves as the subcommittee's ranking Democrat. The two have nothing but compliments about each other.

And just having worked together on the homeland security portion of the fiscal 2003 war supplemental, subcommittee members have already had what amounts to a dry run to prepare for writing their stand-alone 2004 bill.

"I think it's like a ship," Cochran said of the experience. "You take it on a shakedown cruise [to work the kinks out], but the ship is operating. Now we're into the deep water."

Nevertheless, they have run into a few problems-such as the $900 million shortfall TSA is now trying to plug, potentially with money appropriated for other uses. Several subcommittees have reprimanded TSA in the past for how it manages its budget.

Another wrinkle concerns whether 2003 funds appropriated to the constituent agencies before the department was operational are being used for their intended purposes-as required by the law establishing the department-when they are transferred to the department's control.

But subcommittee members say their primary hurdle to clear is how much they still have to learn.

"We're on a terribly steep learning curve," Rogers said. "But then again, no one really thought about homeland security before [Sept. 11]-here are so many legitimate demands, it's really been a crash course for us to figure out what the needs are."

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said: "The bigger challenge is trying to find out who is in charge of what and for what purpose. The phrase to use is 'getting a grip.' But so are the guys sitting at the witness table, so I don't feel so bad."

In the category of minor irritants, Rogers said his subcommittee has been "bouncing around from one hearing room to another" because it does not have a permanent room. But Rogers was quick to add, "We've come a long way, and I'm really pleased about where we are."

Ironically, Rogers initially opposed the creation the department he now funds and oversees. "I voted against creating the department," he noted, "and I'm trying to prove myself wrong."

]]>