Government Executive - Authors - Mary Lehman

Deal boosts VA budget, cuts HUD, EPA, NASA

Mary Lehman — Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:00:00 -0400

After striking a deal with the Office of Management and Budget earlier in the day, House and Senate conferees agreed Thursday night on the broad terms of a $69.6 billion fiscal 2000 VA-HUD spending bill.

Most significant, said conferees, is that the bill includes $1.7 billion above the administration's request for veterans' medical care and $2.5 billion in emergency aid for destruction caused by Hurricane Floyd, while restoring deep cuts in the House bill for HUD, the EPA, the National Science Foundation and NASA.

Most conferees lauded the bipartisan efforts of Senate VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Christopher (Kit) Bond, R- Mo., and ranking member Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., to craft a compromise measure President Clinton now appears poised to sign.

Just last Friday, the administration issued a strong veto threat against the bill.

Mikulski called the funding package "an outstanding framework we can be proud of ... and absolutely report on a bipartisan, bicameral basis with the concurrence of the White House."

House VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman James Walsh, R-N.Y., acknowledged the complaints of some that the conference was proceeding too quickly, but said members had no choice given that the new fiscal year is already under way.

The strength of the conference vehicle, he said, is that it contains real offsets to balance spending increases while staying within prescribed budget caps.

But House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., said while the measure contains more adequate funding for a number of initiatives, it does so in part because it includes $4.2 billion in delayed appropriations for Section 8 housing.

"Washington is the weirdest place in the world when it comes to the truth about numbers ... we've reached new heights this fiscal year," Obey added.

Bond countered that the White House had agreed to the Section 8 deferral and said it would be impossible to pass the measure without it.

By Thursday evening, some policy issues in the spending bill remained unresolved, according to committee staff. Most notable among those were riders prohibiting the use of funds by nonprofit organizations and other grantees to lobby or sue the federal government.

Half a dozen Senate Democrats, including Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was a conferee, Thursday sent a letter to Bond urging those riders be stripped from the bill because of the "extremely dangerous precedent" they would set and because of the many unintended consequences they might have.

]]>

GOP blasts President Clinton's travel costs

Mary Lehman — Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 -0400

The Senate Republican Policy Committee Tuesday blasted President Clinton for his "excessive" foreign travel, with Policy Committee Chairman Larry Craig of Idaho dubbing the cost of the trips "almost abusive" in an era when fiscal responsibility and budgetary reductions are the watchwords in Washington.

Craig said Republicans were not taking issue with the president's need to travel abroad, but he questioned the $72.1 million price tag of 1998 trips to Africa, Chile and China.

Particularly vexing, according to Craig and Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., is the fact that about 84 percent of the costs associated with those trips came from the Defense Department's U.S. Military Readiness Fund.

Sessions said the money spent on the three trips could fund a four-year campaign to get thousands of military personnel off food stamps, or could support tens of thousands of new recruits for all branches of the military.

The backdrop for the committee's complaint was a draft report conducted by the GAO that found the president's trips to Africa, Chile and China cost $42.8 million, $10.5 million and $18.8 million, respectively.

The cost of the Africa trip, which included 1,300 federal agency staff, was called "ludicrous" by Thomas, while Craig called it "an awful high price tag to pay for an apology."

When pressed to explain that statement further, a flustered Craig refused one reporter's suggestion it had something to do with slavery, saying, "I wouldn't make a statement about that and I won't respond to the Africa question."

Craig also denied the report represented a campaign by Republicans to "get" the president. By way of comparison, he noted that President Reagan traveled abroad just 84 days in eight years, while President Bush traveled overseas 86 days in four years.

However, Republicans had no dollar figures on the Reagan or Bush trips, saying it would have taken the GAO another year or more to collect that data.

]]>

IG agrees with lawmakers on AmeriCorps mismanagement

Mary Lehman — Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 -0400

CongressDaily

Despite claims to the contrary by the chairman and members of a House subcommittee, Tuesday's AmeriCorps oversight hearing was a mostly partisan affair in which Republicans criticized federal management of President Clinton's pet program while Democrats defended it.

The only twist was that the inspector general for AmeriCorps' parent agency, the Corporation for National Service, was in accord with the GOP majority. Inspector General Luise Jordan said AmeriCorps had not succeeded in addressing any of nine "material weaknesses" identified by her office in audits over the past several years.

In a hearing titled "The Failed Promise of the Corporation for National Service," it was unsurprising to hear Education and the Workforce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., complain about the "broken promises and broken commitments" of a program many Republicans have sought to abolish since the GOP took control of Congress in 1995.

Nor was it unusual to hear the panel's ranking member, Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., say that isolated problems aside, the overall benefits of the program, which awards college tuition money to volunteers, are immeasurable.

What was unique was Roemer chastising Jordan, the IG, for her critical testimony, saying she was in essence blaming former Sen. Harris Wofford, D-Pa., now CEO of the Corporation for National Service, for mismanagement by state commissions.

Under the 1993 statute that created AmeriCorps, the Corporation for National Service, based in Washington, passes two-thirds of its funding through to state commissions that award grants to and monitor local programs.

"You're advocating more resources for oversight," Roemer said to Jordan. "Are you aware the House has zero-funded AmeriCorps?" He added that if anyone is responsible for oversight of the $714.5 million program, it is Congress, which devolved administration of AmeriCorps to the states. Congress may be responsible, shot back Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., but so is the administration.

Robert Rogers, chairman of the board of the Corporation for National Service, had testified that AmeriCorps was in the process of implementing several changes to address concerns about financial management, including a new computer system that is Y2K compliant and a Web-based reporting system to provide "real-time" information about volunteers and hours logged.

Those are examples of progress that do not get talked about enough in the oversight hearings, a spokeswoman for the corporation said later.

She noted that the corporation was given a tall task when it had to integrate 30 years of financial records for programs such as VISTA that now come under AmeriCorps.

Rogers and subcommittee Democrats insisted that AmeriCorps programs that are grossly mismanaged, as was the case in Terre Haute, Ind.- are an anomaly and should be treated as such. Hoekstra essentially agreed, stating several times that thousands of young Americans have done good work through the program.

But he questioned the wisdom of Washington "running money through [state] organizations that aren't built up enough" to do the job, a reference to the state commissions that administer AmeriCorps grants.

]]>

Senator lifts threat to block all Clinton nominations

Mary Lehman — Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:00:00 -0400

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., late Wednesday lifted his threat to block all Clinton administration nominations, thus clearing the way for the most high-profile pending nomination, that of Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers to replace departing Secretary Robert Rubin.

Inhofe had announced last week that he would block all nominations after President Clinton used a recess appointment to name San Francisco philanthropist James Hormel, who is openly gay, as ambassador to Luxembourg.

The White House informed the Senate leadership Wednesday that, in the future, it would observe the so-called Byrd-Reagan agreement of 1985 and notify the Senate, in advance of a recess, of any pending appointments.

In a prepared statement, Inhofe called the White House pledge a "victory for the Constitution."

And a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., expressed satisfaction with the policy, saying it was the "precise remedy" sought by Inhofe and Lott.

"We're glad he backed down," a Clinton aide said Wednesday of Inhofe's action. "This was never about process in the first place. It's a victory for the forces of tolerance."

Now, Summers' nomination hearing will likely be cordial, according to majority and minority aides, and little in the way of stiff or organized opposition is expected.

However, some Republicans do have concerns about Summers' views on a handful of issues, particularly those involving foreign policy.

One Republican committee source, while stressing that it appears Summers will be confirmed, indicated some GOP members have reservations about his policies on International Monetary Fund issues and foreign currency.

And still troubling to some Republicans is the comment Summers made earlier this year about proponents of estate tax relief. Summers said legislators seeking to repeal estate taxes were guilty of "pure selfishness," which caused a furor.

Republicans may remind Summers of the comment and seek clarification on his views.

A Democratic committee aide predicted Summers will receive a "very good response," adding that among members on both sides there is "respect for Summers even if a senator may disagree with the ways he's handled certain issues."

The source anticipated that members will ask Summers a broad range of questions from the world economic crisis to the fiscal soundness of Medicare and Social Security reform plans.

A Lott spokesman said he was unsure whether Lott would attend the hearing, and but added that Lott does not appear to have any objections to Summers.

"I have not heard that [Lott] has a disfavorable opinion" of him, the spokesman said.

]]>

Kasich urges GOP to focus on cutting government

Mary Lehman — Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:00:00 -0400

House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio, Tuesday chastised his Republican colleagues for losing the "will and discipline to cut spending," and urged them to get back on track to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

Appearing at a news conference hosted by Citizens Against Government Waste, Kasich lauded the group's "Prime Cuts" report recommending $1.2 trillion in budget reductions over five years-although he said he did not necessarily agree with some targets.

For example, Kasich-a candidate for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination-said President Clinton's AmeriCorps program should be reformed rather than eliminated. However, he said he knew of no federal program that was not fraught with "waste, abuse and duplication," and he renewed the 1994 GOP call to eliminate the Commerce and Energy departments. Of the $1.2 trillion in cuts outlined in the report, Kasich said there is "surely $100 billion we can all agree ought to go."

Pressed by reporters on what programs he would cut, Kasich said reductions and reforms are needed throughout every federal agency. He cited the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program that provides research and development grants to private corporations. The program is the epitome of "corporate welfare" and a "big, fat giveaway," Kasich said. The effort to identify cuts is "not a matter of where, it's a matter of will," he added.

Asked how his budget cutting message fit with that of House Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., Kasich said Hastert had exhibited "Good Shepherd leadership" in the GOP Conference this morning in which he urged Republicans to stay within the spending caps of the 1997 balanced budget agreement.

But the GOP mantra to balance the budget may have been misguided, said Kasich, suggesting the message should be to shrink the size of government. He likened the Republican budget cutting effort to mountain climbing, saying once the federal budget was in balance, the GOP reached a summit that turned out to be a false one. "We have to climb beyond that false summit. We've been breathing long enough. It's time to climb again," he said.

The Citizens Against Government Waste report targeted spending cuts in every major department and agency. Its recommendations included limiting federal pay raises, reducing law enforcement overtime pay by $100 million over five years, deferring and reducing federal retirees' cost-of-living hikes, and cutting matching funds in the Thrift Savings Plan.

"Even with modest alterations in these generous federal retirement benefits, federal employees would still enjoy retirement benefits comparable to or better than most private-sector plans," the report said.

]]>

FDA Reform Fight Coming

Mary Lehman — Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:00:00 -0400

A Senate Food and Drug Administration reform bill that virtually sailed through the Labor and Human Resources Committee will receive a rougher reception on the Senate floor this week, as growing numbers of members and interest groups battle to preserve or target the more contentious provisions in the legislation.

The most controversial and high-profile issue continues to be the bill's so-called national uniformity language, which was adopted as an amendment by the committee. The national uniformity standard in the legislation pre-empts state and local laws governing warnings on cosmetics and non-prescription drugs, prohibiting "different or additional requirements" than those in the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Consumer, public interest and environmental groups have launched an aggressive campaign to strip the language from the bill, charging that it undermines states' rights and will gut strong, pro-consumer laws such as California's Proposition 65. That law, enacted by referendum in 1986, mandates that businesses either inform the public that they are being exposed to carcinogens or reproductive toxins or remove those chemicals. The statute most recently was credited with forcing manufacturers to eliminate lead in calcium supplements.

Supporters, such as the Environmental Defense Fund's David Roe, point out that the Reagan and Bush administrations resisted efforts by industry to pre-empt the law. Also, noted Roe, a review panel convened in 1991 by California Gov. Pete Wilson concluded that "by federal standards," the statute had resulted in "100 years of progress" in hazard identification, risk and exposure assessment.

But proponents of the national uniformity language in the Senate bill counter that, far from being new, uniform federal laws have long existed for medical devices and meat and poultry inspection and should be expanded to include over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics.

A coalition of some 60 organizations, led by the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association, this week launched a letter-writing campaign to senators asking that they preserve the national uniformity language.

"This is a pro-consumer provision, it's having one [standard] versus 50 mini-FDAs," said a spokeswoman for the NDMA.

Senate aides say the issue still is being negotiated, and there may be a possibility for compromise.

However, if no agreement is struck, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif., reportedly will offer an amendment to delete the provision.

Another contentious issue is off-label uses for drugs, which a Labor and Human Resources Committee spokesman described as "one of the bigger outstanding issues" that, ironically, is not even in the bill.

Sens. Connie Mack, R-Fla., and Bill Frist, R-Tenn., reportedly will offer a floor amendment that would allow pharmaceutical companies to provide physicians with information about scientific studies showing that a drug has benefits in addition to those for which it was approved.

One Democratic source charged the provision would lead to "unfettered promotion of unproven drug uses" and added that if the issue cannot be resolved, it will be "tough for [Labor and Human Resources Chairman Jeffords] to get a time agreement" on the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Lott, concerned about the tight floor schedule, outstanding appropriations and reconciliation bills and the looming August recess, has encouraged Jeffords to get a time agreement with Democrats.

The legislation may be brought to the Senate floor as early as Tuesday, but aides said it is more likely to come up Wednesday, depending on the status of reconciliation and appropriations bills.

]]>

Shutdowns and Supplementals

Lisa Caruso and Mary Lehman — Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:00:00 -0400

With the FY97 disaster relief and supplemental spending bill due before the Senate Appropriations Committee this afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Daschle and OMB Director Raines both warned Tuesday the measure will be vetoed if it includes a so- called automatic continuing resolution provision.

At least three other provisions Republicans want added to the bill also are being termed "deal-killers."

Senate Democrats sharply assailed GOP attempts to offer the four last-minute amendments during an Appropriations markup that was abruptly canceled Tuesday.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Stevens said Republicans would try to add some of the four amendments to the supplemental bill during the markup today, while others would be pushed on the floor. Stevens said Republicans would try to get the automatic continuing resolution provision added to the bill in committee, and would probably wait to offer an amendment withholding funding for President Clinton's executive order on federal contracts until the bill goes to the floor.

No decision had been made at presstime on when Republicans would attempt to attach amendments regarding right-of-ways on federal land and the 2000 census.

But Stevens said any of the amendments that do not get added to the bill in committee would be offered again on the floor. Regarding the continuing resolution provision, Stevens said "all I'm trying to do is prevent another situation" where the government gets shut down and "people get paid for not working ... That's not going to happen on my watch. We'll have a CR day by day if we have to," Stevens declared in an agitated tone.

Senate Majority Leader Lott said he expects the Senate to begin debate on the FY97 supplemental bill next Monday, and, if necessary, vote on cloture Wednesday. Lott said the aim would be to bring the supplemental to a final floor vote next Thursday and deliver the package to the president by Memorial Day.

On Clinton's threat to veto the supplemental if it contains the continuing resolution or federal contracting language, Lott said, "If the administration wants to veto it, go ahead, then that's their problem."

Lott said Republicans are pushing the automatic continuing resolution idea because they want to avert a "man-made disaster" and the "kind of chaos we usually see at the end of the fiscal year."

Tuesday's scheduled markup of the FY97 supplemental bill was postponed after Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and other Democrats objected vociferously to the four last-minute changes sought by committee Republicans and members of the GOP leadership.

All four of the amendments are considered controversial, but Byrd and Daschle singled out as the most objectionable the amendment providing for an automatic continuing resolution when appropriations bills are not passed prior to the start of a fiscal year.

Daschle's office Tuesday afternoon backed off an earlier statement that a point of order might be raised against the continuing resolution provision. But a spokeswoman said Daschle remains "very much opposed to the CR [amendment] being attached to this bill."

The spokeswoman added Daschle is particularly miffed because he believes Republicans "are playing politics with very much needed disaster assistance."

The bill includes $5.5 billion in emergency appropriations for flooding and other disaster relief in the Ohio Valley, Southeast, Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest, including Daschle's home state of South Dakota.

The continuing resolution amendment, requested by Senate Commerce Chairman McCain, would fund federal agencies and departments at 98 percent of the previous year's level until Congress appropriates money or until the end of the new fiscal year.

White House Press Secretary Michael McCurry said the president would strongly oppose the automatic continuing resolution provision.

"It's a very bad idea and I think would represent something of bad faith on the part of the Republicans' side if they were to try to write a provision into law that said the government may continue to do its work only under terms that Congress specifies," McCurry said.

Meanwhile, negotiations continued Tuesday between the Senate Republican leadership and White House officials to discuss alternatives and changes to the executive order on federal contracts, which the Republicans have charged would favor union contractors.

Senate Republicans late Tuesday were evaluating new information about the executive order on government contracts provided by the White House earlier in the day, but no major progress had been made, GOP aides said.

Republicans also want to include language in the supplemental to block implementation of a new Interior Department policy on road rights of way on federal land.

The policy, issued Jan. 22, asserts that the department has final say on whether the rights of way would be granted to local governments.

Local governments in Western states, particularly Utah and Alaska, are claiming that many of the rights of way contain highways that should be under local control.

However, environmental groups have said that many of the rights of way contain only footpaths or old wagon trails and are being used to prevent designation of roadless areas that could be declared wilderness or national preserves.

--Mary Ann Akers, Steven Cook and Matthew Morrissey contributed to this story.

]]>

Senate Tackles FDA Reform

Mary Lehman — Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:00:00 -0500

The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee this week reopens the FDA reform debate with the first hearing of the 105th Congress on the subject to be held Wednesday. But already, the effort to modernize the agency appears to have less urgency than it did in the 104th Congress. Hill sources insist there is still significant interest in reform legislation, but they concede there are some major tactical questions that have yet to be answered, the most significant of which is whether to tie FDA reform to reauthorization of the Prescription Drug Users Fee Act. The latter statute levies fees on drug companies, which provide a crucial revenue source for the agency, enabling the FDA to review and approve new drugs quicker. The law expires at the end of FY97.

Some industry sources contend the reform landscape has changed significantly with the departure of former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, a controversial figure who was intensely disliked by some key congressional Republicans, including House Commerce Chairman Bliley. Kessler's replacement has not been named yet, which may make FDA reform less pressing, some sources suggested. Said one pharmaceutical industry representative, "Congress doesn't know exactly how much to push ... they have much less of an adversary at FDA, [but] now they don't know what they're up against." A House Commerce Democratic aide said there is "a lot of truth" to the assessment that, for congressional Republicans, Kessler was a major factor in the reform equation.

"A lot of people held the view that it wasn't about FDA's statutory authority ... it was the way the law was being implemented," said the aide.

But a Senate GOP aide close to the issue dismissed the notion that the agency's problems began and ended with Kessler.

"They can characterize it as personality ... we happen to think there are attitudinal problems at FDA from the top down," the Senate aide said, adding that reform remains a "front burner, high priority issue" for many Senate Republicans.

Reform may be less of priority than it was two years ago for the pharmaceutical industry, one industry source suggested, because the FDA has significantly speeded up the drug approval process.

According to a FDA spokesman, the agency last year authorized the manufacture of more than 50 new drugs, twice as many as it had approved in the past.

"It's an acknowledged fact that we can't criticize [the drug approval process] anymore," said the pharmaceutical industry source, adding that the FDA has done a "remarkable job" in improving its performance.

The Senate GOP aide contended if the industry is so pleased with the FDA's progress, there is an argument for codifying those changes in law.

FDA reform proponents are interested in other issues as well, the aide noted, particularly what the aide called "gross lapses" in the approval of food additives and medical devices.

A spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America agreed. The GMA is pushing for a uniform federal standard for food ingredient safety instructions, authority over food health claims for agencies other than the FDA and an expedited review process for food additives.

That process is supposed to take 180 days, but currently takes four to six years, according to the GMA spokesman.

He said the group is optimistic that reform legislation will be introduced soon.

The Senate GOP aide said legislative talks are ongoing, and predicted that a bill will "burst on the scene" in the next several weeks. Reform proponents are aiming for several sponsors among both Republican and Democrat members, according to the aide.

The question of whether to address the PDUFA separately or together with FDA reform has not been decided, but many some Senate Republicans view the pharmaceutical bill as a "carrot in the garden of FDA reform," the GOP aide said. They believe the PDUFA should be part of FDA reform rather than a stand-alone measure, although separate PDUFA legislation "has not been discounted," the aide said.

In the House, the thinking is different, according to the House Commerce Democratic aide.

According to the aide, in a bipartisan meeting last week that included administration representatives, aides to Bliley indicated he may seek to reauthorize PDUFA and consider a limited FDA reform bill that addresses only drug approval and related issues, possibly including so-called off-label, or additional uses, for approved drugs.

"Policy-wise, it may make sense ... process-wise, it may not," said the Democratic aide, adding that too many other interest groups would be left out.

This week, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee will hear only from the FDA.

The agency will give a "status report" on where it is, what it has accomplished over the past year, and where it is headed, said a spokesman. "Our message will be that the industry has to be open to change, particularly in an era of limited resources," the spokesman said.

]]>