Government Executive - Authors - Matthew Morrissey

House advances final fiscal 2000 spending package

Lisa Caruso, Geoff Earle, and Matthew Morrissey — Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:00 -0500

The House adjourned for the year Thursday after passing the final $385 billion, five-bill fiscal 2000 spending package, which includes a 0.38 percent across-the-board spending cut and a delay in some federal employees' paychecks by a day next September to shift payroll costs into fiscal 2001.

The omnibus bill consists of the last five fiscal 2000 appropriations bills: Interior, Commerce-Justice-State, Labor- HHS, Interior and District of Columbia.

The Senate, meanwhile, twisted itself into a parliamentary knot that will stretch debate on the omnibus appropriations bill through the rest of the weekend.

Under the budget bill, the scheduled Saturday Sept. 30, 2000 pay day for the military and some civilian federal workers would move to Sunday, Oct. 1, the first day of fiscal 2001. That move would save the government $1.9 billion in fiscal 2000 payroll costs. The 0.38 percent across-the-board cut would save only about $1.3 billion in fiscal 2000.

When lawmakers proposed a 1 percent across-the-board cut earlier in the budget debates, they agreed to cut their own salaries by that much. But in the end, lawmakers saved their own salaries from the 0.38 percent cut.

Also, the House and Senate passed a continuing resolution that will keep the government agencies that still lack their fiscal 2000 appropriations operating through Dec. 2. That continuing resolution and other bills are being flown to President Clinton, who is in Europe, for his signature. Appropriators extended their original continuing resolution of Nov. 23 to Dec. 2 because Congress will not come back into session until after Thanksgiving if Senate debate over the omnibus bill lasts past Sunday.

]]>

Congress seeks to wrap up business by Nov. 11

Keith Koffler, Geoff Earle, and Matthew Morrissey — Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:00:00 -0500

In addition to completing negotiations on the remaining appropriations bills, House Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., Tuesday said a handful of key legislative priorities are still alive for the year-despite an adjournment date next week that he expects to meet.

"The president's leaving town, 22 senators are leaving town. My guess is we'll get out of here Nov. 10," Hastert said in an interview with National Journal Group publications, including CongressDaily. Separately, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said he "expects" to finish the session by Veterans Day-next Thursday, Nov. 11.

The Senate passed the final fiscal 2000 appropriations bill Wednesday as the Republican leadership struggled to secure the votes to adopt the District of Columbia/Labor-HHS conference report and its 1 percent across-the-board spending cut. The package was narrowly passed on a 49-48 vote only after GOP leaders prevailed upon Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who initially voted against adoption, to change his vote.

President Clinton has vowed to veto the Labor-HHS bill and Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said, "The White House is going to come into these negotiations very strong," particularly in its opposition to the across-the-board cut, which Harkin called a "poison pill."

Although administration negotiators continue to push Republicans on a wide range of budget issues, the White House views several initiatives as having top-tier status. Based on discussions with White House officials and public statements by President Clinton, these include: funding to hire 50,000 police officers; the latest installment on hiring 100,000 new teachers; payment of U.S. debts to the United Nations; the president's "Lands Legacy" program to protect wilderness areas; and deleting from the fiscal 2000 Interior spending bill riders the White House views as anti-environmental.

]]>

The inside story of how one agency became independent

Matthew Morrissey — Mon, 01 Nov 1999 00:00:00 -0500

Transportation Department officials in recent weeks have again found themselves to be pawns in the ongoing, increasingly bitter feud between House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster, R-Pa., and House Transportation Appropriations Chairman Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., over who gets to set transportation policy.

And one of those pawns is now paying the price: Wolf has asked the department's inspector general to launch a criminal investigation of Julie Cirillo, the Office of Motor Carriers administrator, regarding a memo she wrote to her employees. Although Cirillo's memo appeared to be an innocent update about the effects of the then-pending Transportation appropriations bill, Wolf interpreted it as unfair lobbying by the Clinton Administration against his plan to reform the Office of Motor Carriers. Wolf also accused Cirillo's department of leaking the memo to CongressDaily, which published its contents during the height of his battle with Shuster over the appropriations bill.

Shuster and his committee members also drew Transportation Department officials into the legislative turf war with Wolf. But when those officials did not provide a doomsday scenario about the effect of Wolf's bill on truck safety, committee members relentlessly pounded them with questions until they did.

In interviews, several Transportation officials said that the flap is just the most recent example of Wolf and Shuster dragging innocent bystanders into their perpetual turf war. Officials play along because they are reluctant to offend either chairman. Shuster's committee authorizes all of the Transportation Department programs, but Wolf's pays for them through appropriations.

"It's a very unpleasant place to be. It's a no-win situation for us," said a Transportation official, echoing the comments of others.

Since assuming their respective chairmanships with the Republican takeover of the House in 1995, Shuster and Wolf have engaged in a nasty battle over the authority to set transportation policy.

In last year's highway and transit reauthorization bill, Shuster enacted "fire walls" around that bill's spending for the next six years. That means appropriators such as Wolf cannot change the level or direction of highway and transit spending in annual appropriations bills. Because those highway and transit programs make up the bulk of the yearly Transportation appropriations bill, Wolf now has influence over the Federal Aviation Administration, Amtrak, and the Coast Guard only-a situation Wolf complains about frequently.

But Wolf cares deeply about transportation safety issues. So every year in his appropriations bills, Wolf makes some of the Transportation Department's funding, or state program funding, contingent on the enactment of policy changes by the Administration or states. Shuster criticizes such provisions as legislating on appropriations bills, a maneuver that violates House and Senate rules.

When Wolf brought his fiscal 2000 Transportation appropriations bill to the House floor this year, Shuster used a procedural move to strike out those policy riders. But Wolf resurrected many of them during conference committee negotiations. When Shuster found out, he and the top Democrat on his committee, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., plotted to defeat the conference report on the House floor.

Shuster is a master at vote counting, and has handed his own Republican leadership a series of embarrassing defeats on the floor during the past couple of years. He might have won again this time, but the leadership, tiring of Shuster's intransigence, stuck it to him. First, Wolf refused to give Shuster a copy of the conferenced bill until the last minute it had to be made public-at 10 o'clock the night before the bill came to the House floor. Republican leaders then told Shuster that it would not come up for debate until the next afternoon. But they instead brought it up at 9 a.m. and called for a vote 10 minutes later, when Shuster was nowhere near the floor to object. The GOP leadership passed the bill without Shuster's even being present to speak. Appropriators and the leadership beamed with the satisfaction of revenge.

Shuster was furious. "Cute moves like that have a way of coming back to haunt people," he said.

That might have been the high-water mark of the Shuster-Wolf battle for this year. But there was a problem with the Transportation appropriations bill.

The Office of Motor Carriers is responsible for regulating and policing the safety of large trucks and other commercial vehicles, including passenger buses. But for the past two years, Wolf has accused the office of being lax about enforcing those laws. Wolf believes that the OMC has become too cozy with the trucking industry and that it is less than vigilant about pursuing and punishing safety violators. Therefore, in his appropriations bill, Wolf wrote a provision denying the OMC funding until it was moved out from under the bureaucracy of the Federal Highway Administration.

With the bill heading to President Clinton's desk, Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater took administrative action during the first week of October to make the OMC a separate agency reporting directly to him. Wolf had won a legislative victory through his appropriations bill.

But the bill's language did not move the OMC's authority to enforce civil penalties for safety violators from the Federal Highway Administration to wherever Slater moved the OMC. And Slater did not have the power to move that legal authority on his own. During the week between passage of the bill and President Clinton's signing it, Transportation Department aides scrambled to figure out the ramifications.

That's when Cirillo, on Oct. 4, wrote an internal e-mail to her employees. Her first point was to emphasize-in all capital letters-that all OMC employees would retain their jobs and would be paid, even though the office would be moved on the bureaucratic chart. But with questions still surrounding the effect of the enforcement provision, Cirillo wrote her interpretation: that employees were to temporarily stop enforcement of some safety laws. "The members of the enforcement team will be reassigned to perform other duties in the resource centers or in division offices. . . . No work will be done on any enforcement action," she wrote. Cirillo added later that employees "who are working on enforcement actions with the IG, FBI, or U.S. Attorney will have to cease these operations until further notice."

When the memo was leaked to CongressDaily on Oct. 6, Transportation officials went into a frenzy. They feared the effect of news reports that truck safety laws were about to lapse, but they could not officially refute Cirillo's memo.

Meanwhile, Shuster heard about the memo and called for a hearing the next day at which the Administration would testify on the situation. The President had not signed the bill yet. If Shuster could rally enough news coverage that truck safety laws were about to lapse, there was a chance the bad publicity might force Clinton to veto the bill. Shuster's aides maintain that the chairman's intent was not to have Clinton veto the bill. But if there was a veto, Shuster would have gained another shot at knocking out all the legislative provisions he opposed in Wolf's bill, most of which did not relate to the OMC.

At the hearing, General Counsel Nancy McFadden of the Transportation Department and Jack Basso, the assistant secretary for budget and programs, testified that truck safety enforcement activities limited by the bill would affect only the pursuing of civil penalties in court-and that federal officers, including border inspectors, would still have the power to immediately take unsafe trucks off the road and conduct immediate inspections of truck company logs and operations. During the reading of her prepared remarks, McFadden downplayed any safety problems that might arise. Without saying so directly, McFadden and Basso indicated that Cirillo's memo exaggerated the situation, and that public safety was not at immediate risk.

But Shuster and his committee members did not want to hear that. They argued that public safety was, indeed, in jeopardy. After persistent questioning from Republican and Democratic members, McFadden moved toward their position, saying: "Our enforcement efforts will be severely hampered."

Within the space of 20 minutes, the Administration swung from supporting Wolf's view that the provision would not dramatically affect truck safety, to supporting Shuster's view that it would. These officials were caught between Wolf and Shuster, who is still considered one of the "Old Bulls" of committee chairmen.

The following day, Shuster sought to move a bill on the House floor that would have repealed Wolf's OMC provision until Shuster could move his own office reform bill. But in a deal with the leadership, which did not want another fight, Shuster agreed to draft a noncontroversial bill that simply moved the civil enforcement authority for the OMC from the Federal Highway Administration to the Transportation Secretary, who now directly oversees the OMC. The Senate passed it by unanimous consent, and Clinton signed it without fanfare.

All is now well with truck safety enforcement. The OMC is its own agency focusing on safety. Wolf won his battle-but he is still mad. Back when Wolf wrote his bill, he asked Transportation Department officials to draft the legislative language to move the OMC. Wolf and his staff members now blame those officials for failing to include the language needed to move the civil enforcement authority-the cause of the uproar.

Both chairmen have smart, savvy staff members-but they are also strong-willed and aggressive. Department officials said one of the problems they have with both Shuster and Wolf is that those staff members often pressure them to provide testimony, papers, position letters, or legislation to support each chairman's agenda. If they are perceived by Shuster or Wolf of taking the other chairman's side, department officials catch the blame.

And Wolf is still angry enough to request a criminal investigation of Cirillo by the inspector general. Cirillo declined a request for an interview, but an aide maintained that the OMC chief's only motive was to keep her employees informed of a situation that could potentially affect their jobs and paychecks.

A department official outside the OMC who regularly navigates the moat of alligators between Shuster and Wolf said: "You've got to be very careful around these folks."

]]>

Auditors question Amtrak's financial claims

Matthew Morrissey — Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:00:00 -0400

While Amtrak management Thursday claimed the railroad is on target to reach self-sufficiency by 2003, the General Accounting Office and Transportation Department's inspector general clouded that rosy scenario, testifying that Amtrak has made little improvement and will have a tough time meeting that goal.

Not counting the federal assistance Amtrak received in fiscal 1999, the railroad lost $907 million last year, down only $23 million from the year before, according to a GAO report released Thursday.

The railroad estimates its net losses, without federal subsidies, to be $828 million in fiscal 2000. While that means the railroad is making progress, it will be tough to close that gap within two years, the GAO said.

Amtrak's business plan also includes broad categories of cost-saving initiatives referred to as "undefined initiatives" and "planned management actions to be developed." The GAO said, "These categories represent $210 million in net financial improvements for which Amtrak has not identified specific initiatives or developed any plan of action when the budget was approved."

The GAO and IG reports come near the two-year anniversary of Congress passing an Amtrak reform bill that restructured the railroad and provided $2.1 billion over two years for capital investments. The legislation removed many of the restrictive work rules for its labor force, and gave the railroad leeway to set its own route structure based on economic viability, rather than the political whims of Congress.

Amtrak President George Warrington Thursday told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Ground Transportation Subcommittee that the railroad by December will finish collecting data about potential route restructuring, and create a new route map soon thereafter. Warrington said the "city-pairs" and routes will be based not only upon potential passenger volumes, but also on revenue that can be generated by carrying freight. He said Amtrak is dramatically increasing its revenue now that Congress lets it carry freight cars of refrigerated goods and express packages.

But the outside reports said Amtrak faces both short-term and long-term challenges. Implementation of the new high speed service between Washington and Boston has experienced delays; Amtrak is counting on that profitable route to subsidize losses on other routes.

The IG report said the infrastructure along the route is in disrepair. "If these infrastructure improvements are not made, the quality of high speed service on the Northeast Corridor will start to deteriorate, threatening ridership and revenue that are essential for Amtrak to maintain operating self- sufficiency."

In addition, the IG said the $2.1 billion given to Amtrak in the 1997 budget deal "will not be enough to cover its minimum capital needs." And the GAO found that Amtrak has used one-third of the money to cover routine maintenance, instead of capital investment.

]]>

DOT safety office faces possible shutdown

Matthew Morrissey — Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:00:00 -0400

The head of the Office of Motor Carriers, which is responsible for truck and commercial vehicle safety, said Monday in an internal memo to her employees that they are to stop enforcement of those safety laws-and may have to shut down border inspections once President Clinton signs the fiscal 2000 Transportation appropriations bill.

OMC Program Manager Julie Cirillo, writing in an e-mail obtained Wednesday by CongressDaily, said, "The members of the enforcement team will be reassigned to perform other duties in the resource centers or in division offices ... No work will be done on any enforcement action. I will not be issuing any final orders. At this point it is not entirely clear what will happen to the border inspectors, but it is likely that they will not be able to continue safety inspections at the border."

Cirillo later added that employees "who are working on enforcement actions with the IG, FBI, or U.S. Attorney will have to cease these operations until further notice."

The situation is the result of House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf, R-Va., adding language to the Transportation appropriations bill that prohibits funding of the OMC until it is moved out from under the control of the Federal Highway Administration.

Wolf for the past two years has sought to shift oversight of commercial trucks, buses and other vehicles from the FHWA to an independent unit reporting directly to the Transportation secretary. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster, R-Pa., has passed such a bill out of his committee, but it has yet to see House or Senate action.

Meanwhile, the fiscal 2000 Transportation appropriations conference report is heading to the White House with Wolf's provision.

Transportation Secretary Slater declined Monday to say if the president would sign the bill, citing cuts in FAA funding. Slater did not mention the truck safety enforcement provision, although aides later said he is concerned about it as well.

Wolf aides said Slater can shift responsibility for truck and commercial vehicle safety out of the FHWA to under his direct command "with the stroke of a pen."

And Cirillo, in her memo, indicated Slater plans to do that. But such action will only affect the chain of command. Current law vests enforcement of truck safety laws with the FHWA administrator, which cannot be changed without legislation.

OMC's Cirillo wrote: "Our inability to carry on any enforcement action is the result of legislation that assigns this responsibility specifically to the Federal Highway Administrator, and since the appropriations bill prohibits the FHWA from spending any funds on motor carrier programs, this function will not be carried out by any entity ... We are not sure how long this situation will last, but certainly until either Congress 'fixes' it or Congress passes legislation creating a new administration."

A DOT spokesman Wednesday would say only, "We'll make every effort to enforce the safety laws on the books," and added that the status of border inspections is still being determined. But administration officials will have more to say when they are called before Shuster's committee Thursday.

]]>

Administration pushes FAA management overhaul

Matthew Morrissey — Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:00:00 -0400

With an eye toward the presidential campaign of Vice President Gore, the Clinton administration during the conference on the FAA reauthorization bill will push to restructure the air traffic control system that has been blamed for delays increasingly plaguing the airline system.

Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, in an interview this week, said reforming the FAA management will be the administration's top priority heading into the conference committee, which likely will start next week. Slater outlined the policy reasons for increasing spending on aviation.

But there also may be a big political payoff.

Passenger complaints about the airlines and the air traffic control system and infrastructure have touched a raw nerve with the public. Gore's allies and the administration recognize that a successful restructuring of the FAA that reduces passenger delays and hassles would prove to be a hot political platform, aides and lobbyists said.

Revamping air traffic control management and building more aviation infrastructure could prove to be a political winner for whichever party or presidential candidate can claim credit.

Slater said the FAA's restructuring plan, for which the agency will advocate during the conference committee, goes much further than the House or Senate bills. A plan summary says it will eliminate "rules and regulations that can hamper the agency in carrying out its mission", which normally would sound like a Republican platform.

Slater's plan would establish a performance-based organization to run air traffic services, and create a chief executive officer to oversee the day-to-day operations.

"Under the proposal, the Transportation secretary and FAA administrator would retain overall responsibility for aviation safety and security, [but] air traffic would not be restrained by rules that may apply to other areas of the FAA unrelated to air traffic control," according to a summary.

The House and Senate bills create a new chief operating officer for air traffic services, and a board to oversee FAA management and operations. But those bills do not, as the administration proposes, create a separate organization to run air traffic control.

A key part of Slater's performance-based organization would control spending for aviation equipment and infrastructure, and would be funded by a steady source of revenue by raising the caps on passenger-facility charges from the current $3 per passenger to $5 per passenger, while reducing the ticket tax.

The plan is an attempt to move away from funding airport infrastructure and operations with a tax based on the percentage of value of each ticket, and instead charge "fees" related more to the actual use of the airport facilities by each airplane and airline.

Slater said the administration wants to increase spending on aviation infrastructure, but said he disagrees with Shuster about spending more federal revenue on that infrastructure. Instead, Slater proposes the airports themselves be responsible for raising their passenger facility charges.

But the PFC approach of raising fees runs the risk of Republicans charging the administration with raising new "taxes", as Republicans have done on administration-proposed fees for park use.

In any event, Slater will push for a dramatic revamping of FAA management, funding sources, rules and regulations because he says it is good policy. But there will be a political bonus if Gore can claim credit for acting on behalf of frustrated passengers.

]]>

Lawmakers blame HCFA for budget woes

Julie Rovner and Matthew Morrissey — Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:00:00 -0400

While members of the committees with jurisdiction over Medicare continue to scramble to find additional funds to try to ameliorate some of the cuts made by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, a group of House Republicans Thursday said most of the blame for providers' current woes goes to the Health Care Financing Administration.

"At every opportunity, HCFA has chosen to interpret the BBA in the most austere way," said Rep. Anne Northup, R-Ky.

Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said HCFA is short changing providers intentionally. "They're creating a crisis on purpose," he said. Not only is HCFA "nickel and diming our doctors and hospitals and nursing homes," but it is reducing payments to private managed care plans participating in the Medicare+Choice program "to make sure it doesn't succeed," Graham charged.

HCFA officials have said repeatedly that, in most cases, their hands have been tied by the very specific legislative language of the 1997 law. Next week, Medicare officials are scheduled to sit down with members of the House Commerce Health and Environment Subcommittee to try to work out which of the current payment problems can be addressed administratively, and which need to be fixed through legislation, Health and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis, R-Fla., told CongressDaily Thursday. Bilirakis said he hopes to put legislation to address the payment problems on a fast track. "We can't go home until we get this done," he said.

In a related development, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, today introduced legislation that would force Medicare to speed its process for approving new treatments. At a news conference, Hatch said Medicare beneficiaries have to wait months, and sometimes years, "for the most innovative treatments to be approved by Medicare."

Hatch said beneficiaries are not eligible under current Medicare reimbursement rules for new, less invasive treatments for prostate cancer. Hatch added that Medicare took four and a half years to approve the use of coronary stents. Hatch's bill, cosponsored by Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles, R-Okla.-and Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn.,in the House-would shorten time frames for Medicare coding of approved treatments, require Medicare to update its payment system annually, allow the use of external medical data in approvals, and reform Medicare's criteria for eligible outpatient treatments. Physicians, medical device manufacturers, and drug manufacturers endorsed the plan.

]]>

House to allow votes on four budget plans

Lisa Caruso and Matthew Morrissey — Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:00:00 -0500

The House Rules panel was expected Wednesday afternoon to make only three alternative budget resolutions in order for this week's budget floor debate: the Democratic alternative by Budget ranking member John Spratt, D-S.C.; the Blue Dog Coalition budget by conservative Democrats, and President Clinton's budget request.

Conspicuous by its absence is the amendment submitted by Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster, R-Pa., to lock up $50 billion in unspent airline ticket revenues and future revenues until the House considers FAA reauthorization legislation-an amendment that the leadership opposed because it would bust the budget resolution drafted by Budget Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio, and could draw enough GOP support to defeat the Kasich budget.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said his staff and Shuster aides were talking and said he thought they will be able to work out a compromise. Shuster would not discuss the specifics, but told reporters just prior to the Rules Committee meeting, "I expect I will be happy before the day is out."

Shuster Tuesday said he would vote against the rule if his amendment is excluded. Transportation and Infrastructure ranking member James Oberstar, D-Minn., said the pending agreement would allow the committee to bring its FAA bill to the floor "in the shape we want to do it," but declined to elaborate.

Spratt's budget includes net tax cuts of $116 billion over 10 years, as well as spending on Democratic priority programs, contingent on passing a bill addressing the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Until then, it would uphold the discretionary spending caps and the pay-go rules, which prohibit using on-budget surpluses for tax cuts or new spending.

It also would wall off the entire Social Security trust fund, require the Treasury to apply any surplus to reducing the public debt, and transfer that amount of debt reduction to the Medicare and Social Security trust funds.

The Blue Dog budget would reserve all of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and allocate half of the on-budget surplus projected for the next five years to debt reduction, a quarter to tax cuts and a quarter to spending on priorities such as defense, agriculture and veterans' programs.

The floor rule also will include self-executing sense of the Congress language by Kasich regarding Social Security and child nutrition.

Specifically, Kasich's amendment calls for government budget documents to exclude the Social Security trust fund, and for Congress to enact legislation to safeguard the Social Security surplus that either mirrors language in the budget resolution creating a $97 billion on-budget surplus reserve fund for retirement security and Medicare, "or otherwise establishing a statutory limit on debt held by the public and reducing such limit by the amounts of the Social Security surpluses."

Budget and Ways and Means member Wally Herger, R-Calif., and Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Clay Shaw, R-Fla., said today they will introduce such legislation. Kasich's amendment also calls on the Education and the Workforce and Agriculture committees to review federal nutrition programs for ways to improve nutrition services to low- income children.

]]>

FAA says it's on track to solve Y2K problem

Basil Talbott and Matthew Morrissey — Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 -0500

After a slow start in addressing its Y2K computer problems, the Federal Aviation Administration is on schedule to have the entire air traffic control system fixed and tested by June 30, according to testimony Monday by FAA officials and government inspectors general.

Testifying before the House Government Reform Government Management, Information and Technology Subcommittee, Joel Willemssen, director of civil agencies information systems at the General Accounting Office, said the FAA has made "substantial progress," but "much work remains to be done in a limited amount of time."

Through March 8, the FAA implemented changes to 58 of the 199 systems that need fixing. Another 74 systems are expected to be completed by March 31, and the remaining 67 by June 30, Willemssen said.

Of the 26 critical systems posing the greatest safety risks, five still have not been validated as being Y2K-proof. While the goal for completion is June 30, Willemssen said new problems are expected to arise because of the complexity of the task, and that a couple more months may be needed to work out those bugs.

Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead gave a similar assessment of all transportation systems, saying the Coast Guard computer systems will take the longest to complete, possibly until October.

Deputy Transportation Secretary Mortimer Downey and FAA Administrator Jane Garvey gave more upbeat assessments, saying they are confident all problems will be fixed by June 30. But Willemssen and Mead said they still have questions about the FAA's contingency plans if there is a Y2K failure, especially if there is a failure outside the FAA system-such as a power outage by utilities or a telecommunications shutdown by phone companies.

Mead said the FAA also needs more planning cooperation from union workers, who would have to operate any of the contingency plans.

Perhaps the biggest challenge for aviation safety is the Y2K condition of computers in foreign countries. Garvey said a July 1 meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization will give U.S. officials a better view of the Y2K problem. Downey said the United States likely will issue travel advisories to warn Americans of countries or airlines that may not be Y2K compliant, and may prohibit U.S. carriers from flying to those countries.

]]>

OMB director, GOP continue budget sparring

Lisa Caruso and Matthew Morrissey — Thu, 04 Feb 1999 00:00:00 -0500

Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew today continued sparring with Congress over President Clinton's fiscal 2000 budget and Social Security plan.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio, picked up where Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., left off Tuesday, pressing Lew to explain the particulars of Clinton's plan to reserve for Social Security 62 percent of the $4.8 trillion unified budget surplus OMB projects will be generated in the next 15 years.

Kasich hammered the administration's failure to suggest changes in its twin bills to ensure the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Kasich told Lew, "You have done nothing to make one single change in the Medicare program, and to say you're just going to put more bonds in the fund ... it isn't real money. Show me the money."

But Kasich also suggested he and the administration may find common ground in the idea of creating personal retirement accounts, although Kasich emphasized that he would view this merely as "an interim step" on the way to accomplishing the larger goal of returning 2 percent to 3 percent of payroll taxes to individuals to invest for themselves for their retirement.

Kasich also reiterated his strong criticism of Clinton's proposal to have an independent but government-appointed board, rather than individuals, invest a portion of the Social Security surplus in the market. But Lew did not give ground on the administration's preference to have such a board do the investing, and said individuals would benefit from Clinton's proposal to create Universal Savings Accounts.

In other budget-related news, six GOP senators wrote to Domenici today urging him to "pursue at least $600 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years" and to find funds for education programs while staying within fiscal 2000 discretionary spending caps. They also suggested the Social Security surplus be "walled off" so it cannot be used for any other purpose. The letter was signed by Sens. John Ashcroft of Missouri, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rod Grams of Minnesota, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Wayne Allard of Colorado.

]]>

Senate GOP prepares to unveil agenda

Lisa Caruso, Mark Wegner, and Matthew Morrissey — Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:00:00 -0500

Senate Republicans met Wednesday, not to discuss impeachment, but to work on the legislative agenda for the 106th Congress that they plan to announce early next week.

Senators said they will propose five bills centering around education, retirement and Social Security, tax cuts, national security, and anti-crime and anti-drug efforts.

During the session, the Republicans also discussed budget rule changes proposed last week by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. Senate GOP Conference Chairman Connie Mack of Florida portrayed the meeting as Republican senators doing the legislative work of the "people", echoing phrases President Clinton has used as the impeachment trial consumes Capitol Hill.

"We are using the time more productively in January and February than we probably have ever before," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

Throughout the trial, Senate leaders plan to conduct regular business in the mornings and hear the impeachment case during the afternoon.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., outlined budget rule changes that Republicans hope will facilitate debate over the budget resolution, reconciliation and appropriations bills.

Domenici also introduced a plan to replace the annual budget and appropriations cycles with a two-year budget and appropriations process.

The proposal would define emergency spending as "necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen and not permanent," and would require 60 votes to overcome a ruling of the chair that a provision does not meet the emergency criteria.

Republicans also aim to pave the way for tax cuts by not applying pay-go rules when there is an on-budget surplus, and by allowing tax cuts to be paid for by cuts in discretionary spending, which is not allowed under current rules.

The GOP senators also discussed enacting an automatic continuing resolution if an appropriations bill is not passed on time. In that case, funding for the program would revert to the previous year's spending level or the president's budget request, whichever amount is lower.

In addition, Republicans will make a priority of strictly enforcing the existing rule against legislating on an appropriations bill. On the budget resolution and reconciliation bills, they want to reduce debate time and place limits on the number and type of amendments.

Meanwhile, Finance Committee Chairman William Roth, R-Del., circulated a letter Wednesday urging colleagues to support legislation he plans to introduce next week that would create new personal retirement accounts using some of the projected budget surplus while Congress considers Social Security reform.

Roth is planning hearings during the impeachment trial on issues such as Social Security overhaul, presidential fast track trade negotiating authority and the nation's economic outlook.

While individual Senators expressed reservations about specific proposals, a GOP leadership aide said there is "general sentiment to move ahead."

Said the aide: "We know what we've got now is not working too well." He added that "we have systematic hangovers" from past Congresses when Republicans "always end up deep in the hole when battling this administration."

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said the plans "are a good initial start" that will have to be vetted further.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, also said there is solid support for many of the changes, but that he opposes requiring 60 votes to overcome a point of order against "emergency spending."

"I want to make sure we're not limiting our ability to respond to emergencies," Stevens said, citing examples of emergency spending amendments that passed with a bare majority.

But Stevens conceded most of his Republican colleagues disagree with him and favor the 60-vote threshold.

Stevens said Republicans spent part of the day trying to find a way to limit policy riders on appropriations bills "unless they are absolutely necessary."

]]>

Dems show interest in budget rules changes

Matthew Morrissey — Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:00:00 -0500

Senate Rules Committee ranking member Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., late last week said Democrats are willing to consider Senate rules changes proposed by Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., to speed floor consideration of budget and appropriations bills.

While Lott's proposals would limit some rights of Senators to offer amendments to the budget resolution, reconciliation or appropriations bills, Dodd said there is "general sympathy" among Democrats about too many amendments to the budget resolution and Senators attempting to add legislation to appropriations bills.

Dodd said Lott's proposals, which Lott submitted when the Senate opened last week, were more extensive than Democrats had anticipated. He said Democrats have not yet begun looking at the details and their ramifications for the minority party because Senators are focused on the impeachment trial of President Clinton.

Dodd acknowledged Democrats will be careful not to give up significant rights of any senators to offer amendments, but that there is a desire among Democrats to make the budget process run more smoothly.

Lott will need the Democrats' support to win the 67 votes needed to change Senate rules.

Senate rules long prohibited attaching legislative riders to appropriations bills. But during the 104th Congress, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, tried to amend the Endangered Species Act on a spending bill. After the chair ruled Hutchison could not offer the amendment, she won her appeal of the chair's ruling. That vote set a precedent that has since unleashed a wave of legislating on appropriations bills, which has frustrated Lott and appropriators.

Senators also have proposed questionable designations of "emergency spending." Lott and Senate Budget Chairman Domenici also want to curb the "vote-a-thons" on hundreds of amendments to the budget resolution and reconciliation bills by setting amendment filing deadlines and limiting senators to two amendments each.

Democratic aides said they have identified potential problems in Lott's proposals, but added there is a genuine desire to try to work through them. While Democrats do not yet have a proposal of their own, aides noted that Democrats last year agreed by unanimous consent to a deadline for submitting amendments to the budget resolution and other bills.

Dodd said it is the additional items in Lott's proposal, such as limiting senators to two amendments on the budget resolution and reconciliation, that need to be examined for their ramifications.

Democratic aides said limiting Senators to two amendments could become a problem if, after debate on a budget bill begins, another item is found or a new provision added that a Senator wants to amend.

After debate time expires, Lott's proposal calls only for votes on pending amendments, not just those filed. If senators are not recognized to offer an amendment they already have filed, then it would not be pending-thus they would get no vote on it, aides said. "The effect could be that individual senators could have no recourse to protect their interests," an aide said.

Lott's attempt to define "emergency spending" as "unforeseen" could limit action on a serious issue-such as the Y2K computer problem-which Congress might have know about for years, but failed to take action on until it became a crisis, aides said.

]]>

House chair to push for independent FAA

Matthew Morrissey — Fri, 08 Jan 1999 00:00:00 -0500

Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, today said he will push legislation to make the Federal Aviation Administration an independent agency.

Shuster, during a meeting with reporters, said the FAA should not be privatized-but that it should be made into an independent agency like NASA, which would free it from the "enormous political pressures" of the White House and Transportation Department.

Specifically, Shuster charged that the Clinton administration has interfered on behalf of labor unions whenever the FAA has tried to change work rules for air traffic controllers and other workers to improve productivity.

"We would remove the political pressures," Shuster contending that the "FAA's regional fiefdoms are inhibiting productivity."

Shuster's most daunting task this year will be increasing funding for the FAA, air traffic control equipment, and airport construction-a mini-version of the battle he fought last year with the House GOP leadership over increasing highway spending. Of the $10 billion collected by the aviation trust fund each year from aviation taxes, Shuster said only $5.6 billion is spent.

"If the [airport infrastructure] needs aren't there, then we should reduce the tax. But the needs are there," Shuster said. Traffic at some airports is growing at 15 to 20 percent per year, and congestion is causing "very serious, serious problems" with delays of passenger jets and cargo, he said, adding, "If we've got $10 billion coming in, then we should be free to spend it."

However, 25 percent of aviation spending now comes from general discretionary funds. Shuster said he wants to maintain the level of FAA money from the general fund even if Congress agrees to spend all the trust fund money.

"There is a legitimate, historic reason to retain general fund expenditures," he said. Shuster said he also would support increasing passenger facility charges, but only if all the trust fund money is first allocated for aviation.

Increasing aviation spending by more than $5 billion a year likely will meet resistance from House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio. While Shuster said the overall House GOP leadership supports his committee's agenda this year, he did not say if they back increased aviation spending.

]]>

Lott pushes budget, appropriations changes

Lisa Caruso and Matthew Morrissey — Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 -0500

Following last year's protracted budget and appropriations battles that many Republicans considered disastrous to their policy agenda as well as to their electoral prospects, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., Wednesday proposed several Senate rules changes to keep controversial and non-germane legislative riders out of the appropriations bills and the budget resolution.

Lott offered the four resolutions on the Senate floor, which were then referred to relevant committees for consideration. Lott said he expected the committees to report back soon for consideration of the rules changes by the full Senate.

Senate rules long prohibited attaching legislative riders to appropriations bills. But during the 104th Congress, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, tried to amend the Endangered Species Act on an appropriations bill. After the chair ruled Hutchison could not offer the amendment, she won her appeal of the chair's ruling. That vote set a precedent that has since unleashed a wave of legislating on appropriations bills.

Also, Lott frequently complained last year that House Republicans were adding too many controversial legislative riders that made passing routine appropriations bills a political minefield for the more moderate Senate.

Lott offered the first proposal on behalf of Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz. The entire text reads: "Notwithstanding any precedent to the contrary, the prohibition against legislative proposals contained in Rule 16 shall be enforced by the chair." Rule 16 prohibits legislative riders on appropriations bills.

Lott offered the second resolution on behalf of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

It states Senators cannot offer amendments to increase an appropriation item's funding, or create a new item for funding, unless it is to "carry out the provisions of some existing law, treaty stipulation, or act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session."

The proposed rule change also requires items added to an appropriations bill to be "germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill." Senators also could raise a point of order against "extraneous" provisions added to an appropriations bill during a House-Senate conference.

Lott, on behalf of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., proposed a third resolution to better define "emergency" legislation. Republicans last year accused the Clinton administration of asking for supplemental funding for items that were not true emergencies.

If a point of order is raised against a section of a bill or an amendment, the chair may strike the language. To overturn the ruling of the chair, 60 votes would be required.

During debate over the budget resolution, senators often propose several amendments that have no impact on the budget, resulting in late-night "vote-a-thons" on a range of nongermane issues.

Lott and Domenici proposed that amendments to the budget resolution must be germane to the budget process and must be filed before the 15th hour of the regular 30-hour debate time.

Attaching "Sense of the Senate" language to budget resolutions would not be allowed. Senators could call up no more than two amendments until every other senator had the opportunity to also call up two amendments.

Lott also introduced a resolution to increase funding for the Senate's Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology-Related Problems.

Meanwhile, the House kicked off the 106th Congress with a series of straight party-line votes on the GOP leadership's package of changes to the standing rules of the House.

The votes came on the heels of enthusiastically received speeches by Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., pledging a new era of cooperation in the House.

The Democrats, led by the dean of the House, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, trained their fire on what they said are the most unfair committee ratios in 40 years as measured against the overall ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the House.

The Democrats' motion to recommit the rules package, which was defeated 218-201, called for the committee ratios to directly reflect the House ratio.

It also would have required all spending and revenue bills to be fully paid for until the Social Security trust fund is certified to be in actuarial balance, and paid for only with federal budget surpluses.

The rules package was adopted without any Democratic votes, by a vote of 217-204.

Then, in a show of bipartisanship, the motion to bring the House gift ban into line with the more lenient Senate rules was adopted by voice vote. As a result, House members and staff may now accept gifts worth less than $50, and worth less than a total of $100 annually from a single source.

]]>

DOT IG report finds border inspections lacking

Matthew Morrissey — Mon, 04 Jan 1999 00:00:00 -0500

With implications for the debate over free trade and fast track trade negotiating authority, a report released today by the Transportation Department's inspector general found only a fraction of Mexican trucks crossing the United States border are inspected, and that 44 percent of those trucks were turned away due to safety violations.

While the Federal Highway Administration, formerly headed by now-Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater, was responsible for overseeing the safety of trucks crossing the Mexican border, the agency has basically left safety enforcement to the states.

Although the IG report heaped praise on California for having a strong border presence that has resulted in fewer unsafe trucks entering that state, the other border states have only a part-time presence at the border, allowing unsafe Mexican trucks to enter the United States.

"With the exception of California, neither FHWA's nor the states' plans provide for an adequate presence of inspectors at border crossings," the inspector general's report said. "We concluded that far too few trucks are being inspected at the U.S.-Mexico border, and that too few inspected trucks comply with U.S. standards ... FHWA was relying on border states to provide the needed inspectors rather than planning for and providing federal inspection resources."

California, which accounts for 22 percent of cross-border traffic, assigned more inspectors-47 full-time, 5 part-time-to its border than Arizona and Texas combined-8 full-time, and 37 part-time. Only 13 federally funded inspectors are assigned to the entire Mexican border.

At the border crossing in El Paso, Texas, where 1,300 trucks cross every day, only one inspector is on duty and he can inspect only 10 to 14 trucks a day. Most inspectors work only during daytime working hours, leaving crossings with no inspectors at all during much of the day, an IG aide said today. Therefore, Mexican trucks most likely to fail a safety inspection cross the border at night or on the weekends.

Of the Mexican trucks inspected in Texas, 50 percent fail and are turned away-compared to 17 percent of trucks entering at the Canadian border, where safety enforcement is better staffed, the report found. The inspector general proposed three alternatives for increasing inspectors and enforcement; those alternatives cost from $4 million to $7 million.

Today's IG report comes one year before a deadline set by the North American Free Trade Agreement that would allow Mexican trucks unlimited access throughout the United States-a step opposed by U.S. labor unions afraid domestic truckers could lose their jobs.

The report tags responsibility for the safety situation on the FHWA, headed by Slater before 1997. "FHWA does not have a safety enforcement program in place that provides a reasonable level of assurance of the safety of Mexican trucks entering the United States, nor does it plan to establish such a program," the report said. A Slater spokesman did not return calls seeking comment.

]]>

GOP Senators re-elect leaders

Lisa Caruso and Matthew Morrissey — Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 -0500

In a marked-but expected-contrast to their colleagues in the House, Senate Republicans today re-elected their entire leadership team for the 106th Congress.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the only member of the Senate leadership to be challenged for re- election, handily defeated Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska by 39-13. Hagel has criticized McConnell not only for failing to add to the Republicans' 55 Senate seats, but for the tenor of the NRSC- funded campaigns.

While McConnell was virtually guaranteed a second term by the support of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., Majority Whip Don Nickles, R-Okla.-who often takes a more conservative line than Lott-was sympathetic to Hagel's bid.

Hagel was nominated by Agriculture Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and seconded by Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Rod Grams of Minnesota. Hagel said he was not surprised by the result, noting, "When you've got the leader working against you and a lot of people working against you, it makes a difference."

Still, Hagel said even those who did not vote for him "said they thought what I did was important to the process. I think most of my colleagues agree with me; that doesn't necessarily translate into votes."

Addressing reporters after the elections, Lott said Senate Republicans will focus on getting their budget and appropriations work completed early next year, after this year's failure to pass a budget resolution and many individual spending bills left Republicans vulnerable to White House veto threats. Lott also pledged to "keep the door open to cooperation with both the administration and our Democratic colleagues," as well as with the House GOP leadership and the nation's governors.

The majority leader noted he has met already this week with Senate Minority Leader Daschle and House Speaker-designate Livingston, and that Republican congressional leaders and GOP governors plan to meet Friday to develop a common agenda.

Lott attributed the party's disappointing election results to a failure to communicate the GOP agenda, saying, "We've got to do a better job. I've got to do a better job. And we're committed to doing that."

Other issues besides annual spending that Senate Republicans want to address include education, drug and crime prevention and Social Security, along with the topic of budget process reform.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats today expanded their leadership to 11 positions-meaning 20 percent of the caucus can claim to hold a leadership position.

Daschle and Conference Secretary Barbara Mikulski of Maryland were re-elected and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada was elected without opposition to replace retiring Minority Whip Wendell H. Ford, D-Ky.

The remaining positions were appointed by Daschle: Chief Deputy Minority Whip John Breaux of Louisiana, who will continue to serve as liaison to the White House; Assistant Floor Leader Richard Durbin of Illinois, a new position; Deputy Conference Vice Chairman Bob Kerrey, a new position; Democratic Policy Committee Co-Chairman Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who takes over from Reid; Steering and Coordination Committee Chairman John Kerry of Massachusetts; and Technology and Communication Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

]]>

Conservatives challenge GOP leaders over budget deal

Stephen Norton and Matthew Morrissey — Tue, 20 Oct 1998 00:00:00 -0400

The Conservative Caucus and other conservative groups today called for the ouster of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., for a "comprehensive betrayal of constitutional obligations and a rejection of conservative policies [in the omnibus bill] for which many Americans thought they were voting in supporting Republican control of Congress in 1994 and 1996."

Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips said today that conservative groups will begin a "grassroots campaign" after the election to pressure rank-and-file GOP House members and senators to oust Gingrich and Lott, and replace them with a more conservative leadership.

Speakers at the news conference criticized Gingrich and Lott for "caving" in to Democrats and President Clinton on International Monetary Fund spending, abortion, federal education policies, the "unconstitutional" military mission in Bosnia, United Nations dues, agricultural subsidies, adoptions by gays and lesbians in the District of Columbia, assisted suicide, and expanding immigration of highly skilled foreign workers.

"The consequence of this budget deal will be to increase the liberal turnout in November," Phillips said.

Meanwhile, in a letter to his GOP colleagues Monday, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., asked similarly tough questions about the congressional Republicans' principles and governing mission in wake of the compromises made to reach a budget agreement with Clinton last week.

Recalling how Republicans took control of Congress four years ago with an expectation by voters to address the "arrogance and corruption that often overtakes large institutions," Hagel observed, "Congress is no different." Making note of the GOP pledge to "cut government spending, taxes and regulations," Hagel asked, "Can we honestly say the product of last week's negotiations in any way reflects these priorities?"

Hagel went on to charge the GOP "risks squandering the opportunity America has given us" so long as it engages in "government by calculation" and relies on polls to judge public acceptance like the Clinton administration.

"If we do what we believe is the right thing, the politics takes care of itself," he wrote.

]]>

Congress, White House try to finalize budget deal

David Baumann and Matthew Morrissey — Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:00:00 -0400

The House this afternoon moved to pass yet a fourth continuing resolution, as negotiators haggled over the last several issues blocking Congress from passing an omnibus spending package that President Clinton can sign.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., told reporters today: "We're making progress, but it is very difficult. There are still some significant disagreements. We have a number of details to work out." Gingrich added: "If we're lucky, it will all be done by this evening. If we're unlucky, you all will get to sit another day in this hallway."

When asked what the House Republican Conference would think of the developing omnibus bill, Gingrich said, "I think most Republicans are going to regard this [bill] as stronger defense, stronger anti-drug, and stronger local-control. ... I think most Republicans are going to vote for this bill, but I don't want to forecast it until it's done."

Gingrich said no decisions have been made yet on tax portions of the developing bill. Gingrich and White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles were scheduled to meet again this afternoon.

Serious divisions remain over the census sampling issue. White House officials and some Republicans appear ready to accept a deal that would fund the entire Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill for six months. However, some House Democrats and GOP appropriators question that deal.

House Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., said various environmental riders, the United Nations dues payment issue and the amount of agriculture supplemental spending still have not been settled.

A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said today Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has made a counteroffer to Daschle on the farm disaster package. The spokesman said Lott and Daschle are trying to find a way to get money to farmers based on their 1998 production that is acceptable to both parties.

In addition, the two sides must decide whether additional offsets must be found for new spending the President has proposed. While the administration said it proposed more than $4 billion in offsets, the CBO scored those savings at about $2.9 billion. Negotiators must decide whether to insist on additional offsets or simply select additional programs to be forward- funded.

A Democratic aide said the two sides also are working on a compromise on contraceptive benefits for federal workers. He said the compromise would center on providing physicians-not entire health plans-with a moral and religious exemption from having to provide certain contraceptives.

Gingrich said Republicans still plan to send to the President the State Department reauthorization bill prohibiting funding for international groups that provide information about abortion services. The administration has threatened to veto it.

"We'll send that down at the end of the session," Gingrich said. "It has all the money needed for the United Nations. But if [Clinton] decides he has to have $3 million in tax-paid lobbying for abortion overseas, then he can veto the bill."

]]>

Clinton touts $70 billion surplus

Matthew Morrissey — Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:00:00 -0400

President Clinton today hailed the estimated $70 billion surplus the federal government will have by the end of the fiscal year tonight, but warned Republicans against spending it for a tax cut.

"Now that we've balanced the budget, we should commit ourselves to saving Social Security," Clinton said at a White House event honoring present and former congressional Democrats who voted for the 1993 budget deal. Several of the former members likely lost their House seats in 1994 due, in part, to their vote for the budget deal that included some tax increases in addition to spending cuts.

If the longtime viability of Social Security is not addressed soon, Clinton said, retiring Baby Boomers will have a lower standard of living from lower benefits, and their children will have a lower standard of living by paying higher taxes to support them.

"All of us know this [Social Security] problem is looming out there, and will need money to fix," Clinton said. "There is hardly anything that goes to the core of what we are as a people than the sense that we owe an obligation to both our parents and our children. And if we squander this surplus and start spending [it] on tax cuts just because it's a few weeks before the election-before we take care of [Social Security]-what are we going to do when times get tough and we still have to take care of it?"

The end of the fiscal year sparked a predictable debate from both parties about who deserves credit for creating the surplus. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said, "While the president wants to take credit for this achievement today, let me be clear: The credit belongs to the American taxpayer, the Federal Reserve, and the combined efforts of Congresses, this President, and past Presidents to reduce the budget deficit and balance the budget. ... President Clinton, if your 1993 budget plan was so great, why is it that your 1996 budget projected deficits as far as the eye could see?"

But Clinton maintained the credit goes to House and Senate Democrats who voted for the 1993 budget deal. Pointing to seven former Democratic House members, Clinton said, "Don't you ever forget that these seven people stood up, and a lot like them, and laid their jobs on the line for America's future."

]]>

White House: We don't want a shutdown

Lisa Caruso and Matthew Morrissey — Wed, 30 Sep 1998 00:00:00 -0400

White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles Tuesday sent a letter to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., saying that President Clinton will do all he can to avoid a government shutdown, but will not "shy away from a fight" over his "budget priorities."

"In a series of letters, you have committed to working through our budget differences without resorting to the failed tactics of the past," Bowles wrote. "I continue to take those assurances at face value. Rest assured that we do not believe that shutting down the government is any way to sort through our competing views of budget priorities."

But, citing comments by Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind., chairman of the Conservative Action Team, Bowles wrote, "Instead of finishing [appropriations bills], some House Republicans are openly contemplating a government shutdown strategy. ... I hope we can count on you to repudiate that shutdown strategy devised by influential members of your caucus. No one wins if the Republicans choose to shut down the government."

Meanwhile, House GOP conservatives now believe they have the votes to win an upcoming vote on a rule for the fiscal 1999 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Gingrich brokered that agreement Monday night during a meeting of moderates and conservatives.

As reported out of the Appropriations Committee, the bill would require family planning clinics that receive Title X federal funding to notify parents when their minor children obtain contraceptive services. The deal that members of the CATs, the moderate Tuesday Group and Gingrich cut would allow moderate Rep. James Greenwood, R-Pa., to offer an amendment to strike the parental notification requirement and replace it with language calling for clinics to expressly counsel minors on abstinence and for the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that clinic workers are properly trained to do so.

The deal provides for conservative Rep. Ernest Istook, R- Okla., who authored the notification language, to offer a second degree amendment. An Istook aide said that amendment would reinstate the notification requirement, with "tweaks" on which he declined to elaborate.

Conservative sources said they have do not object to the deal the speaker worked out, despite the fact Greenwood will get his way, because, as one said, "We felt this was the best way to get an up or down vote [on notification]. ... Given the political reality, this was the best we could get."

More importantly, conservatives said they have the votes to prevail. An aide to conservative Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said conservatives have commitments from "in range of 30 [pro-life] Democrats. ... It's going to be a close vote-we should get more than 220 but no more than 230 votes."

]]>

Senate leader: Busy schedule coming up

David Baumann, Stephen Norton, and Matthew Morrissey — Tue, 01 Sep 1998 00:00:00 -0400

Returning from a month-long August recess, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., Monday said Senators should expect a busy schedule this week as the 105th Congress pushes toward a scheduled adjournment early next month.

Before adjourning, Lott said the Senate will focus on tax cuts and tax extenders, agriculture, bankruptcy reform, missile defense, the comprehensive trade bill, and appropriations bills.

"And all this in about five weeks or so," Lott said in a speech on the Senate floor. "I was asked during the August recess by senators if we're really going to work this week. The answer is absolutely yes. We will work seriously Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday." Lott added, "Not only will we be having votes, but I'm going to make sure we'll be having votes, probably more than normal, just to bring the point home clearly."

The Senate will debate the fiscal 1999 Foreign Operations appropriations bill Tuesday and Wednesday. While there were no roll call votes Monday, the Senate Tuesday will vote on the fiscal 1999 Military Construction appropriations conference report. On Wednesday, the Senate will vote on a bill dealing with low-level radioactive waste disposal in Texas.

Lott warned Democrats not to push the federal government to the brink of a government shutdown by refusing to cooperate on passing the annual appropriations bills by the end of September.

He said he is worried that Democrats have adopted a strategy of "stall, complain and blame," while adding he is concerned that President Clinton may veto funding bills because they do not contain enough spending.

"We had his word on the budget before the American people," Lott said. "We will now see what his word is worth."

Lott contended that it will be "harder for the Democrats to fool the American people this time" if the government shuts down.

While House Republicans have been insisting that virtually all domestic spending increases be offset by cuts elsewhere, Lott said the Senate might classify certain additional spending as emergency expenditures.

"There are a lot of issues we will have to consider on an emergency basis," he said, citing embassy safety, year 2000 computer problems, hurricane disaster relief, the Bosnia mission and defense needs as possibilities.

House Republicans have been reluctant to classify any domestic spending as an emergency.

In a related development, the CBO Monday officially released its August budget update, projecting a $63 billion surplus for FY98, an $80 billion surplus for FY99 and a $251 billion surplus by 2008.

Excluding the Social Security surplus, the federal government will run a $41 billion deficit this year, leading to surpluses in 2002, the CBO said.

The budget office said that "unexpectedly strong revenue collections" led to an increase in surplus estimates from $8 billion in March to $63 billion at present.

]]>

McCain hits Transportation on funding decisions

Matthew Morrissey — Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:00:00 -0400

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., Tuesday called on the Transportation Department to stop spending its discretionary funds on projects not deemed high priorities by its own review process.

McCain's angry comments at a committee hearing came with the release of a report by the Transportation Department's inspector general.

The report found 59 percent of highway money left to the discretion of the department in FY97 was used for projects not considered by the Federal Highway Administration staff to be of "high priority."

The report also found that the FAA allowed regional directors to direct 15 percent of discretionary funds to "lower priority projects within their region that were not the next highest national priority."

Although FAA officials documented the reasons for funding those projects, the selection of lower priority projects "is contrary to [the] FAA's established policy to fund the highest priority national projects," the inspector general's report found.

But the FAA is doing better than the Federal Transit Administration, which, the report found, does not have a process for analyzing and prioritizing mass transit and bus projects.

The inspector general for the Commerce Department also reported some grants and contracts are made with little competition.

Transportation Department officials testifying at the hearing acknowledged the problems brought up by the inspector general's report, and said they will work to improve the situation. The FTA plans to issue priority guidelines next year.

"Often I've asked colleagues to refrain from earmarking money in appropriations bills to fund a particular project or institution, and allow it to compete so that merit and need might prevail," McCain said.

"But that argument remains valid only so far as the administration adheres to appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that funding is allocated based on established priorities and merit-based selection criteria," McCain added.

McCain unsuccessfully fought against the more than 1,000 earmarked projects contained in the recently passed highway and transit reauthorization.

But even with those earmarks, the Transportation Department will still have $16.7 billion in discretionary funds to dole out over the next six years.

McCain called on Transportation Department officials to make sure they document the reasons any of that money is used for projects not considered a high priority. The department has not been documenting why it has funded low-priority projects.

Deputy Federal Transit Administrator Nuria Fernandez told the committee that the FTA considers projects listed in a bill's report language to be the same priority as those contained in the actual statute passed by Congress, which visibly angered McCain.

"You are not required to fund projects in report language," he said. "One is a matter of law, the other is a matter of a report. It's just outrageous."

]]>

Space station backers demand restructuring

Matthew Morrissey — Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 -0400

Members of the House Science Committee Wednesday issued a stern warning to the White House to make some final decisions to restructure financing for the space station, or else Congress would kill the project.

The space station has come under increasingly frequent attack in recent weeks as reports by the GAO and a task force of independent financial auditors found the project is behind schedule and will require more funding than expected. The task force also questioned the administration's reliance on Russia for hardware and funding.

"We would like to work with the White House to get this program back on track," said Science Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., a space station supporter. "Last month we invited the Office of Management and Budget to testify about the administration's plan to fix the space station. OMB declined to appear before this committee. Instead, it offered a statement for the record which pledged to do nothing."

The OMB also declined to appear at Wednesday's hearing, and instead, Sensenbrenner said, "sent the NASA administrator to defend the very administration policies contributing to these problems."

Sensenbrenner said he and ranking member George Brown, D- Calif., "are sending the president a letter asking the White House to get back in the game by directing OMB to present a credible plan within 30 days for fixing the space station."

Action must be taken soon, Sensenbrenner said, or else support for space station funding in the VA-HUD appropriations bill may be in jeopardy. "The legislative calendar moves with or without the administration," he said.

Rep. David Weldon, R-Fla., another space station supporter, said: "My sources within the administration indicate that NASA has produced a report that sets forth a plan on how to remove the Russians from the critical path [of space station development]. It is my understanding that this report is being suppressed by the White House because of foreign policy issues."

Weldon, whose district includes the Kennedy Space Center, added: "I believe that the ill-conceived policy being pursued by the White House is jeopardizing the space station and costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars of unnecessary costs."

Brown, also a space station supporter, said, "We need a plan, not a continuing series of ad hoc adjustments to the latest station funding or programmatic crisis."

OMB officials contacted by CongressDaily declined to comment.

NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin said his agency is working to address the problems raised by the GAO and the task force report. He said the station could require an additional $300 million; a GAO report said the space station may require an additional $2 billion through the life of the project.

"If we cancel the space station, we will be canceling manned space flight," Goldin said, adding that "it would be devastating" to cancel the station.

The harsh comments by space station supporters give even more ammunition to space station opponents, including Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., who plans to again offer an amendment to the FY99 VA-HUD appropriations bill to kill space station funding.

"Throwing more money at the space station is adding fuel to the fire," Roemer said. "We should not grant NASA's request for supplemental funding. Rather, we should hold NASA and the Russian government's feet to the fire."

]]>

House foes target space station

Matthew Morrissey — Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:00:00 -0400

While opponents of the space station in recent years have lost ground in their battle to eliminate funding for the project, Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., and his allies this year believe they may have their best chance yet, following a recent series of reports outlining problems that continue to plague the program.

With cost estimates growing higher each year and questions over whether Russia can fulfill its financial obligations to the project, Roemer, an aide said, believes House members may reconsider the support they gave last year.

In 1993, opponents came within one vote on the House floor of canceling the $94 billion space station project. But by 1997, in a vote on the NASA reauthorization bill, the elimination effort spearheaded by Roemer lost 305-112.

Roemer and Rep. Greg Ganske, R-Iowa, will attempt another floor amendment in the coming weeks on the FY99 VA-HUD appropriations bill, which also funds NASA. Sen. Dale Bumpers, D- Ark., will offer a similar amendment in the Senate.

Recent reports from the GAO and the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force on the space station have left even its biggest supporters acknowledging that problems with costs and Russian participation need to be addressed.

The United States is building the space station with the help of Japan, Canada, the European Space Agency and Russia.

A GAO report released last month found cost estimates to develop and operate the space station over the life of the program have grown from $94 billion to $96 billion.

Meanwhile, the task force report, prepared by private, independent auditors, found the space station likely will fall two years behind schedule. Each month of delay would add $100 million to the final cost of the project.

The task force also found the current space station budget underestimates needed funding for the project by $130 million to $250 million over the next five years.

With the fate of Russian project support contingent on political and economic uncertainties in that country, the task force said NASA must have alternative plans to develop some of the Russian hardware, including the station's "service module," which NASA said could cost up to $790 million over the next five years.

However, space station supporters, including NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin and House Science Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., will pursue a strategy of being upfront about the problems and proposals to fix them.

In a letter last week to Sensenbrenner, Goldin acknowledged, "It is NASA's assessment that potential actions linked to uncertainties in the Russian government funding to meet their [space station] commitments could prompt the need for additional resources in FY 1999 for the [space station]."

At a recent hearing, Sensenbrenner said: "We can stick our heads in the sand, put on a happy face, and hope nobody will notice the delays and cost overruns. Or we can admit mistakes, move on, and work together, Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the White House, industry and NASA, the [United States] and its international partners, to get the station built."

Goldin and representatives from the GAO and the cost assessment task force will appear Wednesday before the House Science Committee to discuss all the new information in their reports.

Space station opponents, of course, will listen carefully for more ammunition they can use in their attempt to swing the more than 100 House votes needed to block funding in the VA-HUD appropriations measure.

]]>

Senate appropriators get extra $1 billion

Matthew Morrissey and Adam Rappaport — Tue, 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 -0400

Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, will spread $900 million to $1.1 billion in additional appropriations among his subcommittees this week because of budget scoring changes that took effect once President Clinton signed the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

Stevens plans to not only give the transportation subcommittee more money, but may spread some of the money around to other subcommittees for uses other than transportation.

A Stevens aide Monday confirmed the chairman is working on reallocating funding levels to the appropriations subcommittees, but does not yet have a deadline by which he plans to announce the changes.

Appropriators won the extra money when the ISTEA reauthorization bill established budget firewalls for highway and transit spending, which, in turn, reduced non-defense discretionary appropriations for those programs. And by using the OMB scoring, instead of the CBO scoring, $900 million to $1.1 billion was left for other appropriations, aides said.

The new levels of appropriations subcommittee funding likely will have to be approved by the full Appropriations Committee before subcommittees can act on their allocations, aides said.

Among the interests closely watching the allocation of the new money are Senate supporters of Amtrak. Aides said Amtrak likely would be the first large item cut if Stevens does not send enough of the extra money to the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

And Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., a longtime foe of Amtrak, may do just that. Sources said Shelby plans to cut the expected funding for Amtrak from $600 million per year to $300 million.

And speculation circulated Monday that Shelby, if he does not get enough extra money from Stevens, may even zero out Amtrak's appropriation.

Senate Finance Chairman William Roth, R-Del., and a bipartisan group of 51 other senators have signed a "Dear Colleague" calling on Shelby to fully fund Amtrak's annual appropriation.

But for now, Senators fighting for Amtrak plan to focus their attention on Stevens. Aides said the size of the extra allocation to the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee will largely determine what Shelby does for Amtrak.

Amtrak, the Coast Guard and the FAA are the largest portions of the transportation appropriations bill not protected by the highway and transit budget firewalls.

Meanwhile, although saying he is "for the maximum amount of tax cuts we can get," Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., Monday warned it will be difficult to get any sizable cuts through the Senate.

Nearly half of the $100 billion tax cut in the House bill is from discretionary spending, and will therefore face the nearly impossible task of garnering 60 votes in the Senate, he said.

And of the remaining $55 billion from mandatory spending, $14 billion has already been spent on the highway bill and veterans' benefits, leaving about $40 billion. "I believe that very little of the $40 billion that remains can be done," Domenici said.

]]>