Government Executive - Authors - National Journal

Congress Will Race This Week to Avoid a Shutdown

National Journal — Mon, 07 Dec 2015 11:40:30 -0500

Tis the season—not for the holidays, though those are here too, but for Congress to scramble to finish a handful of big-ticket items before heading home for the year.

So this week will find the two chambers racing to agree on an omnibus spending bill before Friday’s funding deadline, and they’ll also try to finish negotiations on a massive package of tax extensions and complete work on reconciliation legislation and a customs bill. Here’s what else is on tap:

EDUCATION

The Senate expects to pass a major education reform bill this week, significantly scaling back the federal government’s role in public schools after George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind about 13 years ago. The bill—called the Every Student Succeeds Act—keeps the annual, statewide reading and math tests in grades 3 through 8 and maintains that states report the academic performance of low-income and minority students. But it bars federal mandates on teacher evaluations, allows the states greater flexibility in how to assess and fix their schools, and authorizes a preschool competitive grant program.

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

While governments gather in Paris for the second week of a United Nations conference to hammer out a global agreement to fight climate change, a different sort of climate debate will take place in the halls of the Senate. Presidential contender and well-known climate-change doubter Ted Cruz will hold a hearing in the Space, Science and Competitiveness subcommittee of the Commerce Committee questioning the role of humans in climate change, with a witness list full of scientists who have questioned the mainstream consensus on the issue.

The House Oversight and Government Reform’s Interior subcommittee holds a hearing Tuesday on a proposed Interior Department rule placing limits on coal producers operating near streams. The stream-protection rule has been criticized by the industry for being too restrictive, but the administration says it will protect drinking water and nearby land.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell will testify at a Wednesday hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee about her agency’s role in the August spill of mining waste in Colorado, which was caused by an EPA-backed team.

On Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission will unveil draft rules that would force oil and mining companies to disclose payments to foreign governments for projects in their countries. A federal court shot down an earlier version in 2013, and now the big question is whether the revised version will provide exemptions (or loopholes, depending who you ask) that powerful oil companies such as Exxon and Shell have lobbied for.

The long-delayed regulation is required under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law. It’s aimed at increasing transparency in order to combat the “resource curse”—the corruption, conflict, and poverty that often afflict energy-rich nations in Africa and elsewhere. The SEC, which has slow-walked the rule, has promised a federal judge that it would finalize the regulation by June of 2016.

HEALTH

Congress will continue working on a tax-extenders package deal this week, but it’s looking increasingly unlikely that a delay of Obamacare’s Cadillac tax, which is levied on pricey employer-sponsored health insurance plans, will be included.

During Thursday’s nearly seven-hour vote-a-rama on reconciliation legislation, an amendment repealing the Cadillac passed the upper chamber 90-10. Though the majority of senators are now on record supporting a repeal, that doesn’t mean a delay of the tax—which starts in 2018—will be in the package. (The two chambers still have to agree on a final version of the reconciliation bill before it heads to President Obama’s desk for a promised veto.)

“I don’t think the Cadillac tax is going to be part of any of this end-of-the-year negotiation. I think, frankly, it’s pretty good leverage to do some more systemic reforms for the Affordable Care Act,” Majority Whip John Cornyn told reporters last week. “It’s too valuable to be trading off for other smaller, less valuable items here at the end of the year.”

In addition, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday on the nation’s opioid epidemic, the first time that the panel will convene to discuss the topic this Congress. From 1999 to 2013, prescription-painkiller-related deaths quadrupled. Similarly, heroin-related-overdose deaths nearly quadrupled from 2002 to 2013.

Also Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will hold its second hearing in a two-part series checking up on the Affordable Care Act’s state insurance marketplaces. Andy Slavitt, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services acting administrator, is scheduled to testify.

On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, “Examining Legislation to Improve Health Care and Treatment.”

TECHNOLOGY

FBI Director James Comey will testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The oversight hearing will likely focus on an array of issues, including the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts, surveillance capabilities, and the debate over encryption technology. Comey has previously warned that encrypted communications could allow terrorists to “go dark” from U.S. surveillance.

The House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday on online gambling. The panel’s chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, has been a leading critic of online gambling, and the hearing’s title “A Casino in Every Smartphone—Law Enforcement Implications” suggests a hardline approach to the issue. While the Justice Department has allowed states to regulate online gambling in their own borders, Chaffetz has been pushing for a national ban.

The Senate Commerce Committee will vote Wednesday on Jessica Rosenworcel’s nomination to serve another term as a member of the Federal Communications Commission. The committee is also scheduled to consider a bill that would require the FCC to deposit revenue from airwave auctions into the federal treasury.

WHITE HOUSE

After two weeks in a row of trips overseas, Obama has a relatively light schedule in Washington this week. He started off his week with remarks at the Kennedy Center Honors reception Sunday at the White House before his prime-time address to the nation on combatting terrorism. On Monday, he’ll have meetings at the White House, and on Tuesday will attend a Democratic National Committee roundtable.

On Wednesday, he’ll deliver remarks at an anniversary event for the 13th Amendment, which formally abolished slavery and was ratified by the states on Dec. 6, 1865. Later that day, he’ll meet with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, and host Hanukkah receptions at the White House. He’ll attend more meetings at the White House on Thursday and Friday.

Ben Geman, Alex Rogers, Rachel Roubein, Brendan Sasso and Rebecca Nelson contributed to this article.

]]>

2015’s Policy Battles: Obamacare, Net Neutrality, Keystone, and Surveillance Reform

National Journal, National Journal — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:44:45 -0500

The status quo has shifted, but has it shifted enough to break the gridlock that has gripped Washington for the past four years?

Those bullish on "grand bargains" and "comprehensive reforms" see pieces in place. With Mitch McConnell replacing Harry Reid at the helm of the Senate, the "House passes a bill, which the Senate buries" dynamic of the past two Congresses is over. The blue firewall is broken, and when the flood of bills that have been coming through the Republican-led House will now at least get a full hearing on the Senate floor. And, without control of either floor, congressional Democrats will spend the session almost exclusively on defense.

That does not mean, however, that Republicans now operate a pipeline to passing legislation. They control the Senate, but they don't dominate it: Democrats still have all the votes they need to filibuster any bill or amendment—and there's nothing to suggest they'll be shy about using it. And then there'sveto President Obama's veto power, which is unlikely to be overridden any time soon.

And so, instead of up-and-down votes on stand-alone policy legislation, what's more likely is that any policy changes that come through Congress will do so via the same strategy that lawmakers have employed over the past four years: through add-ons to budgets, debt-ceiling hikes, and the other "must-pass" measures that move through Congress. And the vast majority of policy changes will continue to come from outside of Congress, through Supreme Court rulings and Obama's executive orders.

But regardless of whether gridlock gives sufficiently for anything major to get done, Democrats and Republicans will continue to use hot-button policy issues to drub each other in search of an electoral advantage. Here are key issues they'll be scrapping over.

Health Care

The by-now nearly pro-forma votes to fully repeal Obamacare will continue, but they're for show ponies. The workhouses will be pulling on incremental measures that delay, tweak, or scrap parts of the law that Republicans either find least palatable or most vulnerable. GOP lawmakers are still considering which specific provisions to target, but possible options include eliminating the employer mandate and the medical-device tax, and redefining "full time" as a 40-hour work week, which would weaken the employer mandate. The law requires larger companies to offer insurance to the majority of employees working at least 30 hours per week; Democrats say raising the threshold would cause a significant number of workers to lose their coverage, while Republicans say it would help businesses and stop employers from cutting hours below 30.

But while Congress nibbles around the Affordable Care Act's edges, it's the Supreme Court that holds the most sway over the law. The justices will consider a case that argues that insurance subsidies should not be available on the federal exchange, with a ruling expected in June. If the challengers in King v. Burwell are successful, individuals in the 36 states that declined to set up their own exchanges would lose their financial assistance. That would make coverage unaffordable for up to 99 percent of enrollees in those states, according to a brief from liberal economists. Between 4 million and 5 million people would likely drop their coverage, and the insurance markets in those states would become unstable.

And if the Court does scrap the subsidies, it'll be game-on for health care changes. The subsidy loss will primarily affect Republican-led states, which make up the majority of those that declined to set up their own exchanges. GOP lawmakers will then have to decide whether they want to push for a full repeal, or instead support a legislative answer to the Court decision that would reinstate the subsidies—but only in exchange for major legislative changes.

Outside of Obamacare, Democrats will continue to try to make political hay out of Republican restrictions on abortion and birth control, on both the federal and state levels. The past several years have seen an "unprecedented" number of state antiabortion bills—in 2013, 22 states enacted 70 such measures, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Widespread GOP victories in statehouses in November suggest the trend will continue. But, again, it will be the courts that ultimate decide the laws' fate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit will hear oral arguments in early January over two provisions in Texas's sweeping antiabortion law passed last summer. And depending on the ruling, advocates on both sides say the case could be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Energy

Senate Republicans won't waste any time in getting to a familiar item: A bill forcing approval of the Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline is on tap to be the first bit of business. The bill is all but sure to pass, with GOP majorities in both chambers, but it's unclear if President Obama would veto it. In a December interview, he downplayed the benefits of the pipeline, which could carry heavy crude from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast, while noting that it could contribute to "disastrous" climate change. What policy comes attached to the bill could play a bigger role in determining his reaction. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the pipeline vote will come to the floor with the GOP's long-awaited free-wheeling debate over energy amendments. That opens the door for the Senate to bring up a long list of priorities, including exports of liquefied natural gas and crude oil, limits on EPA's ozone-pollution standards, and blocks to foreign climate aid and to lans to cut carbon emissions from power plants.

Protecting those power-plant standards, which form the tent pole of Obama's climate plan, will be the top priority for Democrats and environmentalists. The administration's final rule for limiting emissions from new power plants is expected in January, while the final standard forexisting power plants—which would require emission cuts of 30 percent of 2005 levels by 2020—is due in July. Refiners and utilities have fought both rules, saying they'll effectively force the closure of coal-fired plants across the country, but the White House has vowed to protect them at all costs. They come with added importance as the U.S. gears up for United Nations climate talks in Paris. Supporters say the administration needs to preserve the toughest emissions rules as the backbone of a climate strategy that gives American negotiators a strong posture at the make-or-break December talks, which could produce a binding global climate deal.

Technology

The Federal Communications Commission is expected to finalize its controversial net-neutrality rules in the first few months of 2015. But the battle will extend well beyond that, as Republicans and industry groups try to repeal the new Internet regulations.

Democrats argue that net neutrality—the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally—is critical for ensuring online freedom and competition. But Republicans warn that the regulations will burden businesses and stifle investment. President Obama has urged the FCC to classify Internet providers in the same category as landline phones, essentially treating the Internet like a utility. The move is necessary, Obama said, to enact strong net-neutrality protections that can hold up in court.

Republicans are expected to fast-track a resolution to kill the new rules, but it would face a certain veto from Obama. They may also try to craft their own legislation to address potential Internet abuses without resorting to utility-style regulation. All of the major Internet providers have vowed to sue the FCC if it enacts Obama's plan.

National Security and Privacy

The push for reforms to the National Security Administrations spy/surveillance programs floundered in 2014, but advocates will have new leverage 2015: Core provisions of the the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act are due to sunset on June 1.

That looming deadline is expected to touch off a do-or-die battle between security hawks, who want to maintain the status quo, and privacy advocates and tech companies, who view it as their last best post-Snowden shot to rein in the National Security Agency's domestic spying authority.

If Section 215 of the Patriot Act expires, intelligence agencies will lose considerable surveillance power. That's unlikely to happen, especially with McConnell now running the Senate. McConnell and nearly all of his GOP caucus coalesced in opposition to the USA Freedom Act, which fell two shorts votes of advancing in November, due to concerns that limiting surveillance could bolster terrorist groups such as ISIS and risk American lives.

Led by Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy and Ron Wyden, NSA reformers are cautiously optimistic they can block a clean reauthorization of the Patriot Act and leverage its deadline to punch through some reforms. But any compromise is likely to be less sweeping than the Freedom Act, and it remains unclear if McConnell is willing to budge at all. One wild card? Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who helped killed the Freedom Act, wants to let the Patriot Act die completely. But with a 2016 presidential campaign expected to launch soon, Paul may be less willing to agitate GOP leadership and McConnell, his fellow Kentuckian.

]]>

Year in Review: Obama Holds End of 2014 News Conference

National Journal, National Journal — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 16:09:08 -0500

Last year, President Obama's end of year press conference began with a sharp question : "Was this the worst year of your presidency?" One year later, at his presser before departing for Hawaii, Obama shouldn't have expected much better.

It's been a taxing political year for the president. His party lost control of the Senate and the Republicans have gained more seats in the House. Without action from Congress, Obama moved forward without them as he sought to protect millions of immigrants from deportation with a stroke of his pen. It's been a year marred with unforeseen racial tensions at home and the rise of ISIS abroad. In his final press conference, however, Obama tried to establish that he may be facing his final two years with a Republican-controlled Congress, but he's not prepared to be a lame duck just yet.

And ever-true to his year-end style, the president began with cheese. "All I want for Christmas," he said, "is to take your questions."

With just eight questions, the conference was shorter than expected. And the president only called on female reporters. Before leaving for vacation, he'll be interviewed by one more: CNN's Candy Crowley.

On Sony, The Interview and North Korea

The first question of the conference was on North Korea, and Obama quickly made news.

President Obama said that Sony made "a mistake" by choosing to pull the release of The Interview due to North Korea's devastating hack on the company's computer systems.

"Sony is a corporation, it suffered significant damage. There were threats against its employees. I am sympathetic to the concerns they face," Obama said. "Having said that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

"We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States," he said.

Obama also made clear that he wasn't consulted on the decision to pull the film. "I wish they would have spoken to me first."

The president also tried to ensure that Sony's decision would not create a precedent. "Occasionally there are going to be breaches likes this," he said. "They are going to be costly, they are going to be serious … but we can't start changing our patterns of behavior anymore than we can stop going to a football game because there might be the possibility of a terrorist attack," Obama said. "Let's not get into that way of doing business."

The FBI announced earlier Friday it had concluded the Communist regime was behind the Sony hack.

Obama criticized the oppressive North Korean regime for going to such extreme lengths to prevent the release of a satirical film that includes a scene depicting the assassination of its dictator, Kim Jong-Un.

"It says something of interest about North Korea that they decided to have the state mount an all-out assault on a movie studio because of a movie starring Seth Rogen and James Flacco," Obama said, seemingly confusing actor James Franco's name with that of Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco (prompting this corrective tweet from the QB). "I love Seth. I love James. But the notion that that was a threat to them I think gives you some sense of the kind of regime we're talking about here."

Obama also said that the U.S. would respond to the cyberattack but gave no specifics, only noting: "We will respond. We will respond proportionally and in a manner that we choose."

The president also said there was no intelligence to suggest North Korea was aided by other countries, despite reports this week that China may have been linked to the attack.

On Cuba

Obama said diplomatically engaging with Cuba is more likely to bring about positive change in the island nation than the decades-old policy of isolation. "What I know deep in my bones is that you have done the same thing for 50 years and nothing has changed, you should try something different if you want a different outcome," Obama said. "And this gives us an opportunity for a different outcome."

"Through engagement, we have a better chance of bringing about change than we would have otherwise."

Just this week, Obama signaled the major policy shift, announcing a number of changes that would loosen regulations on travel, business, and finance. The changes, which will likely begin to go into effect in the coming months, will make it easier for Americans to visit Cuba, spend money there, and bring goods—including, yes, cigars—back.

But that doesn't mean Obama's headed to Cuba anytime too soon. "We're not at a stage here where me visiting Cuba...is in the cards," he said.

Obama also recounted an exchange with Cuban President Raúl Castro on the phone last week for reporters. He said he spent 15 minutes making opening remarks, "which on the phone is a pretty long time," and apologized for speaking at length. President Castro responded by telling him about a time his brother, Fidel, spoke for seven hours straight. "And then President Castro proceeded to deliver his own preliminary remarks that lasted at least twice as long as mine," Obama said, "And then I was able to say, 'Obviously, it runs in the family.' "

The president has come under fire from Democratic and Republican members of Congress for the policy shift. Leading Congressional dissidents Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who called Obama the worst negotiator in modern U.S. history.

On Race

"Like the rest of America, black America in the aggregate is better off now than it was when I came into office," Obama said Friday, citing the growth of ecnomic opportunity.

However, he noted that the gap between income and wealth in black America "persists."

Obama said that there's "a growing awareness in the broader population of what many communities of color have understood for some time, and that is there are specific instances at least where law enforcement doesn't feel as if it's being applied in a color blind fashion."

The president was careful to put the current situation in an optimistic light, though. "But I actually think it's been a healthy conversation that we've had," Obama said. "These are not new phenomenon. The fact that they are now surfacing, in part because people are able to film what have just been in the past stories passed on along a kitchen table, allows people to make their own assessments and evaluations and you're not going to solve the problem if it's not being talked about."

Race relations have emerged as a major source of tension within the U.S. in recent months after Grand Juries in New York and Ferguson, Mo., in two separate incidences did not to indict police officers for killing unarmed black men. The moves sparked outrage and protests in cities around the country. A new Gallup Poll shows that 13 percent of Americans believe today that racism is the most important issue the country is facing. That's a sudden jump from the 1 percent who felt that way at the beginning of November.

Americans have not been as concerned about race since 1992 after construction worker Rodney King was badly beaten by Los Angeles police and the incident was videotaped. While Obama made a commitment earlier this during a meeting with civil rights leader to focus on tearing down racial barriers in the final month of his presidency. The White House has pledged to spend $75 million on body cameras for police and the administration released a report in December highlighting the problems of giving police departments previously used military equipment.

"We have more work to do on that front," Obama said at the presser. "This was a legacy of a troubled racial past of Jim Crow and slavery."

On Congress

The president made it clear that despite a long and bitter relationship with Congress, he is prepared to make a new start with the Republican-controlled body next year.

"I want to work the this new Congress to get things done," he said Friday.

Obama pointed to the most recent spending bill that passed out of Congress as a sign of things to come. The cromnibus bill included plenty for Republicans and Democrats to be upset about, but moderates from both parties came together to pass the legislation.

The president also called on Congress to help build a stronger defense against cyber security attacks like the ones mounted recently. He also outlined that tax reform was another potential area where Congress and the White House could work together. The president said he was looking for more "simplicity" and "fairness."

"There are companies that are parking money outside the country because of tax avoidance," Obama said. "We think it is important everyone pays something."

Obama said that he hopes that the Republican Congress would be able to tackle corporate tax reform, lower rates and eliminate loopholes while also providing a "mechanism" where infrastructure could get built.

The president acknowledged that he cannot unilaterally bring down the trade embargo against Cuba. So far, the Republican party is divided on the issue, but incoming Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he sympathizes with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is opposed to the new relaxation of relations with Cuba.

"I think there are real opportunities to get things done in Congress," Obama said. Still, the president warned Republicans that he would not be backing down on key issues that have been the core of his presidency issues like healthcare and consumer protections.

On the Economy

On the economy, Obama said in his opening statement that the U.S. saw its strongest year of job growth since the 1990s, adding that U.S. businesses have created nearly 11 million jobs this year. He said the country needs to "make sure that the middle class is the engine that powers our prosperity for decades to come."

He noted that nearly all of the jobs added have been in full-time positions, and have seen recent pickup in higher-paying industries.

The president focused particularly on the role played by manufacturing, the energy sector and the auto industry in driving the American economy. Obama said the U.S. is now the top producer of oil and natural gas in the world, and that drivers have saved 77 cents a gallon on gas compared to last year.

Obama declared the "rescue" of the auto industry "officially over," saying the government has repaid taxpayers "every dime and over" for the $80 billion bailout the government gave the auto industry starting with the recession in 2008. This year, Obama said, the auto industry saw 500,000 new jobs.

On His Own Presidency

Despite his lame-duck status, Obama said he wouldn't stop working for ordinary Americans in the two years ahead. He also made a basketball reference, telling reporters he was excited for the final part of his term.

"My presidency is entering the fourth quarter," he said. "Interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter. And I'm looking forward to it."

As for his controversial executive action on immigration last month, he took a hard line against an incoming Republican congress that has vowed to fight him on that issue and others, defending his decision to use his unilateral authority.

He warned congressional Republicans that he intends to "continue to do what I've been doing," in using those orders, "which is where I see a big problem and the opportunity to help the American people, and it is within my lawful authority to provide that help, I'm going to do it."

Though he did offer an olive branch—in the form of a truncated lesson on how a bill becomes a law—it will almost certainly draw the ire of Republican leaders.

"There's a very simple solution, and that's pass bills and work with me to make sure I'm willing to sign those bills," he said. "Because both sides are going to have to compromise. On most issues, in order for their initiatives to become law, I'm going to have to sign off, and that means they have to take into account the issues that I care about, just as I'm going have to take into account the issues that they care about."

Fin

Obama ended the news conference on a hopeful note on the American character. "What I don't think is always captured in our political debates is that the vast majority of people are just trying to do the right thing, and people are basically good and have good intentions," he said. "America knows how to solve problems. And when we work together, we can't be stopped."

Before he stepped away from the podium, the president signed off in Hawaiian. "And now I'm going to go on vacation. Mele Kalikimaka, everybody," he said, which means "Merry Christmas."

"Mahalo!"

Dustin Volz, Kaveh Waddell, Emma Roller, Lauren Fox, Rebecca Nelson, Brian Resnick, Matt Berman contributed to this article.

]]>

Feds Make List of Most Influential Washington Women Under 35

National Journal, National Journal — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:07:55 -0400

Thousands of young women flock to Washington each year, armed with degrees in fields as diverse as political science, communications, public policy, and economics. Mostly, they come for jobs, fueled by energy and even idealism. Sometimes it takes a while for their efforts to have an impact. But not always.

This year, National Journal's annual Women of Washington list focuses on individuals under 35 who quickly made their mark in Congress, think tanks, lobby shops, federal agencies, and other venues. Lists like these are highly unscientific, so this year, in addition to soliciting suggestions from our staff, we asked members and readers—through e-mail, Facebook and Twitter—to nominate young women who had already made a difference. We were flooded with responses.

Then: the hard part. Trimming the list to the 25 most influential was easier than getting an immigration bill through Congress—but just barely. The result reflects a range of D.C. professions. It includes both of the female House members under 35, three House staffers, three Senate aides, two reporters, three executive-branch employees, two White House staffers, three political strategists, three lobbyists, and four think-tank analysts.

Each woman we've featured has a fuller story; we haven't tried to boil down their lives to a few words. These women are still writing their own stories, and we expect them to make an impact in the years to come. As Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the youngest woman in Congress, recalls of her early efforts: "Naysayers have often said, 'You're a nice girl with a bright future, but too young and inexperienced. It's not your time.' " The women on our list are proving the naysayers wrong.

The following executive branch employees made National Journal's list:

Anne MacMillan, 34, Deputy Chief of Staff, Agriculture Department (Chet Susslin)

ANNE MacMILLAN, 34 Deputy Chief of Staff, Agriculture Department

Although her grandfather was once a small-scale bean farmer, MacMillan, who hails from Sacramento, Calif., knew very little about agriculture when she first served as legislative director to Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif. But she believed the way to rise on Capitol Hill was to work for a committee. Toiling on the House Agriculture and Natural Resources panels and advising then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the 2008 farm bill led MacMillan to USDA as a senior policy adviser and then to her March promotion. MacMillan, who has a B.A. from the University of California (San Diego) and a law degree from George Washington, has been helping to shape nutrition policies and first lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign.

Jennifer Psaki, 34, Spokeswoman, State Department(AP/Charles Dharapak)

JENNIFER PSAKI, 34 Spokeswoman, State Department

Psaki is the daily voice of U.S. foreign policy, providing the official Washington response to the civil war in Syria, tensions with Russia, or a crackdown on dissidents in China. "I've been incredibly fortunate to have a front seat to history in this job, and to work with some of the most brilliant and consequential policy experts and thinkers in the world," says Psaki, on the job since February. The College of William & Mary graduate from Greenwich, Conn., gravitated to political communication roles, serving Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as working on both Obama presidential campaigns and John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid.

Amy Shlossman, 30, Chief of Staff, Department of Homeland Security (Chet Susslin)

AMY SHLOSSMAN, 30 Chief of Staff, Homeland Security Department

Shlossman, 30, shelved her plans for law school after graduating with a management degree from the University of Arizona, instead becoming policy director for then-Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona. She followed Napolitano to Washington in January 2009 to become Homeland Security's deputy chief of staff and was promoted to chief in March. "I don't think anything teaches you more about the department than knowing what the nuts and bolts are comprised in the budget," says the Tempe, Ariz., native, charged with running a complicated Cabinet department with 230,000 employees. "I really think a second-term focus area is figuring out new ways to bring our agencies together to accomplish our mission more effectively and more efficiently."

]]>

Senator suggests Benghazi coverup

National Journal, National Journal — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:35:27 -0500

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested on Sunday that the administration covered up information about the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans on Sept. 11.

“I think there are three questions that have to be answered,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday. “Why weren't the warnings about the need for security heeded? Why weren’t the requests for help during the terrorist attack answered? And why did the administration think it had to cover up all of the things that occurred before by putting out to the American people a narrative that I think will turn out to be absolutely false.”

Kyl did not elaborate on his suggestion. However, much of the criticism surrounding the administration’s response to the attack has focused on U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who initially said on television that an anti-Islamic video was the cause of the attack, and failed to mention al-Qaida.

Intelligence officials have since said that the talking points Rice was given were changed to omit any references to al-Qaida, and Rice herself told NBC News this week that relied “solely and squarely” on the intelligence she received.

“In fairness to Ambassador Rice, there ought to be the widest public hearing of what led to her statements and others in the administration, particularly, obviously, if she is going to be nominated for Secretary of State or some other high office,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said on CNN.

“She’s had a distinguished career up until now. I don’t feel that I know exactly what she was told before she went on TV that Sunday morning. And I think we ought to find out before we decide on whether she’s a good or bad public servant.”

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., said on CNN that she was “very concerned” about the administration’s response, citing information given during a classified Senate briefing Sept. 20, more than a week after the attack.

“They were telling us things that they knew, that we even saw in the press, were not correct information,” she said, adding that “I do think we need to go into this in depth.”

]]>

Report: Military realignment to emphasize drones and special forces

National Journal, National Journal — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:54:00 -0500

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will outline on Thursday elements of the Pentagon's $525 billion fiscal 2013 budget, including a plan to "expand its global network of drones and special-operations bases" even as it cuts back on conventional forces, The Wall Street Journal reports. The proposed budget will include the first of $487 billion in cuts over 10 years.

The plan calls for a 30 percent increase in the American drone fleet in coming years. It also seeks a 10 percent increase in special-operations forces over the next four years, from 63,750 this year to 70,000 in 2015, and the deployment of more special-operations teams at "lily pad" bases around the globe where "they can mentor local allies and launch missions," according to The Journal.

Despite the emphasis on drones and special-operations forces, the Pentagon still plans to invest in more conventional equipment, including the F-35 stealth fighter as a "counterweight to rising power, including China," though the department will announce this week that it "is going to slow procurement of the new plane."

In addition, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday that, as a part of the plan, the Army is planning to cut as many as 13 brigades. ]]>

One-stop-shop on bioterrorism at HHS may be split up

Marilyn Werber Serafini and National Journal — Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:00:00 -0400

President Bush's proposed reorganization would end HHS's dominant role by transferring 300 employees and $4 billion from HHS to a new Department of Homeland Security--a move that Thompson says would allow bioterrorism experts to benefit from other intelligence data. Some members of Congress, however, worry that the transfer could create a duplication of effort and uproot some public health specialists from their traditional home at HHS.

"I don't know a lot of the details [about the HHS transfers], but I'm very uneasy about it," said Sen. James M. Jeffords, I-Vt., who sits on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over public health. "It's strange to think it's going to be a wonderful thing."

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said that important questions need answering. "I'll be concerned if they start to separate scientific research and begin fragmenting it to the point where it's losing the synergies of having one place," he said, adding he's starting to talk to "friends" at HHS to see whether the move "makes sense or not."

Currently, Thompson has a one-stop shop at HHS. He has authority over the Public Health Service, which includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the experts on infectious disease); the Food and Drug Administration (the regulator of vaccines, drugs, and food safety); and the National Institutes of Health (the premier medical research entity). Moreover, HHS is home to the Office of Emergency Preparedness, which seeks to ensure that hospitals and other bioterrorism responders are ready to meet the challenge of an attack. In addition, Thompson has created the Office of Public Health Preparedness to coordinate the department's many efforts on bioterrorism.

Kevin Keane, assistant secretary for public affairs at HHS, said he expects the national pharmaceutical stockpile, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the new Office of Public Health Preparedness to move. Keane also believes the proposed department would take control of most of the bioterrorism grants that Thompson recently approved for states and cities to build up their public health systems.

But any division of labor could run into problems. Many NIH scientists working on bioterrorism have other responsibilities as well. "If you're an infectious-disease specialist, you know smallpox, but you also know West Nile virus and influenza," said Keane. One possibility being considered, Keane said, is to leave CDC and NIH personnel where they are, but to have the new department contract with them for bioterrorism-related work.

]]>

The Earlybird: Today's headlines

National Journal — Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 -0400

President Bush and Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., reached a deal on patients' rights legislation Wednesday, the Dallas Morning News reports. But allies of Norwood from both parties "said late Wednesday that they did not support the deal, which would limit the damages patients could win in lawsuits against insurers."
The House could consider the bill today, the Houston Chronicle reports.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who sponsored patients' rights legislation in the Senate, said the compromise protects "HMOs more than patients," CBSNews.com reports.

Forming An Education Coalition

Bush spoke to the National Urban League Wednesday and asked them to help him get his education bill passed, CNN.com reports. Bush said "the policy at many public schools of passing students who haven't learned the required curriculum... amounts to 'bigotry,' and he called for an end to that policy."
Congressional staffers will work on education legislation during the upcoming month-long congressional recess "to forge a compromise between dueling bills," AP reports.

Also In The Administration

The White House released $583 million -- "what's left of the nation's disaster assistance money" -- to help recent victims of flooding, the Houston Chronicle reports.
"Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed Wednesday that they will move forward with a plan to dredge toxic chemicals from the bottom of the Hudson, one of the largest cleanup projects ever conceived," USA Today reports. General Electric will "probably have to pay $500 million" for the cleanup.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday "unanimously approved a resolution calling on President Bush to return to the bargaining table this fall with specific proposals for either revising the Kyoto global warming treaty or negotiating a new binding agreement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions," the Washington Post reports.

Votes In The House...

Early this morning the House voted 223-206 to pass Bush's energy proposal, including opening "part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration," the Boston Globe reports.
"Proponents of campaign finance reform plan to take advantage of the upcoming August recess by putting pressure on various Members to sign a discharge petition that would bring the Shays-Meehan legislation to the House floor this fall," Roll Call reports.
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday to "prohibit the Navy from closing its firing range on the island of Vieques until it found a replacement that was as good or better," the New York Times reports.

And In The Senate

The Senate voted Wednesday to require stricter standards for arsenic in water, AP reports.
The Senate also voted to "impose safety standards on Mexican trucks coming into the United States" as part of a $60 billion transportation package, CNN.com reports. "Republican opponents pledged that when Congress returns in the fall they would put up roadblocks to the legislation President Bush has vowed to veto."
The Senate confirmed Asa Hutchinson as head of the Drug Enforcement Administration Wednesday by a vote of 98-1, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Wednesday to "overturn the so-called Mexico City policy, which bars U.S. funds to overseas groups that use their own money to promote or perform abortions," National Journal News Service reports.
After hearing complaints from food companies about racist leaflets left in cereal boxes and other packages of food, lawmakers are considering "legislation that would make placing messages in food packaging a federal crime," the Wall Street Journal reports.

Penta-Gone

Pentagon officials said Wednesday they "will propose to Congress that an independent commission meet in 2003 to conduct one more round of military base closures and consolidations," AP reports.
The Pentagon is investigating charges that Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, the commanding general of the U.S. Southern Command, "who has been under consideration for a top position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tolerated anti-women attitudes," the Washington Times reports.
The "Code Red" computer worm "spread Wednesday to more than 150,000 computers and forced the Pentagon to shut down public access to many of its Web sites for the second time in 2 weeks," USA Today reports.

Palestinians Vow Revenge

"Thousands of Palestinian mourners vowed revenge and death to collaborators with Israel" during a funeral Wednesday for the eight victims of Israel's helicopter attack on Tuesday, the Boston Globe reports. "Israeli officials, meanwhile, defended their use of targeted killings in the face of mounting criticism from the United States and other countries."
Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday Israel's attack "was 'too aggressive,'" CNN.com reports.

Around The World

Scientists said Wednesday that "the world's population will probably peak at about 9 billion around 2070 before it starts to decline," Reuters reports.
"A Japanese Cabinet panel approved guidelines for stem cell research yesterday, a move likely to allow its laboratories to start studies on building tissue from embryonic cells by the end of the year," AP reports.
One person died and as many as six people are missing after a boat from Cuba that was likely smuggling immigrants "capsized yesterday in rough seas off Key West," AP reports.

Polls, Fund Raising, Announcements

A new Mason-Dixon Florida Poll shows former Attorney General Janet Reno (D) winning a Democratic primary in the 2002 gubernatorial race but losing "soundly" to Gov. Jeb Bush (R) in the general, the Miami Herald reports. The Tallahassee Democrat reports that "Bush's popularity has dipped below 50 percent for the first time in more than three years."
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) took his first step toward re-election on Wednesday, announcing a "campaign Web site that accepts credit card campaign donations," the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.
Libertarian Charles Wilhoit announced he will run for governor in Tennessee in 2002, AP reports.
The Michigan Democratic Party "is demanding to know how much the state spent for radio ads featuring" Lt. Gov. Dick Posthumus (R), a possible gubernatorial candidate, and "Survivor" contestant Mike Skupin (R), who is mulling a Senate bid, the Detroit Free Press reports.

Candidates Who Carry Some Weight

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that former Rep. Jim Talent, R-Mo., plans to challenge Sen. Jean Carnahan, D-Mo., in 2002.
North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) "filed federal election paperwork and notified the State Board of Elections of her plans to run in the 2002" Senate race, the Winston-Salem Journal reports.
Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., "raised just $21,000 during the first six months of the year, intensifying speculation he may retire in 2002," Roll Call reports.
Fund-raising reports released yesterday show two candidates in the Massachusetts 9th District special election -- Democratic state Sens. Stephen Lynch and Brian Joyce -- "on track to raise and spend seven-figure totals," Roll Call reports.
And Massachusetts acting Gov. Jane Swift (R) "announced she'd support Republican state Sen. JoAnn Sprague" in the 9th District race, the Boston Herald reports. Swift also "took fast aim at the Democratic field -- saying none has the kind of tax-cutting record voters in the 9th District need."

Latest Levy Tip

"A Web site based in California forwarded to D.C. police a three-page message that said" Chandra Levy "was buried at a parking lot under construction at Fort Lee," just outside Richmond, Va., the Washington Post reports.
"But state, local and federal law enforcement agencies... did not search for anything yesterday other than the veracity of the tip received," the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports.
Yesterday's "scorching criticism of" Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., "by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and one of California's most influential public figures, shed light on the political difficulty Condit faces amid questions about his conduct since Levy disappeared three months ago," USA Today reports.

Names In The News

Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (R) on Wednesday "turned over four computer hard drives used to draft correspondence during the presidential race for an inspection by news organizations," including the New York Times, AP and nearly a dozen Florida newspapers.
"The FBI yesterday started investigating allegations that" Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., "took $62,000 in campaign contributions from a New Jersey businessman who used straw donors," the New York Post reports.
On Wednesday Bush tapped Strom Thurmond Jr., the 28-year-old son of Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., to serve as South Carolina's U.S. Attorney, Gannett News Service reports.

]]>

The Earlybird: Today's Headlines

National Journal — Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:00:00 -0400

The Treasury Department said Monday that because of the economic slowdown and the rebate checks for President Bush's tax cut, the United States will have to borrow "$51 billion by September, an about-face from its previous predictions," the Los Angeles Times reports.
Treasury officials' new projection is "a drastic -- but widely anticipated -- revision from April, when they expected to pay down $57 billion of the national debt during the period," the Wall Street Journal reports. "A Treasury spokesman noted that when the April projections were made, it was known they likely would be affected by the tax cut then being deliberated."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the lowered budget projections "could force lawmakers to whittle President Bush's request for increased defense spending," the Washington Times reports.

Holiday For Voting

"A commission chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford recommends turning Election Day into a federal holiday and says that voters challenged by poll workers should be allowed to cast ballots, their validity to be determined later," AP reports.
Bush will endorse the suggested reforms when the commission's report is revealed today at a Rose Garden ceremony, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The commission also said "Congress should offer states about $150 million or $200 million a year to upgrade voting equipment and operations," the Washington Post reports.

Stand By His Plan

In a speech to the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives in Washington on Monday, Bush urged Congress "to take action on his faith-based initiative," AP reports.
Bush plans to stick "by his plan to gradually phase out bombing exercises on Puerto Rico's Vieques island" despite the island's non-binding vote over the weekend to halt bombing immediately, AP reports.

Reading Into Laura

First lady Laura Bush on Monday announced she will hold a National Book Festival on Sept. 7-8, the Washington Times reports. The festival will feature "readings, book signings by nearly 50 well-known American authors and musical performances."
The first lady said Monday "she has made up her mind on the controversial issue of embryonic stem cell research but gave no hint of her stance as President Bush grapples with the divisive question," Reuters reports.

On The Hill

Georgia Rep. Charlie Norwood's (R) spokesman said Monday that the legislator has come close to reaching an agreement on patients' rights legislation with the White House, the New York Times reports.
Last night the House approved "a $113 billion bill to fund veterans, housing, space exploration and environmental protection in 2002," the Houston Chronicle reports.
Today the House "is expected to vote on whether to ban human cloning, weighing the potential benefits of 21st-century medical research against the futuristic spectacle of duplicating human beings," the Boston Globe reports.
During his nomination hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, FBI Director-designate Robert Mueller said "that if confirmed he would move forcefully to fix problems at the agency," AP reports.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has written a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him to assure Frank that the FBI's formerly "widespread" program of spying on Americans has ended, the Boston Herald reports. "A three-paragraph letter" Frank wrote "in 1989 about immigration legislation he was very publicly sponsoring ended up in FBI files stamped 'secret.'"

The Reports Are In

The National Academy of Sciences released a study Monday on fuel efficiency standards but "ducked the question of whether or not those standards needed to be raised" as Congress debates the issue, the Boston Globe reports.
Congressional investigators released a report Monday showing that "elderly people were abused in nearly a third of the nation's nursing homes in the past two years," AP reports.
New research suggests that "teenagers whose mothers participated in welfare-to-work programs appear to do worse in school and have more behavior problems than teens from other welfare families," AP reports.

In The Courts

On Monday "a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Christian Coalition to stop retaliating against four black employees who filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the organization in February," the Washington Times reports.
"Gay rights advocates filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking to prevent Maryland's new anti-discrimination law from being put before voters in November 2002," the Baltimore Sun reports.

Around The World

Canada's Ministry of Health issued new regulations Monday "to allow people suffering from terminal illness or long-term debilitating disease to grow and smoke their own marijuana," the Boston Globe reports. Canada is the first country to make medical marijuana legal.
"Sources familiar with the findings of a State Department investigation" said Monday that the United States will share responsibility with Peru "for the mistaken shootdown of a civilian aircraft carrying American missionaries over northern Peru in April," the Washington Post reports.
"An Iraqi newspaper branded U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice 'the mad woman of the White House' on Tuesday for saying the United States would use military force against President Saddam Hussein's government," Reuters reports.
"Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi guided his party to victory in legislative elections but Monday had to fend off investors' skepticism, word of a rift in his party and a controversy over visiting a WWII shrine," CBSNews.com reports.
"Israeli forces have tightened restrictions around Palestinian towns and cities in the West Bank... in response to warnings of impending bomb attacks," CNN.com reports.
"A bus carrying at least 40 people in southern Russia was seized Tuesday by gunmen demanding safe passage to an airport," Reuters reports.

It's Never To Early...

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Mark Warner (D) is kicking off a "media effort [that] will cost an estimated $750,000 a week at its peak, aides said, and will total at least $7 million for the remaining 14 weeks of the campaign," starting with a statewide TV spot today, the Washington Post reports.
Vice President Dick Cheney stumped for New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler (R) yesterday at a fund-raiser, calling the Jersey City mayor "a 'leader of conviction and purpose' whom New Jerseyans should view as a 'must-hire' governor," the New York Times reports.
Schundler's opponent, Woodbridge Mayor Jim McGreevey (D), "has garnered more than $3 million -- exceeding in roughly 48 hours the amount needed to get the maximum in state matching funds," the Gannett State Bureau reports. Joining McGreevey at a fundraiser last night were Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D).
Former Chicago schools chief Paul Vallas "formally entered the race for the [Illinois] Democratic gubernatorial nomination Monday," the Chicago Tribune reports. A long list of Democrats are considering a run in the March 2002 primary to take advantage of the "political problems that have surrounded Republican Gov. George Ryan in his first term in office."
Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley (R) "is asking donors for $500 or more as part of what's being called the Groundwork 2002 campaign" in an effort to retake the Governor's Mansion next year, AP reports.
California Secretary of State Bill Jones (R), who is challenging Gov. Gray Davis (D) in 2002, requested "a preliminary inquiry into whether energy consultants advising" Davis "used inside information to trade stocks of power companies doing business with the state," an investigation that the Securities and Exchange Commission has already started, the Los Angeles Times reports.
Meanwhile, AP reports, Davis' "press secretary recently purchased the same energy stock as five consultants the governor fired last week, he disclosed Monday."
A new poll in Texas shows businessman Tony Sanchez an "early frontrunner among Democrats for the 2002 governor's race," the Brownsville Herald reports.
Pennsylvania "Democrats figure that if precedent holds, next year will be their turn to elect a governor," the New York Times reports.

Dollars And Support

Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., said "he is unhappy fellow New Hampshire Republicans like Sen. Judd Gregg and Rep. Charles Bass have yet to endorse him publicly" for his 2002 re-election bid, AP reports.
Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter (D) "will make a decision by the end of August" regarding a 2002 challenge to Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., the Rocky Mountain News reports. And former U.S. Attorney Tom Strickland (D) "is expected to announce next week that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for the" seat.
"Fifty-three percent of 400 adults questioned in a CBS-2/Chicago Sun-Times survey said they either would strongly support or somewhat support a bid by" William Kennedy Smith (D) in Illinois' 5th District.
Freshman Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., "already has received strong financial support from House Republican leaders for next year's race," the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports.
Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., "raised $272,500 in the first half of the year, saying he decided to augment his campaign fund before his Congressional seat is redistricted and gubernatorial candidates begin to compete for money," AP reports.

Condit "Blows His Top"

"The FBI has concluded that a Pentecostal minister's account of an affair between his daughter and" Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., "is untrue," the Washington Post reports.
The New York Post reports that the "usually cool" Condit "yesterday blew his top for the first time -- getting into a shoving match with a photographer staking him out in the case of intern Chandra Levy's disappearance."
Two D.C. Council members on Monday "criticized the Metropolitan Police Department's search for Chandra Levy, saying too many resources are being diverted to the missing-persons case," the Washington Times reports.

Bouncing With Joy

The opening of Bill Clinton's new Harlem office on Monday "was a day to celebrate the arrival of a new neighbor whose move has seemed to affirm Harlem's resurrection," the New York Times reports. "At one point" during the festivities, Clinton "appeared to be literally bouncing with joy."

]]>

The Earlybird: Today's Headlines

National Journal — Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 -0400

As part of an effort this week to lobby for his energy plan, President Bush today will "sign an executive order designed to promote energy conservation," USA Today reports. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney "will offer interviews to media outlets in the districts of lawmakers whose votes are needed," the Teamsters union "will tout the jobs they say would be created by new exploration and production," and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham "will cite supporting evidence from the Clinton administration for drilling in Alaska."
The House could take up legislation this week "that plays off the key themes of President Bush's proposed national energy policy," the Washington Times reports. The bill would provide for "billions of dollars more in research, stiffer conservation standards and tens of billions of dollars more in energy-related tax breaks."
House Democrats "permitted two key unions to pitch a controversial plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" last week, Roll Call reports. Democrats hosted a session in which the Sierra Club and the Alaska Wilderness League debated against the Teamsters and the International Union of Operating Engineers.

Making Progress With China

Following his trip to China over the weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the nation "wanted to keep tensions over Taiwan at a minimum and also to avoid a repeat of the April 1 spy-plane incident," AP reports.
"Powell says he narrowed differences with China over Beijing's military exports, while giving them assurances Saturday that the planned U.S. missile defense system does not pose a threat to China," CBSNews.com reports.
"Chinese officials have suddenly sounded more accommodating" to discussing issues with U.S. officials, the New York Times reports. "Despite deep worries about American intentions and what are perceived here as the hawkish tendencies of the Bush administration, such thinking about the need for global engagement, especially for close economic and technological ties with the world's only superpower, is nearly dogma in Beijing today."
Today Powell is in Australia for talks with officials there about "regional security issues," AP reports.

Stem-Cell Debate

After holding back "for weeks" on the issue, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Sunday on "Meet The Press" that he opposed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the Washington Post reports.
Hastert also "suggested President Bush may be able to drop his opposition to embryonic stem cell research without dire political consequences," Reuters reports.
The House this week will consider two bills on banning human cloning, USA Today reports.

On The Hill

The debate over patients' rights is expected to resume today with talks between the White House and Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., CNN.com reports.
Hastert may bring the issue to a vote this week, the Washington Times reports.
"House Republicans have abandoned their effort to try to overturn dozens of federal regulations that were adopted in the final months of the Clinton administration, acknowledging that the balance of power on Capitol Hill has changed dramatically since the days when President Bush first came into office," the Washington Post reports.
Hastert and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., said Sunday "they would not support a proposal to change Social Security" that was written by Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Charles W. Stenholm, D-Texas, Reuters reports.
Confirmation hearings will begin today in the Senate Judiciary Committee for FBI Director-designate Robert Swan Mueller III, AP reports.

Bad News For The Kids

Bush had to cancel his planned trip to the National Scout Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia on Sunday because of bad weather, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports.
"All that chatter early in the Bush administration about how family-friendly the working hours at the White House were was bunk. It's 80 hours a week, and no jeans on weekends," U.S. News and World Report's "Washington Whispers" reports.

Calls To Stop The Attacks

"Representatives from the White House, FBI, Microsoft and other" organizations today will "implore worldwide organizations to protect themselves from the 'Code Red' worm" that has been spreading through computers, AP reports.
On Sunday residents of Vieques island voted on a nonbinding referendum "for the U.S. Navy to immediately stop bombing on this Puerto Rican island," AP reports.

Economy Watch

"Spending by consumers... grew 2.1% in the second quarter," although "the Commerce Department reported Friday that inflation-adjusted gross domestic product grew at an anemic 0.7% annual rate in the second quarter, its lowest in eight years," the Wall Street Journal reports.
Stocks are expected to "start the day in positive territory" today, CNNfn.com reports.

On The Russian Front

U.S. intelligence officials said "Russia has conducted a test of a long-range missile with a new jet-powered last stage designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses," the Washington Times reports.
New documents reveal that accused spy Robert Hanssen, who is charged with spying for the Soviets, was "second in command of the FBI's Soviet Analytical Unit, part of a broad program to counter KGB dis-information campaigns" during the 1980s, CBSNews.com reports.
The White House "is urging Russia to enact significant reforms in a few political regions to demonstrate how the entire country could attract private foreign investment," the Wall Street Journal reports.

Mideast Violence

In Jerusalem on Sunday, "hundreds of Israeli police stormed the city's most fought-over religious shrine yesterday and secured the hilltop compound after rocks rained down on Jewish worshippers bowed in prayer at the Western Wall," the Baltimore Sun reports.
Today six Palestinians were killed in an explosion at a West Bank refugee camp, CNN.com reports.

New Positions

Because of a "somewhat ambiguous" South Dakota law, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., "will likely face a court challenge if he tries to run for both re-election and president in 2004," Roll Call reports.
"In a unified move to make the" Reform Party "'more vocal' about its conservative views on social issues, delegates from across the country at the party's national convention" in Nashville this weekend "voted to align themselves with the ideals of Pat Buchanan," the Nashville Tennessean reports.

Emerging Gov. Race Issues

New Jersey gubernatorial hopeful Bret Schundler (R) "so far has failed to win over key Republican women who flourished under former Gov. Christie Whitman and played important roles in raising money and expanding the" state Republican Party, mainly because of "his unambiguous opposition to abortion," the Newark Star-Ledger reports.
New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim McGreevey "spoke to Reuters about his plans for New Jersey, including debt reduction, which he views as the single greatest fiscal concern facing the state."
The "niceties in the" Virginia gubernatorial race between Mark Earley (R) and Mark Warner (D) "are gone and both campaigns are going negative with regularity," the Washington Business Journal reports.
University of Iowa wrestling coach Dan Gable (R) "announced Saturday that he would not seek the Republican nomination for governor in 2002," the Des Moines Register reports.
Pennsylvania state Sen. Robert "Tommy" Tomlinson (R) announced Friday that he would not run for governor, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
Minnesota state Sen. Becky Lourey (D) "probably will register a campaign finance committee with the state in the next few days" to explore a potential gubernatorial bid, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.
"The Tuesday filing deadline on financial activity in the first six months of this year is expected to offer an early glimpse at how formidable" Caifornia Gov. Gray Davis (D) will be in 2002, the Los Angeles Times reports. "Few doubt that Davis will break the record for gubernatorial financing. The only question, say analysts, is by how much."
Former Attorney General Janet Reno (D) on Saturday "said she expects to decide in the next six weeks on whether to run for governor" of Florida, AP reports.
"Florida's Democrats have a bumper crop of candidates running in the 2002 race for governor, but they are behind in fundraising for a battle that is expected to attract national attention," the St. Petersburg Times reports.

Announcements And Explorations

Massachusetts state Sen. Brian Joyce (D) officially kicked off his 9th District bid yesterday, becoming the "last of four Democratic state senators to formally announce their candidacy for the seat," the Boston Globe reports.
William Kennedy Smith, nephew of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., "is exploring his chances of winning the seat held by" Rep. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., AP reports. In 1991, Smith was "found innocent" of a rape charge.
"As Smith looks at the race, the other main contenders in the March 2002 Democratic primary are jockeying for position. Winning the primary in the heavily Democratic 5th District is tantamount to clinching the November general election," the Chicago Sun-Times reports.
Rep. Joe Hoeffel, D-Pa., whose district is threatened in the redistricting process, is "making it his summer project to, as he puts it, 'keep the issue front and center,'" the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

]]>

House conservatives lose spending battles

David Baumann and National Journal — Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:00:00 -0400

House conservatives have become the Buffalo Bills of Congress. Like the NFL team in the early 1990s, members of the House Conservative Action Team frequently win in the regular season during initial debate on the annual appropriations measures. But like the Bills, when it comes to the Super Bowl--the end-of-session budget negotiations--the CATs get whopped.

The same result seems certain to play out in coming days. All told, the final fiscal 2001 appropriations bills are expected to allow tens of billions of dollars more in federal spending than belt-tightening conservative Republican lawmakers would like.

Congressional Republican leaders already plan to disregard the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which called for a total of $585 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2001. They also are prepared to spend more than the $601 billion called for in this spring's congressional budget resolution. It appears that they are instead poised to agree to something closer to $624 billion, the amount that President Clinton has requested.

The CATs, for their part, seem somewhat resigned to the obvious. The approximately 50-member group of Republican lawmakers has become more pragmatic since its party first took over control of Congress in 1995. The CATs acknowledge that the appropriations bills are largely beyond their control once the bills leave the House. The Senate typically has been willing to spend more than the House, and House-Senate conference committees also often add extra money to the bills.

It is precisely at this time of the year--when congressional leaders and the White House cut deals, and bipartisan majorities in both chambers approve them in order to leave town--that the conservatives feel the most helpless. In the up-or-down vote on the final omnibus appropriations bill, few lawmakers are willing to vote "no" and risk shutting down the government or postponing Congress's adjournment.

"There's no opportunity to fight," complained Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has led the CATs' appropriations battle during the past few years but is retiring after this Congress. "You can't modify conference reports. You can just vote against them." Coburn, nevertheless, contended that "there's plenty of fight left in the conservatives. No one should misconstrue that."

Conservatives place the blame in a lot of places--the appropriators, the Senate, and, of course, the White House. Coburn, in a recent interview, grumbled about the Senate. "We've passed our bills close to the [spending levels in the] budget resolution," he said of the House. "It's claimed [that the Senate] is in Republican hands, but it's not. It's in the moderates' or liberals' hands."

Some Senators, of course, take exception to such statements. "I think there's enough blame to go around," said conservative Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who contended that House and Senate appropriators on both sides of the aisle are guilty of larding up spending bills. "If someone starts slipping in projects, then everyone starts slipping in projects."

Added Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has long condemned 'pork' projects: "Both houses are equal-opportunity abusers." While House conservatives have not railed against the appropriators this year, McCain has. "Unfortunately, each year I am constantly amazed how the appropriators find new ways to violate budget policy," McCain complained during a recent Senate floor speech. "Appropriators have employed every sidestepping method in the book to circumvent Senate rules and common budget principles that are supposed to strictly guide the appropriations process."

However, another CATs member, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., blamed the annual spend-a-thons on the President, who holds great leverage in determining the outcome of each fall showdown. "You can't lead the country from the Congress," Shadegg said. "If the President wants to spend and you have the money, you will spend. If Al Gore is elected, we're going to spend more. The only hope to stop the spending is to elect George W. Bush."

But one key conservative said some of the blame lies with the conservatives themselves. "We in the conservative movement have not articulated the case for limited government," said Rep. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., who is expected to take over Coburn's job as appropriations watcher for the CATs.

For years, conservatives argued that government spending, because of the huge federal deficit, should not increase. Once the deficit was eliminated and big surpluses materialized, conservatives tried to make the case, with some success, that Social Security must be protected from budget raids. But, in Toomey's view, "we have not made the case for not spending everything else." He said the key now for conservatives is to convince people that the government should be smaller simply because the federal role should be limited.

Since the passage of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, House conservatives have had an on-again, off-again relationship with their Republican leadership. In most years, GOP leaders have at least initially tried to satisfy some of the CATs' demands for fiscal discipline--to the chagrin of the appropriators--when the House is drafting its spending bills. But during the end game each fall, GOP leaders have often used accounting gimmicks to give the appearance of sticking to the tight spending caps mandated in the 1997 law, while actually evading them.

"I think our leadership has done the best we can," Shadegg said. "Our leadership has tried to restrain spending and it simply cannot."

Republican leaders promised the CATs and other lawmakers that they would not resort to accounting gimmicks this year. So the final omnibus appropriations bill that is passed this fall is expected to include a provision formally raising the 1997 budget caps. Many conservatives will probably go along grudgingly.

As Congress winds down, the real question is what impact, if any, a huge increase in spending will have on the election. In the fall of 1998, congressional Republicans caved in to many of the President's demands to fund his priorities. As a result, spending grew, and the GOP lost five seats in the House. Some conservatives have warned that a similar spending spree could upset the Republicans' conservative base.

So to shore up support among their party's base this campaign season, Republican lawmakers in September seized upon a strategy of pledging to set aside 90 percent of the budget surplus to reduce the federal debt and 10 percent for tax cuts and spending. "We set the 90-10 wall," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. "We think conservatives across the country appreciate that."

In a statement, Armey added: "We have new budget discipline better than I've ever seen in Washington. We're operating at a higher level of budget rigor than ever before. I think the public respects the fact that we're flush with cash and we have not gone on a spending spree."

Armey and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, recently sent Clinton a letter asking him to endorse the 90-10 plan. Clinton hasn't responded, and the two Republicans are trying to pin part of the blame on Vice President Gore. "When it comes to dealing with the surplus, the Clinton-Gore administration appears to be developing a one-track, spend-it-all agenda," Armey said. "Almost every day, the Clinton-Gore administration asks for more money."

Added DeLay: "Our proposal is the only thing that can stop the frenzy of Washington spending this administration is attempting to inflict on taxpayers. We can't let that happen."

Democrats say that the 90-10 plan may sound impressive in campaign speeches and press releases, but actually provides little assistance to the conservatives who want fiscal restraint.

"While it sounds like a model of budget discipline, it actually would allow huge tax cuts and spending increases both next year and over the next 10 years that jeopardize our efforts to eliminate the debt," said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr., D-S.C., the Budget Committee's ranking member, in a letter to House Democrats.

Toomey said he believes that Republicans have accomplished enough during the 106th Congress that their base will not be upset with the last-minute deals cut with the Administration on the appropriations bills.

"There are a lot of reasons for conservatives to say Republicans have done a lot of good things," he said. "We're certainly in better shape than if the Democrats were in charge."

But asked if the Republicans' congressional majorities could be at risk if they spend their way out of town, Shadegg responded: "If the President can successfully make the case that we're responsible for spending, then yes. If we are successful in making the case that he's the one doing the spending, then no."

]]>

Commentary: Pentagon asks too much of too few

George C. Wilson and National Journal — Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:00:00 -0400

For Republican Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, military readiness is no longer simply a Washington political debate about money, spare parts, and increased demands on troops. In recent months, the issue for him took on a more human dimension as he investigated why 12 young airmen died in a midair collision. And what he found was that the U.S. Air Force so exhausted one of its helicopter squadrons that the entire unit was an accident waiting to happen.

And tragically, the accident did happen. On the gusty night of Sept. 3, 1998, two HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters collided while rehearsing nighttime air-rescue missions over the Nevada desert. The accident killed all 12 airmen aboard the two airships. The Air Force blamed the collision on "operator error," an official finding that Bond has denounced as shallow and self-serving. Bond says the main culprit is the armed services' insistence on making too many demands on too few troops. Bond wants to know the extent of this practicae. And this fourth-ranking Republican on the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee intends to keep asking the question until he gets straight answers.

Bond has already discovered that the helicopters' unit--the 66th Rescue Squadron, based at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada--was plagued by problems, and Air Force higher-ups knew it. Yet military leaders continued to impose a relentless pace on a squadron that was receiving poorly trained new aircrews from its training wing, was burned out from deployments to Kuwait and elsewhere, and was so busy trying to meet readiness standards and the needs of upcoming missions that it was ignoring some of the basics of air safety.

Before the midair collision, the 66th was a microcosm of the stresses imposed on small, specialized units. The Pentagon says that the stresses felt by these units are caused by "low density and high demand." The Air Force has only four air-rescue squadrons whose chief job is to rescue downed pilots, and these squadrons must deploy whenever Air Force fliers are patrolling over the Balkans, Iraq, or other global hot spots. As a result, air-rescue squadrons are constantly in demand. The 66th faced not only constant deployment, according to squadron officers, but also endured poor squadron, group, and wing leadership in the months leading up to the midair collision.

About every three months, members of the 66th said, approximately half the squadron would fly to bases near Iraq and Turkey to stand ready to rescue any pilots who might eject from their aircraft while patrolling the Northern Watch and Southern Watch no-fly zones. The frequent deployments derailed the at-home training of junior airmen and pilots and forced the command to take shortcuts in turning out co-pilots. Those shortcuts elevated the potential for accidents caused by inexperience. The number of experienced pilots assigned to the squadron was so small that the pilots had to be deployed again and again to fly the top-priority missions. The workload dispirited them and prompted some to quit the Air Force, and their departures further widened the 66th's experience gap.

"Flag officers are supposed to be looking out for their people," Bond told National Journal. "What I'm concerned about is that this may be the tip of the iceberg," he said of the 66th. Is the can-do ethic of the brass in all the services endangering more lives? he asked.

The Senator said he was "stunned" to learn that Air Force leaders had ignored written warnings, which were funneled up the chain of command, that the squadron was ragged and burned-out. Indeed, Air Force leaders, slavishly adhering to the military's often admirable can-do attitude, kept giving the squadron more dangerous work, including the repeated practice of air-rescue missions. Worse, the Air Force not only failed to hold any of the brass accountable for the conditions that caused the 1998 crash, but Air Force leaders chose the 66th's operations group commander for a prime assignment (he has since been "de-selected") and promoted the then-overseeing wing commander from brigadier general to major general.

Bond, a father himself, cannot believe that anyone-in the military or out of it-could read the testimony of military families, or official Air Force reports before and after the crash, without concluding that there is a desperate need for accountability at the top of today's military. Bond cites as an example the testimony of Laurel Lewis, the widow of Capt. Gregg Lewis, one of the pilots killed in the crash and blamed by the Air Force for "operator error."

"It angers me that 12 people had to die in order for someone to look at the problems occurring in the 66th," Lewis told the 10-member Accident Investigation Board six weeks after the crash. "What I don't understand is why it has taken the death of my husband to peak the interest of this Air Force, which is supposed to be taking care of its own. Why was no questioning done of the staff regarding problems with flying, training, deployments?"

Lewis outlined how her husband faulted the training commands-specifically, the 58th Special Operations Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.-for sending new aircrews that were so ill-prepared, his squadron was having to spend many hours in the air bringing the new crews up to speed.

"He felt like the people who were doing the training were not doing a good job, and the rest of the squadron was suffering from it."

She described how their marriage was hurting because of the demands placed on him by the Air Force. He was once sent to Kuwait on three days' notice and remained there for 20 weeks, during which time Lewis and his wife spoke to each other less than a half hour each week. In fact, Lewis had decided to leave the service.

"We were getting out of the Air Force," she said. "Gregg was the most deployed pilot in the squadron since we got here. He had a parking spot after he made best company-grade officer, but didn't get to park in it because he was deployed.

"I have lost not only my best friend, but my husband and confidant. I have lost my support and my greatest strength here on earth.... We were `Team Lewis,' in his words. And we always sucked it up for the greater good, and then licked each other's wounds later-in private, in the quiet of our home.... We had gotten tired of sucking it up. As much as Gregg enjoyed flying, he loved being married more.

"The things that need to be changed in the Air Force are much bigger than the 66th," she continued.

"Intelligent, caring, patient, kind, thoughtful, intuitive, nurturing, professional men like my husband are leaving the Air Force because they are being mistreated. My husband lost his life, and still people in the 66th remain unchanged. That hurts more than you will ever know. It's someone picking at the pieces of my broken heart."

Col. Larry New, the operations group commander of the 57th Wing at the time of the crash, may not have heard the warnings about pilot burnout from Mrs. Lewis and other wives before the accident. But squadron members say that he should have heeded the alarms about the 66th, sounded seven months before the accident, from the Air Force's Safety Center at Kirtland. The center reported: "Distraction; multiple deployments; limited training opportunities; young, inexperienced crews; issues involving initial qualification and requalification training, and fatigue/burnout are all factors that may have a negative impact on the overall safety level of the squadron." Despite that warning, New and other Air Force leaders kept up the squadron's fast pace.

Air Force Col. Denver L. Pletcher, who presided over the Accident Investigations Board, was as mystified as Bond at why none of the 66th's overseers realized that the squadron was dangerously, if not fatally, sick. In words that the Air Force's top brass found hard to swallow and that galvanized Bond, Pletcher wrote:

"I believe the effects of a high [operations and personnel] tempo coupled with leadership problems, internal and external training deficiencies, broken squadron processes, low aircrew experience level, and midlevel supervisory breakdown all put this aircrew at risk.

"The high ops tempo had a cumulative negative effect on the squadron. The entire squadron was running so hard trying to prepare for the next deployment, trying to ensure all aircrew members were current and qualified, that they lost sight/situational awareness regarding training and safety of flight. Common sense did not prevail. They had little or no control over the situation. No matter what happened, they were determined to meet their commitment.

"It would be very easy to say that this accident was simply pilot error and poor management at the squadron operational level," the colonel said. "However, if you review the facts outlined in both supporting documentation and testimony, it is my opinion that this squadron was on a path to disaster. The men and women of the 66th were doing the best they could, given the hand they were dealt."

Brig. Gen. Michael N. Farage, in reviewing those harsh findings this year for Gen. John P. Jumper, commander of the Air Force Air Combat Command, wrote that Pletcher's "opinion that leadership may have contributed to the accident is a valid one."

Bond sounded more sad than angry as he talked about the tragedy and the lack of accountability. He does not believe that new laws and congressional hearings are the answers to what he regards as a kind of institutional deafness at the top of today's military. It is not right to "blame only the four dead guys" who were flying the two helicopters, Bond said. Accountability should go above them, he continued, after an inquiry into why the system broke down and "what needs to be done about it in the Air Force and other branches. We can't do that in Congress. That's got to be within the military."

Amen to that.

]]>

National Security Agency retools its image

Neil Munro and National Journal — Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:00:00 -0400

Here's a happy oxymoron made possible by the West's victory in the Cold War: Family Day at the supersecret National Security Agency.

The great day came on Saturday, Sept. 23, after weeks of preparation, during which the [number classified] NSA employees removed all [classified] material from view, filed away documents pertaining to its [classified] budget, and locked the door to its [classified] computers in the [classified] control center at its home at Fort Meade, Md.

About 16,000 family members, preceded by a gaggle of curious journalists, then trooped through the agency's headquarters building, restaurant, printing plant, antenna-testing chamber, security center and other once-hidden facilities. It was a day to "celebrate who we are," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, the NSA's director. It was also a day to mark the agency's first internal reorganization since the Cold War, and an occasion to reshape the agency's secretive image, Hayden said in a brief chat with journalists in his corner office.

Still, if it wants to succeed, the agency responsible for what is known in the business as "signals intelligence"-namely, eavesdropping-can't reveal its most important technical and spy secrets, which are hidden inside safes and bolted buildings. Those secrets include the technologies that search the world's airwaves for whispered conversations and scrambled e-mails among foreign generals and politicians, spies and soldiers, terrorists and bomb throwers and bribers and smugglers. Just as important, the agency also hides from visitors the secret design of the encryption technology used to prevent foreign eavesdroppers from listening in on White House and Pentagon conversations.

This secrecy is the NSA's blessing and curse. It is a blessing because it has allowed the agency (and its predecessors) to gather extraordinarily sensitive intelligence-for example, the combat strengths of Nazi divisions down to the last rifle, and what the Soviet premier was saying on the telephone in his limousine during arms control talks. But the most obvious price for this secrecy is the continuous suspicion, in many quarters, that the NSA could simply go too far. This fear comes from major companies wary of government regulation and privacy advocates and reporters who worry about civil liberties.

Overseas, suspicions have begun to crystallize around the NSA's "Echelon" system, which reportedly collects information beamed through commercial communications satellites. European journalists, as well as politicians in the British, German, and pan-European parliaments, allege that Echelon steals business secrets on behalf of U.S. companies, allowing them to snatch jobs away from European workers. U.S. officials deny any such information-sharing, which is illegal under U.S. law, and the NSA recently invited German legislators to tour its eavesdropping center in Bad Aibling, Germany. But it is hard to prove a negative, so the NSA may never be able to kill the Echelon story.

There's another cost to secrecy: inflexibility in the face of rapid political and technological change. During the many decades of the Cold War, the NSA performed secretly, brilliantly, and nearly always without domestic complaint. But it has had great difficulty reorienting itself to the post-Cold War world, where commercial companies sell NSA-defeating, data-scrambling gear to any and all buyers, hire away promising employees, and lobby against NSA-backed laws before a Congress increasingly sympathetic to business concerns. The most obvious example of this congressional sympathy came in the fight over data-scrambling encryption technology, when U.S. companies persuaded the Congress and the White House to dismantle the Cold War rules that barred the export of U.S. encryption products.

The agency now is putting more emphasis on hacking into other countries' computers-and on the corresponding defense of U.S. computers from other countries' hackers. But this new emphasis irks many legislators, companies and privacy advocates who are very reluctant to give the NSA any major role in defending the nation's critical computer-controlled networks-telephone, banking, oil distribution, transportation, air traffic control, and so on.

Another symptom of the NSA's problems came in January, when the agency's central computer systems crashed after what inside and outside critics said was years of inadequate management and investment. In response, the NSA asked for help from its stepchild, the U.S. computer industry, which was nurtured on billions of dollars in Cold War research grants, many of them funneled through the NSA. Thus, the NSA hired an outside manager from SSDS Enterprise Network Systems to reorganize and upgrade its computer networks, and brought on a new finance manager from Legg Mason, a financial services company, to run its accounting system. The agency has also stepped up its efforts to hire and keep the very best technical experts, countering the private sector's efforts to lure away talented employees by offering higher salaries.

Hayden said that change at NSA is vital and that holding Family Day was the right thing to do. "The American people need an image of this agency so there is not a vacuum" that, he said, could be filled by bad press and unrealistic movies.

]]>

Election outcome won't affect Pentagon budget

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. and National Journal — Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:00:00 -0400

If Cuba Gooding Jr. of the movie "Jerry Maguire" was working in the Pentagon, he'd be pretty happy regardless of who wins this November. Under his bottom-line criterion of "show me the money," Bush and Gore both come out pretty even, and congressional support for more defense spending remains strong. Although calls by some hawks for massive increases of more than $50 billion every year will hardly be heeded, no conceivable election outcome could derail the steady, if slow, annual increases in defense budgets that began in 1998.

But the bottom line isn't actually the bottom line: How much you spend is less important than what you spend it on. And here is one of the unnoticed ironies of this year's presidential election campaign. On the question of total spending, both candidates represent the status quo of gradual increases. Yet on the fundamental issue of reorganizing the military for 21st-century war, there is no status quo candidate: Both Bush and Gore have embraced the idea of reform- and in office, either man could have a real chance to deliver substantial change.

"There is a surprising consensus among defense intellectuals and military leaders about the outlines of this nascent military transformation," said Loren Thompson, an analyst with the defense-industry-supported Lexington Institute. The "transformation" in question is from the Industrial Age to the Information Age; from reliance on heavy metal-massive barrages, thick armor and bureaucratic chains of command-to microchips-smart weapons, stealth and computer networks. The reform enthusiasts argue that the result will be a force that is deadlier, more agile, and far easier to deploy to distant battlefields. And after years of laboring in the wilderness of academia or the bowels of the Pentagon bureaucracy, those enthusiasts, come January, might actually be in the White House, regardless who wins.

It wasn't inevitable that it would work out this way. Pork barrel politics in the Capitol, and military conservatism in the Pentagon, have slowed reform for years, and there is no political percentage in taking on entrenched interests over such an arcane, complex issue. But a group of defense intellectuals has coalesced around a receptive George W. Bush. So instead of preaching safely to the strong-defense choir, Bush, while at The Citadel military college in September 1999 to deliver his first major policy address, took time to lament: "Our military is still organized ... for Industrial Age operations, rather than for Information Age battles."

Since then, Bush has shifted his rhetoric to the traditional Republican mantra that Clinton has weakened the military, and Bush has tapped as his running mate Dick Cheney, a former Defense Secretary considered to be skeptical of the "transformation" arguments: "He's much more a status quo kind of guy," said Tom Donnelly of the Project for a New American Century. Nevertheless, the radicals and their ideas remain.

The Gore camp, meanwhile, played defense on defense, echoing some of Bush's reform ideas while calling others too radical. But then came Lieberman. For quite unrelated reasons, Gore happened to choose as his running mate the Senate's strongest advocate of military transformation.

"I don't think he changes the campaign, because then you would have to be critical of the Clinton administration [for its slow progress], but I do think he does change it substantially after the election," said former Pentagon official Lawrence J. Korb. As a leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieberman has pushed the Pentagon to experiment more boldly, and he demonstrates a real grasp of and passion for the details of military reform. In contrast to the well-staffed cadre of defense intellectuals around Bush, Lieberman is a cadre of one-but he would be at the heart of a Gore administration. So while real defense reform will always be an uphill battle, both Gore and Bush would give it a fighting chance.

]]>

Time for 'a different tone,' Bush says

James A. Barnes and National Journal — Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:00:00 -0400

This week, Texas Governor George W. Bush heads to Philadelphia to receive the Republican party's presidential nomination. During one of his last campaign swings before the Republican National Convention, Bush talked with National Journal staff correspondent James A. Barnes between bites of airline food. The following are edited excerpts of their conversation:

NJ: How do you think your approach to leading would differ from Al Gore's?

Bush: I think that Al Gore is a part of a scene in Washington that believes that when you tear something down, when you attack, you get ahead. I don't believe you can lead doing that. I don't think you can solve Social Security's problems by creating an environment of distrust. And there's nothing in this campaign thus far that has shown me there would be a different type of attitude in Washington, D.C., than that attitude of polarization. It's one thing to criticize, it's another thing to put everything in such personal matters. I think a President has got to set a different tone. And this country is starved for a different tone, one of the reasons I'm going to get elected.

NJ: In Knoxville, Tenn., last month, you called for a new approach to the way Washington works and said that "leaving yesterday's quarrels behind" would help achieve that goal.

Bush: Absolutely.

NJ: Is there something Republicans should let go of?

Bush: Yeah. There is a real bitterness about some Republicans, [who] are so used to the squabbles and the finger-pointing. In a speech I gave at the big gala in Washington, I basically said both parties are to blame. I happen to believe most of the onus is on the President. I think a President can set a tone. I wouldn't have run for the presidency if I did not believe an administration can change a tone and an atmosphere in Washington, I firmly believe that. On the other hand, the Congress has responded at times, too, in like kind.

NJ: You also said in Knoxville that if elected you would ask the Senate to act on your nominations in 60 days.

Bush: Yes.

NJ: Thinking about the good will you said is important to establish in Washington, why wait until next year? Why shouldn't the Senate act in this session on President Clinton's nominees whose names were submitted at least 60 days ago?

Bush: That's a very good question. And I would hope that Republicans would hear my call. Now, there's going to be special circumstances in some of the cases. I mean, some judges may be deemed to be incompetent, but I hope there is expeditious review.

NJ: In this session?

Bush: Absolutely.

NJ: And at least hearings for judicial nominees?

Bush: Yeah, if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for the President.

NJ: In terms of letting things go, how about Republican calls for a special counsel investigation of the Clinton-Gore fund raising and their criticism of the Attorney General as being derelict in duty for not moving forward with one?

Bush: Well, there's a great deal of suspicion in Washington. There are folks that have completely overstepped the bounds of fund raising and yet there's been no real accountability. I can understand why Republicans are frustrated. Right after the primaries, my opponent said he wants to ban "soft money," the very same day the President is out raising soft money. These are sleight-of-hand experts. There has been no full accountability of the involvement. I mean, yesterday the Vice President says at the Buddhist temple no money changed hands. My only point is, in the face of a call for campaign funding reform, the best campaign funding reform is going to have honest people.

NJ: It's your first week in the White House.…

Bush: Yes, thank you. I love an optimist. You're the only guy that's ever asked me that question.

… what are some of the first things you do in the office?
Obviously, Step 1 is to bring what is going to be a really interesting, smart, capable Cabinet and staff together and begin the process of doing something I did as governor- of building a team. I haven't thought this far ahead. One of the first things I did was have a full ethics briefing. I said this is the standard, the highest and all that, and attorneys briefed our staff on what to look for, what things to be careful about. Another thing is to start reaching out to Congress to prepare a legislative agenda. The first 100 days, 90 days, or 110 days will be very important. There are some executive directives like getting the Secretary of Defense started on a long-term strategic plan for what the military is going to look like. We have a chance to redefine war and, therefore, enhance peace. I really want our government and our country spending money on the military in a wise, focused fashion. Spending needs to be based upon a strategic vision that says today's military will be high in morale. We'll pay soldiers better and have better training, less deployment. This military needs to look different 30 years from now, so let's start the process today. That requires executive direction.

NJ: If elected, do you plan to use the Reagan model of quick action on major legislation?

Bush: Yes.

NJ: Would Social Security reform be a hundred days agenda item?

Bush: It would be wonderful if it could be, but I think Social Security reform is going to require first and foremost a bipartisan commission, which I would hope to get in place quickly. John McCain had a very good idea on the commission. I don't know whether their recommendations could come out in the first 100 days.

NJ: Would you put McCain on the commission?

Bush: Depends on where he is. I'm not telling you.

NJ: Why haven't you done more in conjunction with Republican congressional leaders in the campaign?

Bush: You mean why haven't I campaigned with them? It's not intentional. They are where they are in Washington, and I'm out in the hustings. They're friends, they're going to be allies. But there is something else here. They asked me yesterday on TV, "Are you for the President's swap on marriage penalty for prescription drugs?" This is up to the Congress and this President to resolve.

NJ: Are you concerned that the Republican Congress and President Clinton might cut some legislative deals to benefit both of them politically, as they did in 1996, which undercut Bob Dole's presidential campaign?

Bush: I expect it. But if it's good for the country, it doesn't concern me. I don't know what you have in mind, but I will tell an example of where I thought the Congress stood strong, and deservedly so, was on eliminating the death tax. In other words, it was a pure bill.

NJ: How much difference ideologically do you see between congressional Republicans and GOP governors?

Bush: It's just a difference. I thought you were going to say between the House and the Senate, and my answer to that was it's hard to tell because of the procedural nature of both houses. You can take the same person with the same philosophy, but because the rules are different, there's a lot of procedural differences that tend to set the tenor of each body. Same with governors. We're all conservative people, but there's such a difference between a governor and a legislator. It's just a different mentality. The governors are decision-makers, they're doers, they play the hand they've been dealt, and the legislative body tends to be more reactive. I tease people, saying appropriators are appropriators. If you think they are going to take surpluses and pay down debt, you don't understand the nature of an appropriator. Both Republican and Democrat appropriators appropriate. That's why I have no faith that unspent money, is going to be spent on what people want.

NJ: Have you ever voted for a Democrat?

Bush: Well, my stock answer is they always put the curtains on the booth for a reason, but, yes, I have, in Texas.

NJ: Who are some Democrats you admire?

Bush: I greatly admired [late Texas Lt. Gov.] Bob Bullock a lot. And he passed as a close friend. When he went it was a tearful moment. Speaker Pete Laney of the Texas House, I admire Pete. We have our differences, sometimes, but I think he's been a very good speaker, and I think the success of my tenure as governor is a result of me being able to work with Pete.

NJ: Democrats outside of Texas?

Bush: I had a good visit with [Sen.] Bob Kerreythe other day. And I found him to be a very interesting man. Just willing to think anew. Bob's an interesting guy. I was very impressed by him.

NJ: Do you think the nominating process should be changed so it's not so compressed?

Bush: That's a really hard question to ask somebody that's just come through the process. We're people who get mikes stuck in our face and[asked], "Will you promise to keep Iowa and New Hampshire first?" as you're campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. I mean, you know, hello? And so we're fresh off of promises to these states. Yeah, something has to be done, I think. I don't know what the solution is. I know this, though: It was a pretty tough process, physically. I'm in great condition, and it was a lot tougher than I thought it would be. Maybe it's because it was so compressed. I mean, remember-we're flying across the country, going from New York to California to Ohio to Missouri to California to New York, and it was a lot of work. I'm not averse to work, don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining, but it was tough. I think the process is good in many ways, though. It gave voters a chance to look at me. You didn't know me from Adam. You're probably wondering what this guy is all about. You now have a different set of data points. You saw me lose. You saw me lose, hopefully, gracefully. You saw me turn around and win. Everything looked like it was heading right to victory and all of a sudden I lost again.

NJ: How about what phase in the campaign, like after you lost New Hampshire?

Bush: That was a learning experience. On the road to the presidency, there are certain moments that help define who I am to the public and who I am to myself. I believe that I am growing into the presidency. And I think there's a series of steps toward that. And, there's a certain internal, hard to describe what's happening to me, because you're talking in midprocess. But there's a certain internal, certain events that…

NJ: Steel you?

Bush: Yeah, that steel you; convince you that it's meant to be. Defeat is part of it. You see the primaries are this. You wake up in New Hampshire the next morning, you just got clobbered. Then you're down in Delaware and South Carolina. And you win Delaware, and the next moment it's South Carolina, and you win South Carolina, and then it's Michigan. Those of us who have run for office before remember the victories and then remember a little time off between the victories and the transition. In other words, there's a moment. And the final moment doesn't arrive for the presidency until November. So there's a series of these emotional ups and downs, and it's like a marathon. It's like a very-long-distance race. I've come away realizing that this process requires the utmost of discipline and focus and patience, something I have not been long on in my life. But I'm becoming a much more patient person, which I think will stand me in good stead to be the President. Patience is very important, because with patience comes the confidence-confidence in the strategy, confidence in the wisdom of the American people, confidence in my own abilities.

NJ: How important do you think the debates will be?

Bush: What debates? Just kidding. I think they'll be important, part of the puzzle. I think the selection of the Vice President will be very important. I think the acceptance speech will be important, and I think some of the debates will be important. But I think the Sunday Gore and I appeared on interview shows was important. For those who were paying attention, I think people got to see me under questioning and got to see Gore. It's kind of an interesting side-by-side comparison.

But you pick moments, this is a moment. You walk away saying, you know, "complete idiot" or "maybe I will vote for him." And so do the voters. They pick up glimpses. People decide all kinds of different ways. The debates will have some importance. I found the debates in the primaries to be very important moments, important for me, important for my campaign. We got exposure. People paid attention, but they weren't deciding.

NJ: What lessons did you take from your father's loss in 1992?

Bush: That incumbency, if not properly defended, is fragile.

NJ: And his victory in '88?

Bush: That it's important to drive the agenda.

NJ: How are you like your father?

Bush: Call up people who know us both.

NJ: Same for your mother?

Bush: Sure. I don't know. A lot of people say I'm a lot like my mom. That's a hard question for me to answer. I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure me out, particularly in terms of what my genetic disposition is, and my personality is, relative to my parents. I'm just not into psychobabble. But Beverly Kaufman, the county clerk in Harris County, said one time when she was introducing me, she said, "I'm introducing a very great governor, an interesting man-he's got his daddy's eyes and his mother's mouth."

]]>

OSHA runs into repetitive problem in House

David Baumann and National Journal — Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:00:00 -0400

The issue of ergonomics has confronted the House so many times that it is causing members repetitive stress. It might also be affecting their memories.

For years, Republicans and their business allies have questioned whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the enactment of federal requirements for how employers must deal with employees suffering from repetitive-stress injuries. After the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, offered an annual appropriations amendment that barred the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from working on these ergonomics standards.

Bonilla's amendment usually sparked contentious debate in Congress and with the Clinton Administration. But in 1995 and 1996, OSHA's ergonomics rules were blocked. Then, as another showdown over the issue loomed in 1997, Bonilla and fellow House Republican appropriators brokered a compromise: They would prohibit OSHA from proceeding with its rule for only one more year, during which they encouraged the agency to further study the issue.

In a report accompanying the fiscal 1998 appropriations bill for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments, the House Appropriations Committee said this of the deal: "The committee will refrain from any further restrictions with regard to the development, promulgation, or issuance of an ergonomic standard following fiscal year 1998."

House Republicans have stuck to that commitment-until now. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill passed by the House on June 14 prohibits OSHA from issuing any final ergonomics standards. Rep. Anne Northup, R-Ky., offered the provision in the Appropriations Committee last month, and many members who also sat on the panel in 1997 voted for it. Many appropriators also supported Northup's provision when it was challenged on the House floor on June 8.

The issue is an important one for the National Federation of Independent Business, which recently issued a news release with the headline "Small Business Will Remember Any Votes to Deny Protection from Costly Ergonomics Mandate." But House Republican appropriators did not mention the NFIB's election-year threat when asked about their recent votes.

Northup apparently does not think much of the 1997 deal made by then-Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston, R-La., and ranking member David R. Obey, D-Wis. "It is absolutely unconstitutional for one Congress to bind the hands of another Congress," declared Northup, who also criticized OSHA for drafting a rule "that was as sweeping as it could be."

Appropriations Chairman C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., was unaware of the 1997 agreement until after the committee vote in May, a spokeswoman said. "Had he known about the agreement, he probably would have followed through on the earlier commitment," she said. "Since he was not a party to it, he thought he did what was right." Bonilla, for his part, said he simply had agreed in 1997 not to bring up the ergonomics issue again but that should not have stopped any other lawmaker from doing so.

The Senate may not go along with the House's attempt to block OSHA's ergonomics standards, which the agency would like to issue by year's end, and the White House will surely object. In any event, Democrats such as Obey point to the House Republicans' recent move as cause for concern. "If you can't count on a member's word in the future," said Obey, "then the lubricant that leads to compromise wears out."

]]>

Senator wants felons off the payroll faster

National Journal — Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0400

Still miffed that the Pentagon kept a convicted felon (who was a law enforcement officer) on the payroll long enough for him to qualify for a juicier government retirement package, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has introduced a bill to send such folks packing.

The object of Grassley's scorn is Larry Hollingsworth, a former executive of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service who confessed to stealing the identity of a dead man and then applying for a U.S. passport in his name. Hollingsworth was convicted of passport fraud in March 1996 but was allowed to hang around until his 50th birthday in September of that year-a little favor that netted him an extra $750,000 in retirement pay, according to Grassley.

If Hollingsworth had been removed from office immediately upon his conviction, he would have had to wait until age 62 to collect retirement checks.

The bill is S. 2404.

]]>

The government goes offline

Neil Munro and National Journal — Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:00:00 -0500

The sovereign power of nation-states and national governments rose in lockstep with artillery and the Industrial Revolution-and will probably shrink as the age of mass production is supplanted by the information-powered age of catalogued, customized, cross-border consumerism.

For decades, nation-states have been losing autonomy on the big issues of war and wealth because democracy, international trade, global financial markets, and the spread of conventional and nuclear weapons have all eroded their power. Over the next few years, the Internet will restrict their sovereignty in the not-so-big things-taxes, regulation, and public expectations. This will happen, say technologists, because the Internet gives consumers the power to trade directly with suppliers of goods and services located in foreign jurisdictions.

This power allows border-jumping consumers to bypass Chinese censors, German anti-Nazi laws, and French culture-protection rules. And it allows U.S. consumers to evade federal, state, and local rules-even those rules the consumer-citizens have voted for in elections. With the Internet, they can buy U.S. medicines without domestic prescriptions, trade multinational stocks without oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, purchase goods without paying sales tax, view obscene images or gamble online, and hire foreign-licensed lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers, and real estate agents.

Because AOL is allowing consumers to trade freely with people in other jurisdictions, "we are going to question the whole concept of sovereignty," said George Vradenburg, public policy chief for America Online, which provides Internet service for 20 million customers. Governments also sometimes find their laws nullified by new technologies developed by companies and by voluntary groups such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, a group of individuals and company employees who cooperatively update the basic software of the Internet. Companies develop technologies such as desktop computers, for example, which can be used to design sophisticated weapons, so bypassing export-control laws. Encryption software can be used to hide funds from tax inspectors, pay foreign clients, frustrate court-approved searches for evidence, and create digital money beyond the control of Treasury departments. In many cases, this "West Coast Code" of software and technology trumps the traditional "East Coast Code" of regulations and laws, says Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard University. For example, on Nov. 10, the Internet task force voted overwhelmingly against a change that would help telephone calls made via the Internet to be tapped by police armed with a judge's approval, just as ordinary telephone calls are tapped.

But the Internet and the World Wide Web of sales and services are just the most obvious elements of the trend away from the sovereignty of nations and toward the sovereignty of the individual. The new technology is intertwined with a broader alliance of commercial and intellectual forces that oppose national sovereignty for reasons of free trade and personal freedom in social and economic matters. Generally, the U.S. government welcomes these changes because they boost the economy. Sometimes the government resists, most notably in the ongoing antitrust case against Microsoft Corp., in which the company argued that the supposedly unique nature of the very competitive and constantly changing high-tech industry has rendered traditional antitrust rules obsolete.

Most often, important sectors of society bolster the trends fostered by the Internet. These include the judges who, in the name of personal freedom, demand government neutrality on issues such as pornography; politicians who favor deregulation, privacy, and low taxes; political advocates who work assiduously to protect all speech or to maximize personal autonomy; voters who oppose or mistrust government mandates; and companies that are eager for free trade. For example, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart recently urged Congress to drop a proposed law regulating the use of Internet addresses such as Whitehouse.com.

Instead, said Lockhart, Congress should leave the task to a new nongovernment panel, the international Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The high-tech industry is confident that the trend is toward deregulation. Thus, Thomas P. Vartanian, chairman of the American Bar Association's panel on cyberbusiness law, predicts that within several years, the U.S. federal and state governments will abandon their monopoly over consumer protection laws. This they will do, he says, by giving Internet-using consumers the freedom to choose which law governs each online purchase, just as they are now free to choose the make, color, and warranty of the car they buy on Main Street.

For example, an online buyer could choose to buy a product from a vendor in a jurisdiction that has tough consumer protection laws, or choose instead to buy the product at lower cost from a jurisdiction that has no consumer protection laws. This "choice of law" vision is eagerly embraced by companies such as AOL, who would rather not have to comply with a myriad of laws in the many countries where their customers are based. "The faster that business acts [to promote choice of law], . . . the more likely it will be adopted, and government will accede," said Vradenburg.

This "choice of law" question, said one government official, "is amazing, it's enormous." But so far, he said, the Administration has neither embraced nor rejected the idea.

Overall, predicts Lessig, this combination of technological, business, and intellectual trends will soon produce a psychological change among U.S. citizens. Because they increasingly find their personal and financial interests affected by global-rather than national-issues, many U.S. citizens will come to see themselves as citizens of the world, he predicts. Such a change would mirror that seen in the 1850s and 1860s, when struggles between the states over slavery caused citizens of the states to recast themselves as citizens of the United States, sharply reducing the states' role in governing them, he argues.

That's a perspective echoed by U.S. technology companies, many of whom earn half of their revenue overseas. According to Vradenburg, the Internet "will slowly change the relationship between consumers, citizens, and the government" over the next five to 10 years. This rollback will still leave government with many important functions, he said, such as managing traffic, ensuring public safety, setting transportation policy, overseeing education, providing an economic safety net, and enforcing contracts "no matter where the seller resides and where the buyer resides."

Many Internet industry officials share these expectations, and industry publications reflect them. "I expect to see the overthrow of the U.S. government in my lifetime," wrote Richard L. Brandt, the senior contributing editor of Upside, last July. Because of the Internet, he continued, "local laws are unenforceable globally, [and] the lowest common denominator-in other words, the weakest laws-will win." Upside is a business magazine based in San Francisco.

But this libertarian, deregulatory trend toward sovereignty for each consumer is running into several counterforces. Even if governments don't get new powers from technology, they will still preserve their own sovereignty because of their power to trace cash, extradite suspects, and jail lawbreakers, said Solveig Singleton, a technology analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Also, technology will take new and unexpected directions that could enhance government power. IBM did not predict its own displacement by the once-subservient Microsoft, and Microsoft did not foresee the rise of the Internet, the spread of free, public software, or even the antitrust lawsuit that has lately preoccupied it. So privacy advocates worry that information technology could create a surveillance state, in which little would be hidden from government officials or marketing vice presidents. For example, companies are eager to identify online consumers, mostly so they can enforce contracts and tailor services for each consumer. Consumers often welcome that identification technology, but multiple governments could use it to cooperatively apply their various laws to cyberspace. Thus, the U.S. Medicaid program could refuse to reimburse U.S. citizens when they bought medicines from online vendors based in other countries, and U.S. law could attack online casinos by allowing U.S. citizens to repudiate betting debts.

Governments could also use the technology to implement each other's laws-to keep German citizens from buying Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf from U.S. booksellers, and to prevent Danish kids from viewing online advertisements by Disney, said Lessig. Although many rich or educated people could bypass these laws and technical curbs, most citizens and most companies would comply most of the time, predicted Lessig. They would comply because the costs of noncompliance-fines, lawyers' fees, embarrassment-would outweigh the benefits, he said.

Despite all this technology, consumers could simply decide en masse to act as citizens-so reviving national sovereignty-and demand that government fix some marketplace problem, regardless of what contracts consumers had signed. Some of these eruptions have already occurred. In San Francisco, voters recently outlawed the extra fees many banks charged the users of automatic teller machines, and in Washington, federal legislators are trying to remove the liability protection en-joyed by health maintenance organizations. (The HMO industry should be counted as a high-tech sector because it relies on sophisticated computers to control the cost and supply of medical services to customers around the nation.) More narrowly, entrepreneurial trial lawyers in Texas won a $1 billion judgment against Toshiba Corp., a Japanese computer-maker, for a modest fault found within its computers. Little or no actual damage was reported, but the company accepted the settlement, partly to avoid the risk that a jury of citizens would impose a multibillion-dollar punitive damage award.

A broader backlash could hit the online industry if it fails to win customers' trust, warned Vradenburg. To head off the danger, he urges government support for alternative dispute resolution procedures similar to those created by the credit card companies to settle disputes between card users and vendors. For example, AOL could referee a dispute between one of its subscribers and a foreign online vendor, and could eject a recalcitrant vendor from AOL's cyberspace mall, he said. Still, "the legal systems won't catch up with this" technology trend, he said.

Jonathan Weber, editor in chief of The Industry Standard, a San Francisco-based business magazine, similarly agrees that the answer resides not with law but with business. When the Internet renders state and local governments largely powerless, he says, what's needed to offset the voters' "loss of local control and [the] depersonalization that comes along with it" is better customer service. Of course, excellent consumer service is often dependent on technologies that identify consumers and track transactions-both of which many privacy advocates firmly oppose.

Even if companies' customer service partly supplants politicians' constituent service, however, government and citizens still ought to reorder the marketplace when necessary, argues Lessig. For example, music, media, and movie companies can prevent the copying of copyrighted music, online vendors can monitor every step consumers take in cyberspace, and firms can display pornography to children despite parents' desires. In all these cases, technology supersedes political decisions formerly decided by voters and legislators, he argues.

In the case of copyright protection, anti-piracy technology can eviscerate a right that citizens enjoy under the long-standing "fair use" provisions of copyright law-the right to freely quote, display, record, or caricature snippets of articles, movies, and songs. Companies could use this anti-piracy technology to automatically demand payment whenever a consumer copied, borrowed, snipped, or replayed their words, images, or tunes. Indeed, people acting as citizens can sometimes create more liberating conditions than those that result when people act as consumers in the marketplace, Lessig argues.

For example, parents' dislike of widespread Internet pornography has spurred the development of software to filter out the pornography. Parents can use such filters at home, but companies are also likely to use them to shelter their customers from unpleasant information about poverty, crime, or corporate malfeasance, said Lessig. But citizens in a democracy should know about these unpleasant things, he argues. So governments should curb the spread of such filters by legislating against Internet porn, he said.

Numerous nongovernment organizations are trying to sway these outcomes, usually in opposition to industry. For example, unions in the United States and consumer groups in Europe oppose many free-trade proposals urged by industry. Also, the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation has declared it will spend $100 million over the next five years to "help ensure that public needs are served by emerging communications media and information technologies." As a first step, the foundation has donated funds to help citizens vote in upcoming elections for nine officers of the international Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Other U.S. groups are promoting Internet legislation that promotes privacy, curbs pornography, or boosts consumer protections. But Lessig doubts that government can reassert its role, partly because so few academics and political advocates are willing to accept government restriction on personal autonomy for the benefit of society.

In Congress, the reaction to the changing role of government is muted, partly because legislators are more concerned with boosting the growth of the high-tech industries, winning elections, and resolving other controversies. Longer-term issues tend to fall by the wayside in the day-to-day rush, especially if a legislator sees immediate advantages coming from the advance of technology.

For example, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is a social conservative who supports economic deregulation and the easy sale of encryption technology, but who also wants to curb online gambling and Internet obscenity. "Those people who want more-liberalized standards," said Goodlatte, "are aided by the fact that it is increasingly difficult to police the Internet.

. . . [But] I am someone who believes in limited government, reducing taxes, supporting free enterprise, and individual responsibility. All of those things are major opportunities-and challenges-of the Internet."

However, "people will demand to be protected and [want] a facility to deal with cross-territory problems," such as a recession or privacy violations, said Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., who sees a continued role for government. Moreover, the Internet has broadened the opportunities for citizens to act through local governments and community organizations, he said.

Still, most observers in Congress and industry agree that whatever happens to national sovereignty in the next decade, today's policy decisions-or nondecisions-are going to have major consequences. As Vradenburg's boss, AOL Chairman and CEO Steve Case, says repeatedly, "the Internet is big enough to matter, but small enough to be shaped."

]]>

Front and Center

James Kitfield and National Journal — Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:00:00 -0500

They were strangers united by a common dream: to be the first American women to pilot fighters, to steer bombers halfway around the world, to command warships, to help keep the peace in faraway war zones, to reach the highest echelons of military command. In the process, they would have to scale the battlements of one of the most male-dominated and testosterone-driven institutions of American society.

The Defense Department in 1993-94 began opening to women many of the 260,000 combat and combat-support jobs previously closed to them. The immediate spurs to this action were the valuable contributions of women in the Persian Gulf war--41,000 servicewomen deployed to the Gulf, making up 8.6 percent of the force--and the stinging revelations of the 1991 Tailhook scandal.

The experiences of some of the women who have assumed the mantle of warrior--and the near-constant drumbeat of sexual scandal that has dogged the Pentagon in recent years--attest to how little the admirals and generals understood or were prepared for a revolution that is rapidly reshaping the face of the American military.

In 1970, women made up only 1.4 percent of active-duty personnel. With the establishment of the all-volunteer force in 1973, however, the military services began actively recruiting women to meet their overall numerical goals. The percentage of women has grown steadily since, reaching 11.8 percent of the active force in 1994 and 13.6 percent today. All told, women account for 193,114 of the 1.42 million Americans in uniform.

At the Oct. 18 dedication of a memorial to honor the service of women in the military--starting with the Revolutionary War--Vice President Al Gore referred to that progression, noting that recent years have seen the first woman on guard duty at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the first woman (an Air Force lieutenant colonel) to pilot the space shuttle. "Today, women are a vital element of virtually every aspect of our mission around the world," he said.

The services have also come to rely heavily on women to meet the demands of an increasingly high-tech military. As a group, women in the military score higher on mental acuity tests than do men and are credited with helping fill out what Pentagon leaders say is quantifiably the brightest force they have ever fielded. "We might be able to meet our numbers by just recruiting men, but we simply couldn't attract the number of high-quality people the modern Navy demands if we ignored half the recruiting pool," said Vice Adm. Daniel T. Oliver, chief of Naval Personnel.

Still, some women in uniform are finding it slow going. A Pentagon-sponsored study released on Oct. 22 found that a "very low number" of combat-connected jobs have in fact been filled by women.

At the same time, a spate of sexual scandals in recent years has prompted internal disagreements over integration of the sexes and the extent of sexual misconduct in the military. Scandals have ranged from the entry level, where new recruits have been preyed upon by Army drill instructors at an Aberdeen (Md.) base, to the upper reaches of Pentagon command, where at least five flag-rank officers and the Army's most-senior noncommissioned officer have been relieved of command in the past two years for sexual misconduct.

"I think the military is clearly struggling with issues involving sexual harassment and discrimination, and the debate is not over. But neither is the debate on male and female roles over in American society at large," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., a member of the House National Security Military Personnel Subcommittee. "The bottom line is that unless the military includes women as full partners, we're not fielding the force best able to fight and win the high-tech wars of the future."

Critics, however, say the recent sexual scandals indicate that military readiness and discipline are being compromised.

"Military leaders are afraid to complain about all this social engineering because they'll lose their jobs, but all the dire predictions of people who warned against opening combat jobs to women are coming true," said Elaine Donnelly, a former member of the Bush Administration's Presidential Panel on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which in a split vote in 1992 recommended against opening combat jobs to women.

"We're seeing pregnancies cause readiness problems aboard warships and inside co-ed tents in Bosnia, and the lowering and gender-norming of standards throughout the military," said Donnelly, who runs the Center for Military Readiness, a one-person think tank, and opposes allowing women in combat and gays in the military. "All of these new policies ignore the fact that sexuality does indeed matter, and that sexual complications detract from discipline and morale in our military units."

Those concerns are central to the debate over opening many combat units to women. As sociologists have long noted, soldiers in battle do not put themselves in harm's way for Mom, the American flag or apple pie. They fight and die for one another. Would the introduction of temptation tear at the barbed-wire bonds that have historically anchored men in the brutal tempest of war?

Uncharted Territory

When the Pentagon opened nearly all but direct-ground combat jobs to women in 1993-94, many women regarded the decision as a blow for equality. Because promotions have always been closely tied to combat command, the old "risk rule" that barred women from most dangerous jobs was seen by many as a glass ceiling.

Indeed, when F-14 Tomcat pilots Carey Lohrenz, Kara Hultgreen and three other women fighter pilots arrived aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in 1994, they were widely viewed as an antidote to the public relations disaster of the Tailhook scandal, in which off-duty naval aviators sexually assaulted a female helicopter pilot.

Yet, besides rushing to win a public relations race with the Air Force by being the first to field female jet fighter pilots, the Navy did very little to prepare for the melding of women into one of the most macho of military subcultures: the jocks who fly high-performance fighters off pitching carrier decks.

Almost from the beginning, flight instructors protested that in its rush to get the female pilots to the fleet, the service was ignoring warning signs that they were marginal aviators. For their part, the female pilots complained that they were patronized by commanders, ostracized by their squadron mates and given little of the mentoring widely viewed as critical for apprentice pilots. A Navy inspector general's report released last summer lends credence to the charges of both sides. Not in dispute is the fact that in October 1994, Lt. Hultgreen was killed largely because of mistakes she made as she tried to land her F-14 on the Lincoln. Lt. Lohrenz and two other female pilots aboard the carrier were later grounded for poor flying.

"Smooth" is not how the Air Force would describe its experience with the first woman to command a B-52 bomber. Initially, Air Force Academy graduate Lt. Kelly Flinn was a public relations dream. But her story turned into a news media nightmare for the Air Force earlier this year after service officials initiated court-martial proceedings against Flinn for trying to conceal an affair with a married man. She eventually resigned.

But then there's the countervailing example of Air Force Capt. Ellen McKinnon, one of the first of her sex to fly an A-10 attack aircraft, the tank-killer "Wart Hog." She's completed two overseas deployments and has had no difficulty negotiating the sometimes complex lines governing male-female relations in the military. She's not surprised, however, that others have.

"Women do introduce a new dynamic into military units, and this is a learning process for both men and women," McKinnon said. "Initially, men aren't quite sure how to deal with women, and frankly, some of them are probably intimidated. . . . It takes a while for everyone to figure out how to handle change."

The Pentagon is clearly still trying to get its bearings. "Neither we nor any other country has had such a large number of women in uniform without a special corps of their own," said Charles Moskos, a noted military author and sociologist at Northwestern University. "I also don't believe the services ever fully came to grips with the implications of recruiting more and more women over the years."

After being recalled to duty to serve as vice chairwoman of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual Harassment, Brig. Gen. Evelyn P. Foote came to a similar judgment. In the Army's most far-reaching sexual misconduct investigation ever, the panel visited 59 installations around the world and surveyed 30,000 Army respondents. Their conclusion: Sexual harassment and discrimination, including unwanted sexual advances, offensive remarks and unequal job opportunities, exist "throughout the Army, crossing gender, rank and racial lines."

The Oct. 22 Pentagon study--undertaken by the RAND National Defense Institute--said some military commanders were reluctant to allow women to fill jobs for which they were qualified.

In a recent interview, Foote said, "I was always struck by the fact that as the all-volunteer force took root in the 1970s, and the Army began introducing great numbers of women into operational divisions, quite frankly it did almost nothing to prepare the organization for this really fundamental change." While some commanders handled the integration of women very well, she pointed out, others made it clear that women were unwanted. "I'm convinced the reservoir of ill will towards women and the wide disparity in command climates you still find today can be traced back to that lack of preparation," she said.

During his brief tenure as Defense Secretary, the late Les Aspin took the unprecedented step of letting women become members of nearly all units except the special forces and those engaged in ground combat (armor, infantry and artillery). Eighty percent of all military jobs are now open to women.

Since then, the services have been struggling to catch up with the accelerated movement toward a truly gender-integrated military. "In the last few years, the Pentagon has made major strides, not just in terms of opening up new jobs to women, but also in a continuous rollout of new policies and programs involving gender-integration and sexual harassment," said Judith Youngman, chairwoman of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. "You could argue that at some point in the last 20 years, the military should have changed its policies in preparation for the smooth integration of women. What we're seeing now, however, is that the services are at a crossroads and struggling to catch up and put the policies in place."

As part of that effort, the Army and Navy have both integrated women into basic training. The Army has begun requiring intensified human relations training for drill instructors. The Navy has begun a seven-year program to convert its warships to accommodate gender-integrated crews (10 percent women) and, by 2002, expects to have 103 surface ships ready for mixed crews. Defense Department task forces are studying the issues of gender-integrated training, fraternization and adultery.

Stephen E. Buyer, R-Ind., chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, has been assigned by the chamber's leadership to oversee the Pentagon's studies of gender-integration. In an interview, Buyer said he is determined to force a fundamental and long-overdue assessment of the impact of the mixed-sex military.

"What we're seeing with the military today is a system in search of a proper dynamic. It would be very naive to think you could open up all these new roles and missions to women in the military and not have an impact on the human relations environment," said Buyer, who will hold hearings on women in the military early next year.

"I also plan to look into Les Aspin's political decision to redefine combat and open thousands of jobs to women without any thorough analysis by the military of the impact on readiness," Buyer said. "And to feminists who say we can't roll back the rights of women in the military, my answer is, this is not about women's rights, but rather about fielding the military force best able to fight and win wars."

Gender-Integrated Training

This summer, when newly minted Navy Ensign Michael Jansen arrived at Great Lakes Naval Training Base, north of Chicago, he was "shocked" to find female recruits in his unit. "But pretty soon you start to develop that strong teamwork, and you see that in some exercises and competitions, the females outdo their male counterparts. At some point, you start to look at that person just as your shipmate. Literally, she's like your sister."

Jansen's experience helps explain why the Navy and Army moved quickly to integrate women into basic training. (The Air Force already had gender-integrated basic training; men and women recruited by the Marine Corps train in separate units, and in the Army, anyone destined for ground combat still trains in all-male units.)

"I talk with ship commanders all the time. They don't want people to work with the opposite gender for the first time aboard their ships," said Rear Adm. Kevin P. Green, commander of the Great Lakes training facility. "They want the crew to be used to the idea that the other person is not a sex object, but rather a sailor, who one day may be pulling their unconscious body out of a burning compartment."

Army Maj. Gen. John A. Van Alstyne, head of the Fort Jackson Training Center in South Carolina, said gender-segregated training would be incongruous in a service in which only roughly 15 percent of the occupational specialties are closed to women.

"There's no mystique about this. Human nature being what it is, if people come up in segregated training systems, they are not going to have confidence in each other's abilities," said Van Alstyne, who added that he enthusiastically supports recent policy shifts that will include a marked increase in the number of female drill instructors. "We need more female drill instructors as role models for both men and women. There's a certain percentage of young men who come into the Army who are not used to working for women. We need to correct that in basic training."

When Army researchers launched a 1994 study of gender-segregated versus gender-integrated training, they identified major concerns about all-female units. Women performed somewhat better than men in classroom tests, for instance, but lacked the aggressiveness of all-male units on the obstacle course. "There was a different group dynamic at work in all-female units. When an all-female unit came through the obstacle course and someone fell off, for instance, the other females would sort of laugh about it. The drill sergeants tended to let them slide," an Army researcher said.

In a striking finding, Army researchers discovered that the women in co-ed units showed markedly improved self-confidence on the obstacle course. Meanwhile, males in co-ed units and those in all-male units scored equally well on the tests.

Interviews with commanders, drill instructors and recruits at both Fort Jackson and Great Lakes indicate that a kind of synergy often develops in gender-integrated units. "We do find that male and female recruits operate a little differently," said Capt. Cornelia De Groot-Whitehead, commander of the Navy's Recruit Training Command. "Women tend to stop and analyze a problem first, while men will gather together quickly as a team and attack it through brute force. When you put that analytical ability and strength together, however, you can form a brilliant team."

There are those who maintain, however, that the introduction of women has led to a "softening" of boot camp. "Many of us who visited these basic-training centers were concerned about the loss of rigor and warrior spirit," said Rep. Buyer. "I was more impressed with the segregated training we saw at [the Marine Corps's] Parris Island, where no one was distracted by issues of sexual misconduct and fraternization."

One of the most contentious issues in boot camp and in the military at large remains the "gender-norming" of physical fitness tests and standards. Because of physiological differences, the services set physical fitness standards according to age and sex. The average woman's heart, for instance, is 25 percent smaller than the average man's. Because males have 50 percent more muscle mass and a longer stride than females, the Army requires that 25-year-old men do more pushups than women of their age (40 versus 16) and run faster (16 minutes and 36 seconds for two miles versus 19 minutes and 36 seconds). In a recent Army survey, only 50 percent of male soldiers said they believe women "pull their own load."

"We probably need to toughen the physical fitness tests and make them more challenging for women, and bring the two standards closer together," Foote said. She noted, however, that both men and women have to meet identical physical requirements associated with specific jobs. "But not every job requires massive upper-body strength. Nor does establishing an absolute physical standard for all men and women in uniform pass the common sense test," she said.

Much of the recent attention on gender-integrated training has focused on sexual relations. Most believe the widespread abuse revealed at Aberdeen--where the chain-of-command was corrupted up to the level of company commander--was an aberration. "If those drills at Aberdeen were looking after each other like they were taught, that never would have happened," said Sgt. Allison Smith, a drill instructor at Fort Jackson. At her post, she noted, the command adheres to a strict "buddy system," in which both recruits and trainers travel only in pairs.

No one denies, however, that trainers occasionally cross the line, or that sexual relations between recruits occur. But among the problems encountered routinely in the often-messy business of turning teenage civilians into soldiers, commanders say the problems of flirtation and misconduct rate as manageable.

"When you encounter a problem with a drill instructor, you send a strong message that such behavior won't be allowed," said Lt. Col. James Helis, who commands a training battalion at Fort Jackson and has had to relieve two drill instructors, one for verbal sexual abuse and one who was eventually court-martialed for having sexual relations with a recruit. As far as sexual relations between recruits, he said, it comes up occasionally but is not a major problem. "We tell them up front that we don't have time for personal relationships here, and the reality is they need to learn to put their social lives aside and work together as soldiers," Helis said. "Face it, when they leave here, all of them are going to gender-integrated units with far less supervision than we provide."

Cohesion and Sexuality

On the average day aboard the state-of-the-art Aegis destroyer U.S.S. Laboon, Lt. Katherine Cunningham, an antisubmarine warfare officer, has plenty to worry about. She worries about the ensign under her command who was late for his watch again. She worries about the family she won't see for six months. Standing watch on the bridge of the Laboon on a moonless night, she worries most about making a mistake that could somehow cost the lives of her 350 shipmates and lose the Navy a $1 billion warship.

In other words, Cunningham has the typical worries of a naval officer at sea.

What she doesn't worry about, Cunningham insists, is how her colleagues react to her as one of the first female antisubmarine warfare officers in the service, or whether someone is going to tell an off-color joke, or if there is shipboard hanky-panky.

"Believe me, I'm far more often distracted by people not paying their bills on time or making the same mistake over and over than I am with onboard relationships," Cunningham said, addressing the key concern many experts have about the integration of women into front-line units."I won't say that relationships never happen. They do. We're human. But we're also professionals, and unless someone's personal life becomes a problem, it doesn't become an issue and I don't get involved," Cunningham said. "Nor do I make a big deal of being a female division officer aboard a warship. I'm just a naval warfare officer who is a woman. It's important that in the time I've been in the Navy, we've come to recognize you can be both of those things."

The services continue to integrate women into front-line forces to an extent that would surprise many in Washington. The signs are everywhere, some subtle and others immediately apparent. They are evident in the blanket partitions hung between male and female cots in co-ed tents in Bosnia, and in the "Red Light, Yellow Light, Green Light" pamphlets distributed throughout the Navy that teach a nonthreatening way for anyone to defuse potentially uncomfortable conversations. Many an officer--male or female--has had a ribald joke or story cut short by a simple, "Yellow light, there."

There are also signs of adjustment. Some experts predicted readiness rates and discipline would erode dramatically in gender-integrated combat units. They based their opinion largely on the example of the mixed-gender support ship U.S.S. Arcadia, which was dubbed "The Love Boat" in 1991 because so many of its crew members became pregnant during an extended deployment during the Persian Gulf war. While the most dire predictions have failed to materialize, Navy statistics show that roughly 10 percent of a female crew will become pregnant in a given year. That is a lower pregnancy rate than among civilians in the same age group, but nevertheless, it's a new management challenge to be factored into the complex equation of deploying military forces.

"Pregnancy is literally a part of life, but statistically, it's a relatively small problem in terms of readiness," said Oliver, the Navy's personnel chief, noting that with females accounting for 10 percent of a given crew, only 1 percent of the entire crew will be lost because of pregnancy in a year. "That's not to say it's a small problem for a ship commander who may lose someone he feels is essential. Because this is not something we as an institution had to deal with in the past, we just have to learn to manage around it."

Some lawmakers are much less sanguine about the sexual intimacy that can be read into pregnancy statistics or about the extent of male-female proximity that is becoming routine in military ranks. When Bob Livingston, R-La., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was touring U.S. facilities in Bosnia, for instance, he was startled to find men and women living side-by-side in 20-person tents.

"I was shocked. To deploy men and women for extended periods and have them live in the same tent, and pretend there's no difference between them, is ludicrous," Livingston said. "That risks destroying the morale of the troops in the field and the spouses back home."

The new realities of a more gender-integrated military have also clashed repeatedly with the moral strictures of the Code of Military Justice. Rooted in the Old Testament, the code condemns adultery, homosexuality and drunkenness, and lists "conduct unbecoming an officer" as grounds for dismissal. Combined with a hodgepodge of service policies on fraternization between officers and enlisted personnel--it's allowed in the Army outside the chain of command, for instance, and strictly forbidden in the Air Force--that combustible mixture of modern romance and military rules has propelled a number of embarrassing cases into the national spotlight. Many analysts wondered, for instance, whether it was really necessary to lose the services of a prospective chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he had committed adultery eight years earlier during a marital separation.

The Pentagon has ordered a study of whether a more consistent policy can be articulated for fraternization and adultery. But even some supporters of the military's efforts warn that attempts to codify matters of the heart risk robbing commanders of discretion in cases that often beg for it.

"What you have is a historic set of rules on adultery and fraternization that may have been quite appropriate in an almost-all-male military. They are fraying badly around the edges, however, when applied to a military with increasing numbers of women, and an American society whose attitudes on sexuality have changed profoundly," said Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., a former Air Force lawyer.

While the debate continues in Washington over the advisability of a truly gender-integrated military, front-line officers say they are getting on with the daily duties. The first females in combat units are now into their second and third overseas deployments. When they returned from service in the Gulf or Bosnia, they quickly tired of references to the "first woman" to fire a Tomahawk cruise missile or face down an armed mob.

Yes, they were women, but more than that, they were warriors.

]]>

En Garde!

James Kitfield and National Journal — Mon, 21 Jul 1997 00:00:00 -0400

FORT INDIANTOWN GAP, PA.--Here in the rugged foothills of the Allegheny Mountains, members of the 103rd Combat Engineers Battalion struggle to load a bulldozer onto a trailer in a choking haze of dust. They look like a typical Army unit.

Yet the 103rd Combat Engineers are members of the Pennsylvania National Guard's 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized) on their annual two-week training tour. If you look beyond the standard Army fatigues, you can see both the strengths and the limitations of the nation's citizen soldiers.

The men and women of the 103rd have deep roots in the region. They are soldiers roughly 39 days a year, and business executives, carpenters, truck drivers, construction workers, civil engineers and police officers the rest of the time.

But the assignments undertaken by members of the 103rd during their only extended training for the year--for example, helping upgrade the tank practice area at Fort Indiantown Gap--bears little resemblance to the wartime missions of combat engineers. Scheduling and training-area limitations mean they will rarely, if ever, take to the field as an entire unit. Indeed, the 28th is one of eight National Guard combat divisions the Army says are so superfluous that they don't even appear in any of the Pentagon's war plans.

The strengths and weaknesses of forces such as the 28th Division are now at the center of a heated debate in Washington. In the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)--the Pentagon's broad assessment of future manpower and weaponry requirements--defense planners called for cutting Army reserve forces (members of both the Army Reserve and Army National Guard) by 45,000 troops. Those proposed cuts further opened the great divide between the active Army and the National Guard.

Although the Army Reserve and National Guard are both reserves, they are significantly different forces. The Army Reserve, like the active Army, is a federal force in the Pentagon's direct chain of command. Partly because most Army Reserve units are assigned to work with active combat forces in such areas as transportation and supply, they tend to have a closer interaction with active units in training and during special emergencies.

The National Guard, however--although it accounts for nearly all the combat capability in the Army reserves--serves two masters. When not called upon by the federal government, the National Guard works directly for the states. The proposed cutting of 38,000 Army National Guard troops thus prompted fierce opposition from state National Guard Adjutant Generals, and many governors and Members of Congress.

"While we're proud of how the Air Force and Air Guard work together, the Army doesn't seem to have figured out yet how important the National Guard is as a mobile ready reserve," said Sen. Christopher S. (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., co-chairman of the Guard Caucus. "Given that you can maintain a National Guard unit at 25-30 per cent of the cost of an active unit, I think they are going to become increasingly important as budgets contract."

The debate over reserve forces could have a profound impact on the fundamental nature of the American military in the post-Cold War era. In the years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Persian Gulf war, some officials say that relations between the Army and the National Guard have so deteriorated that the long accepted doctrine of a cohesive "Total Force" has been threatened. The Army's Total Force is designed to make the most of its three components--the 495,000 active-duty troops, the 367,000 Army National Guard troops and the 208,000 Army Reservists.

The estrangement between the regular Army and National Guard units is so pronounced, however, that Col. Willie Jones, commander of the 103rd, has had virtually no contact with his active-duty counterpart for more than five years. Nor has his unit been activated for a real-world assignment in his 22 years as a Guardsman.

"The problem with combat elements in the National Guard is that there's very little chance that we'll ever get called up for a contingency to use the skills we train for as a unit, and we're not happy about that," said Jones, in civilian life a Philadelphia parole official.

Maj. Gen. Walter L. Stewart Jr., commander of the Pennsylvania National Guard's 28th Division, concurs and asserts that the Army habitually underestimates his unit. The Pentagon "says it would take us a year to get ready for war, which is bogus," he said. "The fact is they don't know how soon we could be ready, or what we could accomplish, because they never ask."

Congress's General Accounting Office (GAO), RAND and the independent Roles & Missions Commission of 1995, however, have all concluded that the Army National Guard is larger than it needs to be. Given the Army's estimate that a National Guard heavy combat division would require nine to 12 months to prepare for war, the Army and Joint Chiefs of Staff continue to resist writing the eight Guard divisions into even their worst-case scenarios, which involve fighting two regional wars nearly simultaneously.

Under a 1996 division redesign agreement, the Army is already turning 12 National Guard combat brigades into much-needed support units. Army officials also note that under a "First to Fight" financing scheme starting from fiscal 1992, the service will have invested $17.4 billion by the end of fiscal 1997 to modernize the Army National Guard, which would include 12 "enhanced" combat brigades.

Unless the Army National Guard agrees to reshape its heavy combat divisions, shedding some of its heavy tanks and armored vehicles, it risks becoming even more irrelevant and underfinanced, according to Army officials. "We know that divisions are the coin of the realm, so the chief of staff of the Army has said to the National Guard that if you will reconfigure the combat divisions from heavy to light infantry, we . . . forever put to rest this argument about their relevance," said Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, assistant vice chief of staff of the Army. Besides making the Guard divisions better suited to present-day missions such as Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia, he says, such a restructuring would also help the Army National Guard cut 28,000 troops, as the QDR requires. "Unfortunately, that proposition has fallen on deaf ears. The National Guard has refused to consider it," Garner said.

A Contentious History

Tension between state militias and the full-time military dates back to the triumph of the minutemen and the birth of the nation. Some of the Founding Fathers had a well-known aversion to the idea of a dominant, professional army controlled by the federal government. After the military mobilization of World War II, the shock of the Korean war and the emergence of the United States as a superpower, however, leaders decided the nation had to have a large standing army.

Tensions of a different sort surfaced during the Vietnam war. Military leaders were angry over the fact that throughout much of the war, President Johnson steadfastly resisted activating reserve forces for deployment to Vietnam to avoid a contentious public and congressional debate.

Stung by the Vietnam experience and facing the imminent end of the draft, military leaders devised the Total Force policy in 1973. The idea was that shifting critical support and combat duties to the Army Reserve and National Guard would make a reserve call-up all but mandatory before other U.S. forces could ever again be sent to fight on foreign soil.

In the first combat test of the Total Force concept during the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-91, many reserve volunteers were needed. Support units in the Army Reserve and National Guard performed so well that many analysts thought the concept of Total Force was largely validated.

When it came to mobilizing two National Guard combat "round-out" brigades that were to augment active-duty combat divisions, however, the Army balked. After sending the National Guard's 48th Infantry Brigade to the National Training Center during the Desert Shield buildup phase of the conflict, the Army relieved the 48th's commander and said the unit wasn't fit to fight.

Much of the bad blood between the active Army and the National Guard stems from that decision. "Six years later you can still get a heated debate going over whether or not that black eye was deserved, but there's no doubt that the Army implicitly condemned the National Guard's war fighting capability," said Rep. Paul McHale, D-Pa., co-chairman of the House Reserve Component Caucus.

While Army officials privately draw from classified studies to make the point that the brigades were woefully unprepared, National Guard officers continue to assert that they were set up. "That's when much of the present mistrust started, because after [Desert Storm] I became convinced the Army would never call up a Guard combat unit. They foresaw the coming drawdown, and didn't want us to prove we could in fact fight," said Maj. Gen. Edward J. Philbin, executive director of the Washington-based National Guard Association.

Who'll Get Cut?

It was against that backdrop of mistrust that the Army underwent a fundamental reassessment of its post-Cold War force structure and needs as part of the QDR. Noting that the active-duty and Army Reserve forces each had been reduced by more than a third since the end of the Cold War--compared with only a one-fifth reduction for the Army National Guard--Army leaders proposed that the National Guard take the lion's share of an additional 45,000-member reduction in reserve forces by 2002. Army active-duty forces were to be cut an additional 15,000 during that time.

Convinced that the Army had purposely excluded them from the QDR's final decision-making process, the Guard leadership has lashed out with an unusually vitriolic campaign to reverse the QDR. National Guard officials argue that with the end of the Cold War, the United States should return to its historical reliance on state militias. They point to evidence indicating that a National Guard unit is anywhere from 60-80 per cent less expensive than its active-duty counterpart.

"We're being widely depicted as recalcitrant . . . , but we're talking about American citizens fighting for the right to bear arms and possibly die for their country," said Maj. Gen. William A. Navas Jr., director of the Army National Guard Bureau in the Pentagon.

Army officials insist, however, that America's onetime reliance on a small active-duty cadre and state militias is an anachronism. Today's requirement that the military remain forward-deployed--and the demands of short-warning crises--are notably straining even the full-time military at its present size and level of training.

"If you look at the nature of the conflicts we've confronted since the 1970s, you'll see that they are generally very short, extremely violent, come-as-you-are types of conflicts," said Maj. Gen. Johnny Mack Riggs, an assistant deputy chief of staff of the Army. He notes that his service also has roughly 100,000 troops stationed overseas and 35,000 engaged in various contingencies. "That's the world we face, and we can't deal with it without a robust and well-trained standing force."

To avoid a confrontation with Congress and to quell the increasingly public feud, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen ordered the Army to hold an "off-site" meeting in June between active Army, National Guard and Army Reserve leaders. Because the highest- ranking National Guard officer in the Pentagon is a three-star general who was not present among the four-star Joint Chiefs of Staff during the final deliberations on the QDR, National Guard leaders believed they would be better represented in a more informal off-site forum that included senior representatives from the active military, the National Guard and Defense Department civilians.

To avoid opening the off-site meeting to the public as required by sunshine laws, the Army initially proposed activating senior National Guard attendees to federal duty for the private meeting. National Guard representatives saw themselves walking into a trap; in a federal role, they feared, the National Guard could be ordered to accept terms dictated by higher-ranking Army generals.

"It's sad that the National Guard Association seems to see itself more as a political than a military entity, because until that perception changes, we're not going to be able to solve these parochial problems between the active and reserves," said Rep. Stephen E. Buyer, R-Ind., the co-chairman of the House Reserve Component Caucus, who has argued for cuts in the Army National Guard force structure. "Hell, some of us made the point to Secretary Cohen that if we had generals who were refusing to show up at meetings, we'd ask them to leave their stars on the desk."

At least initially, however, all three sides emerged from the June off-site saying they had largely settled their differences. Their deal called for the active-duty Army to make all of its 15,000 troop cuts during the next three years as planned, while the National Guard will give up 17,000 troops and the Army Reserve 3,000 during that period.

While Army leaders insist they have not backed away from plans calling for a further reduction of 21,000 Army National Guard troops by 2002, Guard leaders clearly left the off-site meeting--at Fort McNair in Washington--with other ideas.

"Our position is that the 17,000 cut in the National Guard will bring us to about 350,000 troops, which we think is basically the level necessary to have a viable National Guard," Navas said. Instead of cutting the Guard further, he says, the Pentagon should give more missions to the less expensive reserve forces.

For Army leaders who thought the issue was settled--and who have smarted from a barrage of attacks on their integrity in bargaining with the National Guard--signs that the Guard was once again off the reservation provoked outrage.

"First, I categorically deny that the National Guard did not adequately take part in the QDR, and I briefed their senior leaders personally many times," said Garner, the senior Army representative at the off-site meeting. In Garner's opinion, the National Guard also signed up for the additional cuts of 21,000 as the QDR outlined and Defense Secretary Cohen endorsed.

"The problem I have with this whole issue is that we rely very heavily on our reserve components. Because of a barrage of letters and public accusations by the National Guard Association, however, what filters down to our citizen soldiers is this big active-component-versus- reserve-component controversy," Garner said. "To me, it's almost seditious, and I think it's being implemented by a narrow set of individuals that don't have the true interests of the nation at heart."

Fit to Fight?

At the heart of the controversy is a disagreement over what can and should be expected of part-time warriors. Citing a study conducted by the Institute for Defense Analysis for the Texas National Guard's 49th Division (which by its own admission relied on several favorable assumptions), the National Guard believes combat divisions can be made ready to fight in four to six months, far below the Army's estimate of nine to 12 months.

A number of independent assessments, however, have concluded that the National Guard's figures are overly optimistic. While Texas's 49th Division has all three brigades located in the same state, for instance, several other Guard divisions are "irregular," meaning they are made up of brigades from different states and they rarely, if ever, train together.

"We used a very comprehensive methodology, and basically found a big difference between active and National Guard combat units in terms of individual skills. After a mobilization, active soldiers might have to hone some skills, but the reserve soldiers were having to learn new skills," said Rich Davis, GAO's director of national security analysis. National Guard combat units were also asked to complete far fewer tasks, he says, than their active-duty counterparts.

"This argument that if you just put enough resources into Army National Guard divisions [then] they could replace active-duty divisions always fascinates me," said Gen. Riggs. "To me it indicates a complete misunderstanding of what the demands of this business are all about."

National Guard officers maintain that the Marine Corps fielded reserve tank units that performed in some of the heaviest fighting of Desert Storm. Marine Corps officials point out, however, that they have the highest ratio of active-duty commissioned and noncommissioned officers permanently assigned to reserve units; that both active-duty and reserve officers enter the corps through the same basic training program (unlike the National Guard); that the Marines have a much smaller reserve component to support; and that most of the units dispatched to the Persian Gulf were relatively small.

The Air Force is widely credited with seamlessly integrating its active component, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve into a Total Force. Not only do reserve pilots fly a majority of the cargo-hauling missions, but Air National Guard fighter squadrons routinely fly alongside their active-duty counterparts in combat.

Perhaps counterintuitively, some experts say that the Air National Guard's job of providing trained aircrews is significantly less complex than the Army National Guard's assignment of providing fully trained, major ground combat units up to the division level.

"In terms of individual crew training, flying an aircraft is more difficult than driving a tank. But in terms of collective unit training, where you have to synchronize all the various components of a mechanized unit, the Army National Guard's training job is much, much more complex," said Tom Lippiatt, senior analyst with RAND.

Perhaps the most striking difference in the relationships between the armed services and their respective reserve components, however, remains one of attitude. In casual conversation, senior Air Force and Navy officers will talk about their 20 fighter wings or 350 ships, without ever thinking to separate out active and reserve units or crews. As anyone who has spent time with the Marine Corps knows, there is no active Marine, Marine reservist or ex-Marine--just Marines.

"I've thought about this issue a great deal, and I'm convinced the Army has to overcome this rivalry . . . that exists between the active and National Guard components. You will never achieve unity of command or commonality of purpose when officers who wear the same uniform fundamentally distrust each other," said McHale.

As budget pressures continue, it seems increasingly likely that the Army National Guard will have to reconfigure some of its excess combat units. For its part, the Army will have to bridge the gap in trust by providing, to the Guard's enhanced combat brigades and other units, the frontline equipment, resources and joint training necessary to make them full partners. The alternative is to remain a house divided.

]]>

Line Item Veto Myths

Alexis Simendinger and National Journal — Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 -0400

Here's the quiz of the day: The Line Item Veto Act, unleashed for now by the Supreme Court for President Clinton to use, promises to A) cut pork spending; B) reduce the federal budget deficit; C) improve accountability; or D) none of the above. The correct answer, according to some budget analysts, is "none of the above." When it comes to fiscal restraint, they believe, the line-item veto is all bluff and no bite.

Sought by Presidents since Ulysses S. Grant and available to 43 of the nation's 50 governors, the line-item veto is the authority to cancel selected tax and spending programs without rejecting an entire bill. The GOP majority that swept Congress in 1994 spent two years working out line-item veto legislation, which Clinton eagerly signed in March 1996. The Court's recent 7-2 ruling--that the lawmakers who filed the lawsuit had no standing to do so--leaves Clinton free to wield his new power, but knowing that its constitutionality will be tested again.

"I'm glad the Court restored the power, as we go into the appropriations season," budget director Franklin D. Raines said in an interview. "And I hope, if there is a further testing of the statute, that we can get an expeditious decision by the Court, so that we can turn this into more of a routine matter."

The law gives the President five days after first signing a measure to tell lawmakers he has decided to cancel "discretionary budget authority provided in an appropriation law or any item of new direct spending or limited tax benefit." But he must cancel all of the item or none of it. To restore the spending, Congress must pass a bill by a veto-proof margin within 30 days.

Clinton, who had item-veto power as governor of Arkansas, recently called the federal law a "valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds." With this power, Clinton asserted, he can "ensure the federal government is spending public resources as wisely as possible."

Not likely, according to budget experts who have studied the law. "There are a lot of myths associated with it," said Philip G. Joyce, an assistant professor of public administration at Syracuse University. "Lots of people view this as being primarily about fiscal responsibility, or cutting budgets, but there's very little evidence at the state level that that's the way it's been used."

Myth No. 1--The line-item veto will reduce wasteful spending. "In fact, it could threaten to increase spending on the discretionary side," said Susan A. Tanaka, vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It's going to be more of a political tool than anything else. . . . The President wants this authority because then he can use it to get his priorities." He could strike bargains with lawmakers, experts say, to protect their pork if they go along with his pet spending. The reason a President is more likely to bargain than to veto a bill is that the law requires him to sacrifice any spending he cancels, which would reduce the total amount of money he can spend. A President can't cancel a spending item and then use the money for a program he prefers.

Raines disagreed. "I don't see any scenario where this increases the amount of pork," he said. But Clinton himself is on record applauding the veto as a potent political tool to reduce spending--or whatever else. "When I was a governor, after a year or two, the most important thing about it was not when it was used, but that it existed in the first place," he recently told reporters.

Myth No. 2--The line-item veto will help balance the budget. Even Raines agreed that this assertion is untrue as long as the veto is largely powerless to cut spending on entitlement programs. Clinton's snips and tucks aren't likely to have an observable impact on the already declining federal deficit. "If you're talking in the neighborhood of a $300,000 project," Tanaka said, "that's not much deficit reduction, and who knows whether or not it's even worth the political pain?"

Myth No. 3--The line-item veto will bring sunshine to the budget process. Think again, analysts warn. By encouraging private pork swapping between the President and appropriators, the veto could make the budget process murkier to voters who want to know what their elected officials have bankrolled. "People really miss the point if they want to judge the line-item veto only in terms of looking at, `When did the President use it, and what was the cumulative effect of that use?' " Joyce said. "That masks an awful lot that can go on behind the scenes."

Congress may try to dodge the President's veto by taking advantage of the law's definition of a line item, which is an appropriation that's specified either in the bill itself or in the accompanying committee report. Congress could try to avoid a veto by communicating its desires informally. "What's likely to happen is more back-channel communication--between an executive agency and its appropriations committee or between the President and Congress--that will not show up anywhere," Tanaka said.

Raines had a different view. If Congress works informally to instruct the White House and agencies about even the smallest expenditure, he hopes it's because lawmakers trust them to do the right thing. "If it's subterfuge, I hope it's exposed," Raines said. "If it's simply getting out of micromanagement, I think that would be a good thing."

Now that he has a line-item veto to brandish, Clinton must decide when to fire it off. "I hope I don't have to use it at all," the President told reporters on June 27. The White House has a dilemma, Joyce said, in that the earlier Clinton uses the veto, the earlier the courts may consider a challenge and take it away. But if he doesn't use it, his threat on Capitol Hill will prove hollow.

"I don't think we will pass up items that should be subject to the veto, just to have an attractive first case," Raines said. "But I think we'll use an enormous amount of care because it's an important tool, and we want to ensure that Congress understands that we know both its utility and its limitations."

]]>

Dueling for Dollars

Richard E. Cohen and National Journal — Mon, 07 Jul 1997 00:00:00 -0400

As House Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston, R-La., took a breather late last month during a day marked by progress on three of his panel's annual spending bills, he seemed satisfied.

At least so far, work on the appropriations bills is going much more smoothly than it did in 1995 and 1996, when Republicans created mayhem by pushing through steep spending cuts and by tacking on controversial "riders" that embodied their ideological wish lists. "Members now are more aware of what the process will tolerate," Livingston said in an interview. "Their expectations have been tempered."

For congressional appropriators, stepping away from the public spotlight is good news. When they do their job well, they usually attract little attention. But the government shutdowns two years ago and the recent flap over aid to flood-stricken states proved that public attention to the usually esoteric details of spending bills is a signal that the legislative train has gone off track.

So, have the budget rabble-rousers vanished this year, or are they rallying their forces for another round? Livingston contends that the next few months will see smooth sailing. He points out that the five-year budget agreement reached this spring by GOP congressional leaders and President Clinton "has made our job easier" by setting overall spending limits. Enough grumpy naysayers remain, however, on both sides of the Appropriations panel to cast doubt on whether the center will hold.

Conservative Rep. Ernest Jim Istook of Oklahoma, who was a leading architect of the Republicans' confrontational stance toward the White House in 1995 on spending bills, is not ready to throw in the towel. "Only by sticking with your principles can you make a compromise," he said. "We can learn more about the leverage we have if we use it properly."

Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, a liberal who is the Appropriations Committee's ranking Democrat, said that he continues to see many "kamikaze pilots" on the Republican side. But Obey, too, has voiced strong disagreement with both the budget deal and the steps to fill in the details. The pact is "delivering a public expectation that will not be followed up by specific action," he said.

Key tests will come this month, when Congress will be consumed with writing the nitty-gritty of the 13 appropriations bills to fund federal operations. More than $500 billion for fiscal 1998 is up for grabs.

Perhaps the most difficult challenge will be handling the bill that provides money for the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education Departments. "I don't feel that we have any breathing room," said Rep. John Edward Porter, R-Ill., who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee charged with crafting the bill so that it addresses Clinton's priorities. "But we will find a way through this."

As Members and their aides brace for another marathon appropriations season--in which they'll vie for a few additional dollars for favored programs and try to balance competing demands--even the optimists concede that many bumps could lie ahead. There's the ever-present threat that Members will succeed in attaching hot-button riders as amendments to the spending bills, which would jeopardize their enactment. And questions linger about whether House Republican leaders, plagued this year by internal turmoil over an array of issues, will have trouble maintaining order during the appropriations deliberations.

Managing the 13 annual appropriations bills requires the task-oriented discipline of a drill sergeant, the spreadsheet legerdemain of an accountant and the savvy of a good poker player. It's difficult enough when the appropriators get their way and limit consideration of what they deem extraneous issues. In 1995, that didn't happen. This year, they hope, will be different.

The Road Ahead

When Republican congressional leaders in early May unveiled the outlines of their budget agreement with Clinton, no one was more pleased--or more guarded--than members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Even though the high-level budget negotiations delayed the start of their schedule by more than a month, the appropriators were gratified that the budget deal provided them with a framework for their spending decisions. Not insignificantly, the agreement also gave them $17 billion more for fiscal 1998 spending than they would have had under previous budget legislation.

The appropriators still have a long road ahead of them this year. And they retain painful memories of what can go wrong. During the 104th Congress, the result was a four-week federal shutdown in which several appropriations bills became hostage to the fruitless budget talks and were not enacted until fiscal 1996 was more than half-completed.

"It was a disastrous year," recalled Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. "It was at a time when we weren't used to governing and the Democrats were not used to [being] the minority. . . . Some of us still have the wounds."

The appropriations decisions, in many respects, are made in a world apart from the prevailing political winds on Capitol Hill. The measures prepared by the 13 Appropriations subcommittees each year are the only bills that Congress must enact, at least in some form.

Complicating the appropriators' task is the fact that in recent years, other legislative duchies have failed to pass seemingly routine measures to authorize various federal operations. Those impasses, in turn, have increased the burden on appropriations bills to serve as baggage cars for a host of often-unrelated issues demanding legislative action. "No small part of the problem flows from the fact that the authorizing committees don't complete their work," Lewis said. "So, we [appropriators] end up with the clashes."

In contrast with the sweeping budget bills to cut taxes and curb spending on entitlements such as Medicare--which were the chief congressional focus in June and are the other pieces key to implementing the budget deal--the appropriators' decisions on so-called discretionary federal spending involve hundreds of federal agencies and bureaus, plus thousands of programs. And, also in contrast with last month's budget bill debates, consideration of appropriations bills in the House and Senate chambers typically occurs with wide-open procedures that permit Members to tinker with relatively modest sums of money or with narrow federal regulations.

That, of course, can make life difficult for the appropriators. The contentious issues that are likely to demand their attention in coming weeks range from the conservatives' proposal to dismantle the National Endowment for the Arts to the Clinton Administration's call to add more federal park land at Yellowstone.

Appropriations Culture

In the two weeks before the July 4 recess, House Appropriations subcommittees approved seven of their 13 bills in mostly brief, harmonious sessions. At the Interior Subcommittee, for example, chairman Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, flipped through his roughly 50-page proposed report and read in a steady cadence, "One . . . Two . . . Three . . . ," as he invited Members to review his recommendations.

When Democrats controlled the House, most Members acted in broad deference to the appropriations "cardinals" who chaired the subcommittees. Some were rarely challenged. That pattern changed radically in 1995, with the large number of new Republicans in the House and on the Appropriations panel, most of whom were not as familiar--or as sympathetic--with the committee's aura.

One result was the debate and approval of many controversial "riders" to appropriations bills. Conservatives sponsored a number of these riders with the support of House GOP leaders, but over the objections of Republican Appropriations Committee leaders. The add-ons typically dealt with broad regulatory or policy issues, rather than mere dollar figures. Conservatives, for instance, sparked battles when they tried to add to appropriations bills riders that would have blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing its core environmental safeguards.

Some of the riders gained an added dimension: They were prime bait for presidential vetoes of entire appropriations bills. Just last month, Clinton cited two riders--one barring the use of sampling procedures in the census, the other creating a stand-by funding mechanism to avoid another government shutdown--to justify his initial veto of the flood-aid bill. Clinton will have the leverage to cancel out provisions of spending bills following the Supreme Court's recent refusal to rule on the constitutionality of the line-item veto law. But it's unclear how long he'll wield the new power before it again is challenged in court.

Appropriations leaders voice hope that they can avoid--or, at least, keep to a minimum--a repetition of the extended battles over riders on spending bills. "We have been through some rocky roads the past two and a half years," Livingston said. "I hope that Members have learned some lessons." The Senate, which tends to be less doctrinaire than the House, has been less supportive of the conservatives' riders.

After the public relations beating that House Republicans took following their failures during the 104th Congress, it seems that many are abandoning their confrontational tack and are taking a more conventional approach to the appropriations bills. "Members are finding that it is more fun to go back home and get plaques from interest groups for what they have delivered," said a veteran observer who regrets the change. "Anyone except a dyed-in-the-wool conservative sees a need to return to constituent politics."

Despite the problems that appropriators had in 1995-96, they ended up hacking away at federal spending: It was reduced by a total of $50 billion below the projected figures for those two years, according to the House Appropriations Committee. "As ugly as the process was, we virtually reversed the growth of government," Livingston noted. Now, with the extra $17 billion up for grabs this year, such spending restraint may be relaxed. Livingston and several of his subcommittee chairmen still insist that they are intent on eliminating more programs. But GOP defections in June on the proposal to scrap the arts endowment may be an early indicator that they will have little success.

If the House moves toward the center to avoid the battles over riders and program eliminations, the result would more closely resemble the Senate, where work on the appropriations bills has generally been more harmonious. There are important differences between the two Appropriations Committees. For one, members of the House panel tend to focus almost exclusively on Appropriations work, while Senators have additional committee assignments. Furthermore, the House committee's staff is more than double the size of its Senate counterpart. And the Constitution mandates that the House move first on the spending bills.

In contrast with the usually tightfisted Livingston at the helm of the House panel, the Senate committee has been chaired by the relatively liberal Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon and, following Hatfield's retirement last year, the often- idiosyncratic Ted Stevens of Alaska. Also, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate panel, has usually been less partisan than Obey, his House counterpart.

A significant change in House operations--which the Senate didn't embrace--was one that prohibits the committee chairman from chairing any subcommittee. Livingston, as a result, has spent far more time than did his Democratic predecessors coordinating the work of his 13 subcommittee cardinals and meeting with party leaders. "He asks, where the hell are the bills and why aren't they moving?" said James W. Dyer, the committee's chief of staff. "He's a prodder, and he likes to see things get done."

The Not-So-Big Spender

As experts assess the overall prospects, several conclude that the appropriations bill facing the stiffest obstacles this year is the measure that funds the Labor, HHS and Education Departments. "Labor-H [as insiders call it] will be the catchall for the problems," said a senior Democratic aide.

The problem stems from the fact that the Appropriations Committees--in divvying up the total sum approved in the budget plan--may have given too small an allocation to their subcommittees with jurisdiction over the Labor-HHS-Education bill. Insiders in both parties lay some blame on the White House, notably Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Franklin D. Raines.

Raines, in a confidential document submitted to appropriators from both parties in late May, suggested spending figures within the framework of the budget deal for each of the 13 Appropriations subcommittees. Such a formal White House request was unprecedented, said senior congressional aides. Even more striking, Raines's proposed outlays of $75.7 billion for the Labor-HHS-Education bill were a mere 3.4 per cent higher than those for the current year, despite Clinton's extensive requests for additional education and job-training spending.

"It was none of their business to recommend" the figures, said Dyer, Livingston's chief of staff. "But the political animal in me enjoyed coming in higher than Raines did"--albeit by only $19 million.

Porter, who chairs the House subcommittee handling the Labor-HHS bill, has been an avid supporter of increased spending for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which he contends would be shortchanged by Raines's recommendation. "Both parties disagree with the President's giving lower priority to public health," Porter said. And a House Democratic aide angrily predicted that the Administration will be the "victim" of Raines's manipulations on the bill.

In response to the criticism, OMB spokesman Lawrence J. Haas said, "It's certainly appropriate for the budget director to express our understanding of the budget agreement" that he negotiated. Raines understood that "there might be some negative reaction" to his suggested spending figures, Haas added. He also said that the Administration plans to work with appropriators to find a way to adequately fund health research.

Porter's pledge to increase funds for NIH, which is likely to receive broad congressional support, will clash with commitments in the budget agreement for increased labor and education funds. "There was a technical failure in the budget negotiations that will push the subcommittee into a corner where neither side is comfortable," said a top aide familiar with the issue.

That's not the only problem facing the House Labor-HHS panel, which is expected to consider its appropriations bill shortly after lawmakers return from their July 4 recess. Porter, a moderate on social policy, may face the dilemma of deciding whether to build a majority to his right with the mostly conservative Republicans on his subcommittee, or to the left with Obey. The risk to Porter in not playing ball with the Democrats is that he may also lose support of other GOP moderates.

Rep. Dan Miller of Florida, a Republican on Porter's subcommittee, wants to use the bill to change Labor Department procedures to require more public disclosure of union financial activities--an obvious red flag for Democrats. "We have a strong desire to avoid a shutdown," Miller said. "But I also have a list of my own priorities" for Porter.

In addition, Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, wants to offer a proposal to limit federal safety regulations on the activities of desk-bound office workers. This "ergonomics" proposal caused great controversy for the Labor-HHS bill two years ago before the item was finally dropped.

Porter's counterpart subcommittee in the Senate, chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has had its own problems. The panel failed in 1995 and 1996 to win Senate approval of its Labor-HHS bill. Specter reportedly complained at the time that the funding allocation was insufficient to win passage of his bill. Subsequently, Specter's measure took an indirect route to a House-Senate conference committee--which strengthened Porter's hand as he negotiated the final details of the spending.

Specter, who faces reelection next year, has been using his subcommittee in recent weeks to hold hearings on broad topics such as cancer research and railway-labor relations, rather than to examine the agencies under his jurisdiction.

It's not novel, of course, for Members to use an Appropriations seat to advance their political interests. But the risk for Republicans, if they lose their discipline, is that the what's-in-it-for-me mindset could add new rigors to the task of winning approval of the 13 annual appropriations bills.

]]>

DoD's Collision Course

James Kitfield and National Journal — Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:00:00 -0400

For those in command of America's armed forces, the future is usually clouded by the uncertainties of day-to-day crises in this or that corner of the globe and, closer to home, by Congress's annual budget deliberations.

Recently, though, the belt-tightening demands of the balanced budget agreement and the mission-expanding agenda of the just-completed Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) have given Defense Department officials a relatively unobstructed view into the next millennium. And what the two milestone documents have revealed, many specialists say, is a Pentagon whose ever-growing responsibilities are on a collision course with fiscal reality.

The swift rejection earlier this month by many Members of Congress of the QDR's most controversial cost-cutting measures--steps designed to provide money for new weapons for the 21st century--has further heightened those concerns.

"Washington has decided that it wants to retain a high-quality, globe-spanning military that subsists on a declining budget, without goring any of the oxen that Capitol Hill favors. It flat-out cannot be done," said Dan Goure, deputy director of political and military studies for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "Barring a crisis that alters the present course, the military is now on a path to becoming steadily smaller, less ready, and older in terms of equipment. What we're seeing is a variation on the classic theme of a hollow military."

Under the bipartisan balanced budget plan, the defense budget--now $250 billion--will decline by 3.3 per cent over the next three years in real, inflation-adjusted dollars and then remain flat in fiscal 2001. Though it will rise slightly in 2002, defense spending that year will still be about 3 per cent below this year's level, which at 3.2 per cent of gross national product is at its lowest comparative level since before World War II.

Even at the current level of support, the Pentagon can't carry out its far-flung assignments and keep its arsenal up-to-date. For the past three years, the Defense Department has robbed its new-weapons accounts to pay for the kinds of contingency operations--such assignments as peacekeeping and humanitarian missions--that the QDR establishes as a regular order of business for the future. Since 1985, spending on procurement has declined by 67 per cent.

Equally worrisome are reports that recruits are becoming increasingly harder to come by and that, compared with their predecessors, pilots and other skilled (and expensively trained) uniformed professionals are bailing out at alarmingly higher rates. Last year, the number of Air Force pilots accepting bonuses to extend their service commitments fell by 59 per cent, and is running at 43 per cent of the pool of eligible pilots this year.

"The QDR outlines a [broad] strategy that takes into account contingencies such as Bosnia and Haiti, and the need to `shape the world.' The problem is, the budget won't fulfill that strategy. The end result of the shortfall will be to place greater strains on people in uniform and their families, and force good people to leave the military," said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., a longtime member of the House National Security Committee. "What we need is small, predictable increases in defense spending each year, but that's not likely to happen, because defense is simply off the radar screen of the American people and Congress."

In A Budget Box

To many analysts, the balanced budget agreement is perhaps most significant for largely deciding an ongoing debate between defense hawks and budget hawks--in favor of the latter. After Republicans won control of Congress in the 1994 elections, those advocating stepped-up spending on the military initially held sway, adding significantly to defense spending. In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, for instance, Congress added $7 billion and $10 billion, respectively, to the Pentagon's budget request.

While the balanced budget agreement increases defense outlays in fiscal 1998 by $6.6 billion over the Administration's original request--thanks largely to the "windfall" recently discovered by the Congressional Budget Office--spending caps in the accord ensure relatively flat defense budgets over the next several years.

Congressional proponents of a stronger defense have railed against being painted into a budget box. Much of their ire has been trained on the QDR, which assumes annual defense budgets of roughly $257 billion through 2002.

"If the Pentagon had said in the QDR that we need to spend $15 billion or $20 billion more a year for defense than the balanced budget agreement lays out, then we could have had a hell of a debate on this nation's defense, and I think we could have gotten the money," said Rep. Duncan L. Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee on Military Procurement, at a forum on Capitol Hill. "Instead, it includes a lot of platitudes about peace through strength, without backing them up."

Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., also criticized the QDR for being "budget"- rather than "strategy"-driven. "Secretary [of Defense William S.] Cohen limited the Pentagon to $250 billion annual budgets, based on his personal sense of what the American people will support, and I view that as a fatal flaw of the QDR," Chambliss said at the forum. "I believe he should have laid out what the military needs, and left it up to Congress to come up with the spending priorities."

Yet in the 1980s--when Republicans occupied the White House and Democrats controlled Capitol Hill--lawmakers were just as critical of then-Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger for routinely assuming unrealistic levels of defense spending, even during President Reagan's second term, when the budget deficit was ballooning out of control. That led to inefficiencies as the services began weapons programs they could not ultimately afford, and forced Congress to make tough decisions that many believed military experts in the Pentagon should have confronted.

"People always talk about defense reviews being strategy- rather than budget-driven, but in fact, if you envision a defense strategy that ignores budget realities, it immediately lacks credibility," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It would be dead on arrival."

Dennis Bovin, vice chairman of investment banking for Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., a securities firm, and a defense consultant, asserts that the Pentagon's efforts to reform its acquisition and business practices will succeed only if the Defense Department is forced to live within strict budgets. "Washington is the only place I know where budgets are criticized for not recommending unlimited spending," he said at the QDR forum. "What the Pentagon needs is not more money, but rather the same flexibility we have in the business world to move dollars around and realize efficiencies. And Congress has not allowed the military to do that."

Hemlock Time?

Many analysts maintain that the QDR foreshadows a looming mismatch between money and missions largely because it relies so heavily on questionable savings to underwrite a very ambitious agenda.

According to the QDR--a congressionally mandated survey of strategy and force structure that got under way last year--the military must remain capable of winning two major wars nearly simultaneously; maintain a continuous overseas presence to "shape the international environment"; improve its ability to respond to a variety of smaller-scale contingencies and unconventional threats; and make the most of rapid changes in military technology.

Given those requirements, defense planners avoided weapons cancellations and major cuts in military force structure. Under the QDR, active-duty forces would decline moderately by 60,000 (from 1.4 million to 1.34 million) and civilian personnel by 80,000. The number of tactical aircraft that the Pentagon would buy was also significantly reduced (from 438 F-22 fighters to 339; 548 F/A-18E/F fighters instead of 1,000; and 360 V-22 tiltrotor aircraft, not 425), in a contraction of programs that historically has caused unit prices to soar.

For other savings, the QDR focuses on initiatives that are widely unpopular on Capitol Hill: two additional rounds of base closings; acquisition and management reforms that would represent a massive shift of defense support work--engine overhauls and routine bureaucratic functions--to the private sector; and significant cuts in reserve forces.

"I know that the QDR pushes some political hot buttons. It's difficult talking about closing bases or facilities or cutting reserve units in someone's district or state," Cohen said in a meeting with defense reporters. "But ultimately I'm presenting Congress with the same decisions I had to make. Are you going to protect unneeded facilities, or are you going to protect our forces by putting modern weapons in their hands? Those are tough questions to face up to, but there are no more easy choices. It's all hemlock time now."

Over Joel's Dead Body

Unless you're a Member of Congress with a facility in your district, the Pentagon's sprawling network of bases looks ripe for pruning. According to Defense Department figures, the number of American troops on active duty has declined by 32 per cent since 1989, and it will fall an additional 4 per cent by 2003 under the QDR.

In contrast, the Pentagon's real estate will have decreased by only 26 per cent (21 per cent domestically) when the rounds of base closings already in progress are completed early in the next century. The result will be an annual savings of $5.6 billion, according to Defense Department figures. The QDR thus recommends two new rounds of base closings--in 1999 and 2001--that could (it is hoped) save an estimated $2.8 billion a year.

Having gone through four contentious rounds of base closings, however, Congress has shown little stomach for returning to the issue so soon. The House National Security Committee completed work on the fiscal 1998 defense authorization bill earlier this month without granting Cohen's request of additional base-closing authority.

Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., chairman of the National Security Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, declared that a 1999 round of closings would proceed "over my dead body." An amendment to include 1999 and 2001 closings in the Senate Armed Services Committee's defense authorization bill was defeated on June 12.

The usual congressional resistance to additional closings has been reinforced by the broadly held view that President Clinton politicized the process. In 1995, the Administration refused to fully shut down big Air Force repair depots in California and Texas, as recommended by the independent Commission on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). With both states seen as crucial to Clinton in the 1996 election, the White House decided instead to "privatize in place" the work done at the two depots to save local jobs.

"By injecting politics into the BRAC process, I think the Clinton Administration poisoned the well. I doubt you're going to get another BRAC round while he's President," Hunter said. "You don't rid yourself of excess capacity or reap the savings of closing a base by just changing the workforce from public to private, so it defeated the purpose."

In response, Cohen has suggested that Congress stipulate in any new base-closing legislation that privatization-in-place is not an option in the future. A number of Republican lawmakers insist that he will have to go further by fully shutting the California and Texas facilities.

"The balanced budget agreement lays out a fairly predictable path for defense funding, and that means we need to meet our savings goals through restructuring and reforms," said John Goodman, deputy Defense undersecretary for industrial affairs and installations. "And if we don't get BRAC authority by November of this year, we will have missed the 1999 round. That means we'll have to look elsewhere for roughly $2 billion in annual savings."

Lotsa Bucks, Little Bang

The QDR proposals with the potential for the most savings, and perhaps the greatest risks, involve shifting many military support jobs to the private sector. According to a 1996 Defense Science Board study, the Pentagon could save as much as $30 billion a year by letting civilian contractors carry out an array of military support activities. The Defense Department's 1995 "Roles and Missions" report proposed a similar large-scale privatization of support functions--everything from managing the Defense Department's massive payroll system to launching satellites.

Pentagon officials estimate that 61 per cent of all uniformed and civilian personnel are assigned to support duties. "The military is now spending somewhere between $100 billion and $170 billion a year on support functions--running the country's largest grocery chain, financial department, travel agency, printing operation and medical organization--yet despite that huge commitment of resources, it gets remarkably mediocre services," says Bovin of Bear, Stearns. "The military chiefs are now speaking with one voice on the need to change, but Congress has to listen."

The Pentagon's push puts generals and admirals on a collision course with a powerful group of lawmakers: the bipartisan House Depot Caucus. Members of the caucus--nearly all of whom have one of the Pentagon's 21 major repair depots in their districts--have written into law that no more than 40 per cent of the armed services' depot work can be performed by private contractors.

In a plea to Congress, Cohen asked that the legislation be changed. "The current 60/40 legislation precludes the services from conducting truly meaningful analyses of potential savings which might accrue from the competitive process," he wrote Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The strength of the Depot Caucus was evident, however, during a House subcommittee's recent drafting of the fiscal 1998 defense authorization bill. In the House, the request to abolish 60/40 was rejected by the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee--an overwhelming majority of whose members belong to the Depot Caucus--and never made it into the full-committee markup. An amendment to allow the Pentagon to establish a 50/50 ratio between the public and private sectors was included in the Senate bill.

"One of the most bizarre and really disgraceful chapters I've witnessed in my time on Capitol Hill," McCain said, "occurred last year when I was chairman of the [Senate Armed Services] Readiness Subcommittee and I proposed changing the 60/40 rule to 50/50. A group of House Members came over en masse and predicted that I was about to destroy Western civilization as we know it. And I see the opposition as even stronger this year. It's an unfortunate commentary on the system, because we're hearing less and less talk about national security challenges, and more and more parochial talk about protecting my depot, my base and my weapon system. The greatest obstacle to modernizing our military forces may be the Congress of the United States."

Because the QDR relies heavily on savings projected from cutting 116,000 civilians and active-duty troops involved in support jobs, an inability to transfer many of those functions to the private sector could prove devastating. Citing that risk, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), an independent think tank in Washington, conservatively estimates that the Pentagon could face a $20 billion-a-year funding shortfall early next century.

"With flat defense budgets, the Pentagon has to realize savings and efficiencies out of its infrastructure, just as U.S. industry has already done," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, director of Business Executives for National Security, an independent advocacy group that supports base closures and privatization reforms. "If Congress is not willing to listen to the service chiefs and let them reallocate resources, [it] will be responsible for taking this magnificent military machine that Ronald Reagan built up and breaking it as we head into the 21st century."

Reserves to Spare

Much as base closures have lagged behind force reductions, the Pentagon's reserve components have become larger relative to the active-duty components during the post-Cold War drawdown. Since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, for instance, the Army's active-duty forces have shrunk by 36 per cent, versus 26 per cent for the reserves.

In the Quadrennial Review, Defense Department officials note that the need for a large strategic reserve has also declined. That is particularly true in the case of eight Army National Guard divisions that have no direct role in the Pentagon's warfighting plans beyond serving as a backstop for deploying forces.

The QDR thus proposes eliminating an additional 55,000 National Guard and Reserve troops. Most of those cuts are aimed at the Army National Guard, which would be reduced by 38,000 troops while the Army Reserve absorbs 7,000 troop cuts.

Because of their home-state connections, reserve forces have strong defenders on Capitol Hill. When the magnitude of the QDR's proposed cuts were outlined for National Guard leaders who had gathered in Oklahoma this spring, they immediately protested to state governors, whose concerns were promptly relayed to Congress.

"We did not feel we participated adequately as the QDR decisions were made at the highest level [in the Pentagon], and we did not agree with a 38,000-troop cut in the National Guard," said Maj. Gen. William A. Navas Jr., director of the Army National Guard. "So a lot of questions were raised on Capitol Hill."

To avoid a potential showdown with Congress, Cohen ordered all three Army branches to meet away from the Pentagon to settle their differences. The deal that emerged in early June calls for the active-duty Army to make all of its 15,000-troop reduction over the next three years as planned, while the Guard will give up 17,000 troops and the Army Reserve 3,000 during that period.

Army leaders still insist that they have not backed away from the QDR plans to cut the Guard further, but National Guard officials clearly have other ideas. "Our position is that the National Guard will be at about the right size [after the 17,000-troop reduction], and there might be better ways to save money than cutting the Guard further," Navas said. "If this country is moving away from the militia concept toward keeping a large standing Army even after the end of the Cold War, that's a debate that should be raised to the level of Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility to raise our armies."

Once again, however, one of the critical engines of proposed savings in the QDR is sputtering. According to the CSBA, the proposed cuts to reserve forces would have generated $700 million in annual savings.

"In nearly all of the areas outlined in the QDR, the Pentagon can become more efficient, but many of them require the cooperation of a very skeptical Congress," said Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., CSBA director and a member of the National Defense Panel that's charged with offering alternatives to the QDR. Absent a compelling national security threat, he says, it's risky to count on savings that require Members of Congress to go against the wishes of their constituents. "Frankly, I'm afraid the QDR has put us on a path where three to four years from now the military will be facing the same problems it has today, but they will be worse," says Krepinevich.

In the end, Cohen says, he had to decide between doing what he believed was right and doing what conventional wisdom said was politically feasible. The Quadrennial Review wasn't about trying to share the political pain, he said, or doing what was politically correct. Cohen wasn't running for office anymore. Some of his former colleagues seem intent on reminding Cohen that they still are.

]]>

The Devolution Revolution

National Journal — Mon, 09 Jun 1997 00:00:00 -0400

Call it the devolution revolution. As the size and scope of the federal government shrinks, more power is headed to the states. John D. Donahue of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University takes a dim view of this development.

"One can mount a contrary conceptual case that the shift toward the states is precisely the wrong way for America to engage a maturing global market system. Paralysis in Washington and wholesale devolution invites the balkanization (in that metaphor's updated, more ominous sense) of America," he warns in Disunited States: What's at Stake as Washington Fades and the States Take the Lead (Basic Books).

Given the rise of globalization and a world economy, Donahue questions whether decentralization of government in the United States is a wise idea. "We are rushing to abandon the far greater advantages of a continent-scale common front with which to face the coming century's economic pressures," he writes.

Donohue acknowledges that popular skepticism about Washington has fueled the New Federalism. "But the inherent limits of a fragmented approach to national adaptation," he writes, "will eventually inspire America to reappraise the ascendancy of the states."

]]>

Gore Getting Ready to Run

Alexis Simendinger and National Journal — Fri, 30 May 1997 00:00:00 -0400

Vice President Al Gore has said that he's treating his recent missteps and bad press as lessons learned early enough to help him before 2000.

The same is true for members of his staff, who have been forced to learn the hard way that small mistakes are magnified many times when the political stakes are high. Although some Gore staffers were jolted to find Campaign 2000 thrust upon them so early, they are fine-tuning their performance.

"People have to be more aware now of the arena we're in. Right or wrong, this is it," said Lorraine Voles, Gore's communications director. "Now the whole staff seems to be more cautious."

Although Gore has not blamed his bruised reputation on anyone but himself, members of his staff alternate between mea culpas and fiery defenses. They know they have contributed to his stumbles, but resent the fact that the national media are already focused on a presidential election that is more than two years away. Even so, they are making changes to ensure the Vice President doesn't lose his political footing.

According to Gore's closest allies, the flaps over fund raising and his recent performance in China are exceptions in a nearly unblemished tenure as Vice President. But the miscues raise questions about Gore's political instincts and suggest weaknesses in his operations, experts said.

"Some of Gore's problems come from being Vice President, and some come from being Al Gore," said Michael Nelson, a political science professor at Rhodes College in Memphis and an authority on the vice presidency. "A more skillful politician might have paid a smaller price than Al Gore."

Some Gore aides want him to set a blistering early pace for 2000. "He has a larger lead over his potential Democratic Party rivals than any person at this stage of the process in modern history," boasts Ronald A. Klain, Gore's chief of staff. "He is, for better or worse, the acknowledged front-runner, the incumbent Vice President, and that means there's going to be a lot of focus on him."

Other aides want to keep Gore in the vice presidential cocoon a little bit longer. "We're just trying [with the media] to go back to the spot where we always thought he should be, which is someone who has not made a decision about 2000, [who] may have challengers in 2000 if he decides he's going to run as well, but nothing's inevitable," Gore's press secretary Ginny Terzano said.

Gore's critics charge that his image began to fray when he used his sister's cancer death to deliver an anti-tobacco message at the 1996 Democratic National Convention. He and his advisers later came to regret their decision to drop an admission that Gore had continued to profit from tobacco grown on the family farm for years after his sister's 1984 death.

The controversy caused by Gore's appearance as the featured speaker at the April 1996 fund-raiser at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles came as a surprise to the staff. The Vice President, current and former Gore aides argue, had no prior knowledge that it was an event at which Democratic Party funds were to be raised, even though White House documents now show that members of Gore's national security staff were cautioned about attending the gathering by the National Security Council. The Administration paper trail identified Gore's longtime national security adviser, Leon Fuerth, and John Norris, a Pentagon detailee to the staff, as the aides who vetted the event beforehand.

When asked by reporters last fall whether the temple event was a fund-raiser, Gore sought clarification from his staff. Deputy chief of staff David M. Strauss, who is expected to leave Gore's office for another government post, described the gathering as a "community event" and not a fund-raiser. Gore, in increments, has retreated from this explanation. The errors resulted from "staff confusion," according to aides. Gore relied on his aides' information, Voles said, which made it look like he was skirting the truth. "It was a pretty innocent answer, and it turned into a huge blast because it wasn't the most correct answer you could give," she said.

Earlier this spring, reporters confronted the Vice President with additional questions about fund-raising calls he made from his office to prospective donors of "soft money." Some experts have questioned why nobody on Gore's staff warned him about the impropriety of conducting telephone solicitations from his office. But Gore's defenders point out that none of the brightest minds working for President Clinton appeared to question the practice either.

Gore's troubles worsened after he decided March 3--following an intense day of behind-the-scenes consultations--to defend himself with a hastily organized news conference in the White House briefing room. Many of his aides advised against the news conference, arguing that there were higher-percentage, lower-risk ways to communicate his defense.

"Quite frankly, a lot of us wanted a much more cautious approach, but he felt very strongly that he wanted to get his side of the story out," Voles recalls. Gore, unused to the ethics hot seat and certain he had done nothing wrong, came across as defensive and unrepentant.

"I was worried when the press conference hit, because I wasn't sure he was willing or able to deal with the consequences of people questioning his integrity, and you have to be, because it's going to happen," said Raymond D. Strother, a Democratic media consultant who has worked for Gore.

Before he decided to defend himself in public, aides said, Gore first talked with the President. Gore also consulted with Klain (who was ill at home); Voles and Terzano; Charles Burson, counsel to the Vice President; Democratic media consultant Robert D. Squier, who is a close friend; Rahm Emanuel, a senior adviser to the President; deputy White House chief of staff John D. Podesta; and White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry. The result was Gore's awkward insistence--noted not once, but seven times in 24 minutes--that there was "no controlling legal authority" that ruled his solicitations from the White House illegal.

The Vice President and his staff, monitoring early news accounts, initially contended that he had made the best of a difficult situation. But their spirits sank within a day or two as political pundits weighed in with negative verdicts.

Clinton had seemed pleased with Gore's performance, according to a senior White House official who saw the President put his arm around Gore as he left the briefing room. "The President came out of the Oval Office and said, `I watched it and you did great; it was the right thing to do,'" the official remembers. Although Gore's poll ratings initially fell, a survey in early May by the Associated Press found only a minority of Americans believed Gore had illegally sought campaign money.

Stung at home, Gore set off in March for Beijing, a trip his staff envisioned would showcase the Administration's economic and environmental policies and enhance Gore's political prospects. With the clarity of hindsight, his aides now concede that they did not do enough to prepare for the political and public relations dimensions of a trip that was marked by Gore's reluctant--and unplanned--champagne toast with Li Peng, the architect of the Tiananmen Square student massacre. Terzano and Fuerth, who traveled to China with Gore, said the policy elements of the trip were largely ignored by a politically fixated U.S. press corps.

Fuerth has worked for Gore for 15 years and is considered by current and former colleagues to be an experienced manager of the Vice President's foreign policy portfolio. He has prepped Gore for the 26 foreign trips they have made since 1993. But Fuerth readily concedes he is press-shy and perhaps politically naive. He is trying to recover from the China drubbing (and scathing commentary mentioning him by name in The New York Times and The Washington Post) by reaching out to reporters and seeking advice from his more media-savvy colleagues. "It's not that I rejected the press, it's that I had a philosophy about whether or not it was my place to be in the press, and my view was that I shouldn't be," Fuerth said.

While Fuerth tries to step out of the shadows, and Klain contemplates getting a new deputy, Voles said Gore's staff is trying to be more vigilant.

"There have been some new procedures put in place so we vet things more carefully--people he meets with, events he goes to and how business is conducted," she added. "We're just trying to be more aware." And for the communications shop, that means reporters are not getting answers until Gore's staffers are certain they are right, even if a delay is the result. It hasn't helped that Voles has been on maternity leave for two months and will not be back full-time until the end of June.

One of the criticisms of the Vice President's staff, both inside and outside the White House, is that Gore has some real stars on his team, but not enough of them. "They may be a little thin, trying to do as much as they're trying to do," a top Clinton aide said. "No matter how good anybody is, usually you need a few people who will knock things off. If you have five smart people together talking, they kind of cancel out their weak parts."

Klain and other top Gore advisers have tried to expand a vice presidential staff voluntarily capped at 21 people by moving Gore loyalists into jobs on the President's ledger whenever possible. They see this as broadening the Gore network, even if the temporary downside is staff turnover.

For instance, the Vice President just reorganized his scheduling and advance team and announced the arrival of Maurice Daniel, former chief of staff to Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., as his new political director. Karen Skelton, who formerly held that job, is deputy director for political affairs for Clinton. Thurgood Marshall Jr., former head of legislative affairs for Gore, is now the President's Cabinet secretary. Frederick P. DuVal, former campaign director for Gore, is now a deputy for intergovernmental affairs for Clinton while also protecting the Vice President's interests among mayors and others. Gore friend and former Democratic National Committee vice chairwoman Lynn Cutler also joined the West Wing as a deputy for intergovernmental affairs with a focus on state and local officials.

Gore's network also includes longtime staffers who have returned to the private sector, such as John M. (Jack) Quinn, who became counsel to the President after moving from the Vice President's office; Roy M. Neel, a former Gore chief of staff who is president and chairman of the U.S. Telephone Association; Washington lobbyist Peter S. Knight, a former Senate aide who managed the Clinton-Gore '96 campaign; Marla E. Romash, a former Gore communications director who started her own public relations firm; and Greg Simon, Gore's former chief domestic policy adviser, who now has his own business consulting shop.

In July, Gore will lose senior policy adviser Elaine C. Kamarck--coordinator of his high-profile reinventing government efforts--to Harvard University.

The churning of Gore staffers has probably contributed to some stumbles, his senior aides concede, but new talent and fresh energy are offsetting benefits. Their hope is that Gore and the staff have put their mistakes behind them. "In this town, a week is a lifetime," Voles said. "We've just absorbed it, learned from it, and we're moving on."

]]>