E-gov projects again face cuts on Capitol Hill

Funding for the Bush administration's e-government projects is once again facing cuts from congressional appropriators, despite intensified efforts to convince lawmakers of the initiatives' benefits.

Appropriators have proposed slashing the administration's request for e-government nearly in half in the House version of the fiscal 2007 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill (H.R. 5576), which passed last week. Also, the House bill funding the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments, which passed out of committee last week, contains restrictive language related to how the projects are financed.

As part of the Transportation-Treasury bill, House members voted to reduce the e-government fund from $5 million to $3 million and to require appropriations committees in both chambers to approve all transfers of money for the projects. In a statement of administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget objected to those provisions, but did not threaten a veto.

The White House has threatened to veto legislation restricting e-government projects in the past, but has never followed through, stating that the provisions "do not significantly erode" the president's initiatives.

The House Transportation-Treasury bill also reduced the cap on such e-government-related transfers from $17 million to $10 million and left out an OMB-requested provision that would release $40 million in surplus funds from the General Services Administration's Federal Acquisition Service for use on e-gov projects.

OMB pays for e-government projects, for the most part, through appropriated funds taken from agency budgets, rather than through individual line items. OMB holds that such monetary transfers are legal under the 1932 Economy Act because agencies receive services for the payments.

But congressional appropriators, who have slashed funding for e-government numerous times in the past, have said they believe such transfers are illegal unless specifically approved by Congress and have questioned the value of the initiatives.

Efforts by OMB to communicate e-government benefits have improved, but lawmakers remain skeptical, said a House Appropriations Committee staff member who is familiar with the issue and asked to speak on the condition of anonymity.

"We're trying to give them the benefit of the doubt … they are taking some positive steps," the staffer said. "It's been no secret that Congress is not a fan of these initiatives. Our firm belief is that when we appropriate money for a program, it goes to that program …. If money is to be shifted, it needs to follow the law."

Despite the OMB effort to communicate the potential for savings, Congress is still skeptical, the staffer said.

But House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., who does not serve on the Appropriations Committee, said in a statement last week he hoped that by now congressional appropriators would recognize that failing to invest in e-government is "penny wise and pound foolish."

"Clearly, some in the agencies have a vested interest in inefficient, ineffective, stovepiped information technology programs, and they will continue to look for sympathetic ears on Capitol Hill," Davis said. "Protecting turf … is no excuse for stalling the innovative solutions that will save taxpayer money and improve the operations of our federal government."

Davis also said the rash of IT security problems at various agencies, such as the recent breach at the Veterans Affairs Department, underscores the importance of an effective governmentwide policy.

But the Bush administration has yet to fully explain e-government's benefits to individual agencies, said Bruce McConnell, former OMB chief of information policy and technology and now president of McConnell International, a Washington-based technology policy and management consulting firm.

"You have to make that case on an agency by agency basis," McConnell said. "I think they are making some progress, but it's been a long time in coming."

"It is clear there is a great deal of skepticism on Capitol Hill," he added. "There are ways to make them legal if they're not currently legal. The question is, is there desire on the Hill's part?"