Nextgov/FCW - Authors - Dan Friedman

Don't bet on an online gambling bill

Dan Friedman and Juliana Gruenwald, National Journal — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:46:44 -0500

Senate leaders are less optimistic about moving online gambling legislation through Congress during the lame-duck session than they were just a few months ago.

Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., began crafting legislation that would legalize online poker while banning other forms of Internet gambling. Their effort was prompted in part by a new interpretation of the Wire Act that the Justice Department released late last year. The department reversed course in deciding that the 1961 law, which bars wagering over telecommunications lines, applies only to sports betting. The opinion opened the door to new forms of online gambling at the state level, and many states have taken steps to move into this space.

Reid said on Wednesday that although he is still hopeful about action on his draft bill before the end of the year, “we don’t have a path forward right now, but we're working” on it.

Kyl, who is leaving the Senate after next month, was also pessimistic about prospects in this Congress given the major issues that lawmakers must tackle, including legislation to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, when automatic tax hikes and spending cuts go into effect at the beginning of 2013. A longtime online-gambling foe, Kyl helped craft the 2006 law that barred payment processors from handling bets for online gambling. The law’s effectiveness has been put into doubt in the wake of the Justice Department’s decision on the Wire Act.

“I am not saying that it's parochial or special legislation, but it’s not sequestration and the fiscal cliff and defense bill and all that, so it would be hard,” Kyl told National Journal on Wednesday, citing the lack of time left to resolve those major issues.

He said the House presents the biggest problem. Kyl said that although acting on the bill this year will be hard, “don’t infer from that I wouldn’t like to see something done.”

The measure enjoys the backing of major gambling interests, including the American Gaming Association, which counts casino operators such as Caesars, the Las Vegas Sands, and MGM as members.

The bill would “in effect be a limitation of gaming,” AGA President and CEO Frank Fahrenkopf said in an interview on Thursday. “It would just allow Internet poker.”

He and other supporters of the legislation warned that unless Congress moves to limit the fallout from the Justice Department's decision, Internet gambling will proliferate at the state level. The AGA and others argue that poker should be legalized because it is less susceptible to fraud online given that participants play against each other and not the operator of the game.

“We think it’s very important to have a federal standard on consumer protection,” Fahrenkopf added. “If you don’t have a federal floor standard, you’re going to have one state competing with another, and it will be a race to the bottom.”

The bill does face opposition from some stakeholders, including the National Governors Association, which wrote to congressional leaders last month voicing opposition to the latest draft. The draft bill would limit the ability of states to expand their lotteries to include new forms of online gambling and would also limit those who could immediately offer online poker to current brick-and-mortar casino operators.

John Pappas, executive director of the Poker Players Alliance, said that although his group supports the bill, it would like to see improvements to the measure, including removing a provision requiring all states—even those where gambling is now legal—to opt in to providing online poker.

“Ultimately, we want to get licensed and regulated poker in the U.S.,” Pappas said on Thursday. “This does achieve that goal.”

If it does have a chance in the lame-duck session, the draft bill is unlikely to move as a stand-alone measure and instead would probably be attached to a “must-pass” piece of legislation.

(Image via Galushko Sergey/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Online-gambling bill stalled by tactical spat

Dan Friedman and Juliana Gruenwald, National Journal — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:00:00 -0400

After months of negotiations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., appear to have come to an impasse over how to move Internet gambling legislation.

Kyl and Reid have been working on draft legislation that would allow for the legalization of online poker while tightening restrictions on other forms of Internet gambling. Reid has been pushing Kyl and Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., a key backer of the legislation, to help round up GOP support for the draft bill to help overcome a likely filibuster in the Senate.

But after Reid set a Monday deadline for gathering the necessary votes to move the legislation before the Senate recesses for the elections, Kyl and Heller are now saying they believe the House needs to act first before the Senate takes up the issue.

“By far the best strategy is to start a bill in the House … and have Reid and Heller who are supportive of the poker exemption … to do that in the Senate, then send it back to the House,” Kyl told National Journal on Tuesday. Kyl was the Senate author of a 2006 law that barred banks and others from processing payments for online-gambling bets.

The 2006 law has been put into doubt after the Justice Department last fall issued a new interpretation of the 1961 Wire Act, on which the 2006 anti-net gambling law is based. Justice said the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and not other forms of gambling, including online gaming.

In response to this and calls from some gambling interests to legalize online poker, Reid and Kyl began talks earlier this year on Internet gambling legislation that aims to address both issues. They have finished work on their draft bill but are now at odds on how to advance the legislation.

In a letter to Reid on Monday, Heller argued that the House should take up legislation that would fix the loophole created by the Justice Department’s new interpretation of the Wire Act and then send the bill to the Senate where Reid and Heller can attach an amendment that would clear the way for the legalization and regulation of online poker. Unlike other forms of gambling, supporters argue that online poker is a game of skill and less prone to fraud since participants play against each other and not the operator of the game.

“Since the root of the problem is the DOJ opinion, it is important to address that matter,” Heller wrote Reid. “Congress must put federal law on a sounder and firmer footing. The problem should be addressed by both chambers in a way that maximizes the chance for passage of meaningful legislation that will resolve this issue for our state.”

Kyl said that House Republicans will not trust any bill Reid pushes through the Senate first. “That’s the problem,” he said. “If Reid just tries to force something through the Senate with poker in it, the House is gonna figure they’re being jammed.”

In a letter to Heller late Tuesday, Reid appeared to reject having the House take up the bill first. He noted that the House could start its recess next week and not return until after November’s election. At the same time, he claimed Heller was not holding up his pledge to round up GOP votes.

“In May, you agreed to help me cement Republican support for the bill in the Senate,” Reid wrote. “Since then, you have been unable to garner the necessary Republican votes to pass this bill. As a result, we are at a standstill. And every day we stand still, Nevada’s workers, its economy, and its gambling industry suffers.”

Kyl, however, said he and Heller “have talked to over half of our conference” and expect strong GOP support if the bill emerges from the Senate.

Kyl and Heller’s House-first approach appears to have taken Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the leading proponent of online-poker legislation in the House, by surprise as well.

“There’s not and never has been a definitive agreed-on plan between the proponents in the House and the Senate. But there has been kind of a gentlemen’s agreement, an understanding that it would originate in the Senate simply because Senator Reid’s the majority leader and he has a working relationship with Senator Kyl,” Barton, who has introduced his own bill that would legalize online poker, said in an interview on Tuesday.

Despite this, Barton said he has been urging the House Energy and Commerce Committee to mark up his bill so that the House could be prepared to act if the Senate moves legislation. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., told National Journal before the August break that he was waiting on the Senate to act first.

While both Reid and Kyl say they would like to address the issue this year, election-year politics appears to be complicating their efforts. Heller is facing a tight race to win a full Senate term after being appointed last year to fill the seat of Republican John Ensign, who resigned from the Senate in the wake of an ethics scandal.

“I did not want this issue to become political in nature, but I cannot stand by while you abdicate your responsibility as a U.S. senator representing Nevada. Nevadans deserve someone who will fight for them,” Reid wrote.

Kyl, however, said that Reid’s attempts “to put political pressure on Senator Heller” are not constructive because he's suggesting he will paint Heller as ineffective on an important state issue if the bill does not pass.

“The key question is, does Senator Reid want the bill more, or does he want to elect his Democratic colleague more?” Kyl asked.

]]>

House, Senate postpone piracy bills under pressure

Dan Friedman, Josh Smith, and Juliana Gruenwald — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Julie Jacobson/AP

Capping a dramatic week of protests and legislative maneuvering, leaders in the Senate and the House announced on Friday that they are backing off efforts to pass a pair of controversial bills to crack down on foreign websites that use pirated content.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., announced that he will postpone a cloture vote on the Senate's Protect IP Act, originally scheduled for Tuesday. And in the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith , R-Texas, said he will postpone consideration of the House version until more agreement can be found.

Congress backed off the legislation after an unprecedented online protest on Wednesday by an estimated 115,000 websites and 13 million Internet users that catapulted the debate onto the national stage. At least eight former cosponsors of the Protect IP Act have defected, and support is waning for the House's Stop Online Piracy Act, which aims to give U.S. officials more tools for combating international piracy and copyright infringement.

"In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday's vote on the Protect IP Act," Reid said in a statement.

Wikipedia, Craigslist, and other high-profile websites went so far as to black out their entire sites in protest against the legislation. Critics say the measures would limit free speech and harm the open nature of the Internet.

Now that dramatic show of force by Internet companies large and small seems to have paid off.

SOPA has yet to clear the House Judiciary Committee, despite ardent work by Smith. And the Senate bill, which had been on a relatively fast track after the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved it in May, looks equally doomed.

Just as the Web protests were roundly dismissed and disparaged by the bills' supporters, Reid's decision to back off sparked sharp reaction from Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy , D-Vt., who sponsored the Protect IP Act.

"I understand and respect Majority Leader Reid's decision to seek consent to vitiate cloture on the motion to proceed to the Protect IP Act," Leahy said in a statement. "But the day will come when the senators who forced this move will look back and realize they made a knee-jerk reaction to a monumental problem."

Smith, meanwhile, said that it is "clear that we need to revisit the approach" on combating piracy.

The decision marks a failure for many in the traditionally strong entertainment lobby, which had pushed hard for the legislation.

]]>

Senate gets down to business, including NextGen implementation

Dan Friedman — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 -0500

With its preliminary organization done and the House out of session, the Senate gets down to something resembling regular business this week by taking up a long-stalled FAA reauthorization bill.

The two-year bill sets FAA policy on issues like adoption of its "NextGen" satellite-based air traffic control system, and authorizes about $35 billion in spending.

The bill represents an unusual example of legislation whose prospects have improved in the newly divided Congress. The same measure passed the Senate 93-0 last year, but the House and Senate could not reconcile their versions of the bill, largely due to labor and UPS-backed language in the House legislation that eased the ability of FedEx workers to unionize.

But with the defeat of former House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-Minn., the key backer of the labor provision, and the GOP takeover of the House, industry officials and congressional aides hope the bill can advance quickly this year.

Chris Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a trade group backing reauthorization, said lawmakers in both chambers have indicated a desire to move fast. That leaves the industry hopeful that the bill can pass before the current short-term FAA authorization expires in March. Congress has passed 16-straight short-term reauthorizations.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., has called the bill his first priority, and he is expected to hold a markup in February.

But the bipartisan desire to move the measure has not stopped it from becoming fodder for messaging fights.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the bill will create 100,000 jobs. He also said a good candidate for action after the chamber takes care of the FAA bill is a measure extending authorization of small-business programs, yet another jobs bill.

Reid's office says the Senate's action on the FAA bill is just the latest example of the chamber getting down to business while the Republican House postures on repealing health care reform and cutting the size of the federal workforce.

"While Democrats are focused on jobs, Republicans are pushing extreme, ideological plans to fire at least 1 million workers, explode our deficit by $1 trillion, and end Social Security and Medicare," Democratic Policy and Communications Committee spokesman Jon Summers said on Friday.

Reid, speaking Thursday night, seemed to concede that Republicans might succeed in forcing a vote on a House-passed measure to repeal health care reform sometime in the next few weeks, but he still will not bring the measure up as majority leader.

"I know the procedures of the Senate, and if the Republicans want to do all those things to people and increase the debt over the next 18 years by about $2 trillion, let them do it, but I'm not going to be part of it," he said.

However, Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., were discussing a vote on health care repeal on Friday, indicating the process whereby the chamber approaches the issue will be somewhat orderly.

House Republicans, who are scheduled to return next Tuesday, assert they are the ones focused on jobs.

"We have implemented new House rules that make it easier for Congress to cut spending and grow the economy. For example, all mandatory spending increases must be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. No more new taxes," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said last week during an address at the Heritage Foundation.

Cantor has two appearances scheduled this week billed to lay out the GOP's "Cut and Grow" agenda.

Cantor will speak on Wednesday in Ann Arbor, Mich., at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. The school says he will discuss "how his party intends to deal with President Obama: areas where they will work with him, and areas where they will provide a check and balance on his policies."

Cantor will speak Friday at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., where he earned his law degree.

]]>

Senate majority leader slows action on GSA nominee

Dan Friedman — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has missed few chances to complain about blocked executive nominations, regularly ripping Republicans for holds that he said are designed to limit floor time for Democratic legislation.

On Thursday, for example, Reid faulted Republican "stalling tactics" for forcing a cloture vote before the confirmation of Cass Sunstein to head OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In a June floor speech, he blasted Republicans for placing holds on more than 20 nominations.

But multiple Democratic and Republican staffers say Reid himself slowed action on one of the highest-ranking nominees awaiting confirmation, Martha Johnson. She is President Obama's pick to head the General Services Administration.

Johnson, a former GSA chief of staff, cannot start her job until she is confirmed, a GSA spokeswoman said.

Reid is keen to promote travel to Nevada, where he faces a tough re-election fight next year. Aides said he delayed confirmation of Johnson while seeking assurances that the agency, which oversees federal travel policy, did not discourage federal employees from traveling to Las Vegas for business conferences.

Johnson's nomination cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June, and drew no GOP objections when it was circulated to all Senate offices. But a Democrat apparently held up the nomination and prevented a floor vote, Senate staffers from both parties said.

"We later learned that Reid has expressed some concerns about travel," said a senior Republican aide. "He had some concerns about that and was using the Martha Johnson nomination as leverage with the White House and GSA."

The aide said Reid did not place a technical hold, which would not be needed since the majority leader controls the floor schedule.

"It is not accurate to say that Sen. Reid had a hold on the nomination. ... It is typical practice that a nomination is reviewed once it is received," a Democratic leadership aide familiar with the matter said. "There were a couple of issues that needed clarification on the nomination."

Reid has touted his concern about agencies limiting travel to Las Vegas. In an exchange of letters in July, he asked White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to ensure federal agencies do not prohibit travel to Las Vegas and other conference destinations that "are considered too leisure oriented." On July 27 he sent a letter asking federal agencies not to limit travel to any specific U.S. cities.

After Reid's concerns were resolved, Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., placed his own hold on the nomination last month because of concerns about delays in a federal construction project in Kansas City. Bond has met with Johnson, but is continuing the hold while waiting for further information from the nominee, a spokesman said.

]]>

Democrats set fast schedule for Defense, other spending bills

Dan Friedman and Billy House — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Top Senate Democrats hope to dispense with the fiscal 2010 defense authorization in just four days next week so they can clear the Senate floor for health care legislation and a vote on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. But with battles expected over several provisions of the defense bill, meeting that timeline might be a tall order.

Sotomayor's nomination will be considered by the Judiciary Committee for most of next week, with a committee vote sending the nomination to the floor possibly the following week. Also next week, Senate Finance Committee members will continue working on their health care overhaul proposal, which must be merged with a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions bill before reaching the floor. Democrats say they hope to take up the merged bill before the August recess.

Senate Majority Leader Reid said he expects to pass the fiscal 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill as early as today. A Reid spokeswoman said Democrats have an agreement to move to the defense bill Monday.

Reid said he expects to reach agreement today for a cloture vote on the nomination of Robert Groves to serve as Census director. That vote could come as early as Monday. Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., have holds on the nomination because Groves had supported statistical sampling to help count the nation's population. Groves and others have said sampling will not be used in the 2010 census.

Completing defense authorization in one week, which both Reid and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin called their goal, represents an ambitious timeline. The measure has previously consumed the chamber for more than two weeks, and several likely fights loom. Levin and Armed Services ranking member John McCain plan to try to reverse the committee's decision to authorize $1.75 billion for seven F-22s the administration did not request. McCain also is expected to push to strip the bill of funding for the alternate engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter. Republicans might urge authorization of more missile defense funding.

With a packed summer agenda looming, Senate Majority Whip Durbin today said part of the August recess, set to start on Aug. 7, could be shortened to add time to move key bills.

In the House, Democratic leaders are expecting floor action next week on the $33.3 billion fiscal 2010 Energy and Water appropriations bill, as well as the $24.1 billion Financial Services appropriations bill.

The House schedule could be altered by developments involving the fiscal 2010 intelligence authorization measure. It seems increasingly likely that a floor vote on that measure might slip into next week because of procedural maneuvering and partisan wrangling.

The Energy and Water bill includes $5.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, including money to help address the nation's water infrastructure needs.

The Financial Services spending bill includes more than $1 billion that drafters say will strengthen the SEC's ability to monitor and enforce rules that govern investments and financial markets and detect fraud.

]]>

Senate Rules Committee pondering Facebook use

Dan Friedman — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400

The tradition-bound Senate, historically slow to adjust to trends like popular elections and civil rights, is lumbering toward updating its approach to a less weighty issue: Facebook.

After months of review and talks with site operators, the Senate Rules Committee hopes in coming weeks to announce updated guidelines for how members can use the popular social networking site and other third-party Web sites, Senate aides said.

Committee staffers are in talks with owners of sites including Facebook and Twitter to forge agreements to add them to a list of sites that accept Senate Internet regulations, aides said. Under the agreements, the sites would agree to limit partisan and commercial advertising on lawmakers' pages.

"The Rules Committee has been having ongoing discussions about bringing third-party Web sites into compliance for official use by Senate offices," a committee spokesman said. "Those discussions are continuing on a number of fronts, but so far there are no agreements in place yet, except with YouTube."

Following an agreement with YouTube, members can embed video from the site on their Web sites.

The proposed policy follows the Rule Committee's approval in September of rules officially allowing lawmakers to post content from sites like YouTube, Flickr and Twitter on their Web sites without violating franking rules, which were developed to govern lawmakers' mailings but now cover various forms of communication. Many members had already been doing so.

The update gave senators discretion to use third-party Web sites if their usage follows the Senate's Internet Services Usage Rules and Policies. The rules were previously updated in 2005.

A growing number of senators have Facebook pages and some have received attention for their Twitter use. But confusion continues over how exactly franking rules affect use of Facebook and other social networking sites.

Senators face relatively few rules for how their campaigns use third-party sites, but official use remains "a gray area," one staffer said.

"A lot of new media staffers have a lot of good ideas, but aren't sure when they are crossing the line," said John Wonderlich, policy director at the nonprofit Sunshine Foundation, which wants the Senate to reduce restrictions on members' new media use.

"We see a lot of confusion from staffers on these issues," Wonderlich said.

On June 3, Rules Chairman Charles Schumer and ranking member Robert Bennett sent colleagues a letter highlighting "issues for members to consider as they decide how they will use Internet-based new media."

The letter warned Senate offices not to use official resources to put promotional, political or commercial content on the sites, and encouraged them to ensure that public commentary is distinguishable from what they post.

The Rules Committee review has been under way since at least March. The committee's Democratic staff director repeatedly declined to discuss the effort, saying an announcement would come after a policy is formalized.

]]>

Senators consider cutting Agriculture IT funds from stimulus

Dan Friedman, Humberto Sanchez, and Gautham Nagesh — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0500

The money for a much-needed technology upgrade at the Farm Service Agency is in jeopardy of being cut from the Senate economic stimulus bill, but one critic says the move would jeopardize the financial well-being of farmers nationwide.

Citing urgent economic conditions, President Obama and key advisers pressed Senate Democrats on Wednesday to allow spending cuts that would increase the odds of Republican backing for the bill, senators said. Among the items facing cuts is $171 million allocated for the Agriculture Department's information technology stabilization program, money the agency has said is sorely needed to maintain the systems that process government loan and subsidy payments to farmers.

Senate Republicans have hammered Democrats over spending in the bill, including millions of dollars for computers at Agriculture and the Interior Department, as well as funding for HIV screening, wildlife management and NASA programs. Obama met with Senate leaders to discuss areas where cuts could be considered, including health care and education.

Senators said Obama did not discuss specific amendments to the recovery bill, but momentum appears to be building for one being drafted by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., that would target what backers call "nonstimulative" spending in the bill.

"If we have to get rid of some little things to get rid of those talking points, then we should do that," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

But that might not be easy. House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Wednesday that they would resist the efforts of Collins and Nelson to remove the money for USDA computers. House Agriculture Chairman Colin Peterson, D-Minn., also has been an advocate for the funding.

Vilsack noted that the Obama administration is placing a high priority on agencies being accountable and said that would be difficult in his department without a new computer system to generate data. A source close to the situation said Vilsack also has been in contact with Collins' office in an attempt to emphasize how crucial it is for Agriculture to receive the funds to stabilize the aging IT infrastructure at the Farm Service Agency.

The source, who asked not to be named, said the money is needed to ensure that FSA's systems can continue to process payments to farmers and that without the money, the system could become overwhelmed and fail, as it did in January 2007. During the monthlong network outage, payments to farmers were sent out late or not at all.

The $171 million in the Senate stimulus bill is far short of the $245 million in the House version, but would allow FSA to stabilize its systems in time to ensure payments to farmers under the 2008 Farm Bill. The source said farmers are at risk of "individual financial catastrophe" without the government assistance. The Farm Bill system is expected to cost $55 million; FSA included the funds in past budget requests, but they never made it through the appropriations process.

Of the remaining funds, $51 million would be used to support the existing Web-based system of payment processing for farmers and to create a contingency computing infrastructure.

The rest of the funds, $65 million, would be used to initiate FSA's modernization program, with the goal of ending the agency's reliance on antiquated mainframe technology, which uses the COBOL programming language. The source said the funding would help create about 500 jobs while ensuring that the country's 2 million farmers receive the nearly $20 billion in farm program and disaster relief payments they rely on to remain solvent.

]]>

Amendment to stimulus bill would cut funding for new computers

Dan Friedman, Humberto Sanchez, and Christian Bourge — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0500

The Senate is turning its attention to two potentially bipartisan amendments that backers hope will draw enough GOP support for the stimulus bill to pass, as Senate Republicans call for adding provisions to aid the housing market and to cut spending from the Senate stimulus bill.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., offered an amendment to give all homebuyers credits of up to $15,000, which he believes will boost the ailing housing market. The Isakson proposal is expected to be voted on tonight. Some senior Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, said they might back the idea.

The other amendment, still being drafted, will be offered by Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Susan Collins, R-Maine. Nelson said it will cut "tens of billions" of "nonstimulative" spending from the bill. He added he and Collins largely agree what to cut, including hundreds of millions for computers at USDA and the Interior Department, as well as funding for HIV screening, wildlife management and NASA. He said at least 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans back the proposal and that he and Collins are working separately to build support in their conferences.

Nelson also noted that his talks with the White House and Democratic leadership have not met resistance.

"We don't have anybody with their foot on the brake," he said, while adding that leadership is eager to see details. He declined to describe talks with the White House but said "if we get something that is bipartisan, that is what the White House is interested in."

Collins and other moderates were summoned to the White House this afternoon to meet with President Obama. The president warned that the economic crisis could turn into a "catrastrophe" if the bill isn't passed quickly. "Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential," Obama said.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell and other Republicans have repeatedly said the stimulus must do more on housing, while spending "needs to be cut down." Supporters hope the Isakson and Nelson-Collins amendments, if passed, will address those demands and help patch together enough support from both parties to ensure passage.

The bill topped $900 billion late Tuesday after the Senate approved more amendments, including an $11 billion tax-credit provision for car buyers and $6.5 billion for research funding at the National Institutes of Health.

House Majority Leader Hoyer said today the House will be in session Monday so it could start work on conference talks if needed. The House passed an $819 billion stimulus bill last week, and Democratic leaders hope to finish work on the bill by mid-February. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today dismissed concerns that the Senate's changes could break that deadline. "It is our plan to send the bill to the president's desk next week," said Pelosi.

For their part, House Republicans continue to express their opposition to the bill. House Minority Leader Boehner, Minority Whip Cantor and others pointed to recent polls showing declining public support for the package as it stands. But Boehner said he continues to reach out to Obama and Democrats. "There haven't been as many conversations as I would like, but I remain optimistic we can produce a bill that works well,'" he said.

Much of the extraneous spending attached to the measure is also causing heartburn among Democrats, some of whom argue it was handled poorly by House Democratic leaders and that efforts to cut such funding are justified. "The bill has become a Christmas tree for all the pent up spending that Democrats wanted to do," said one frustrated Democratic lobbyist following the issue.

]]>

Senator wants to put hold on GSA nominee over contract

Dan Friedman — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, plans to block the nomination of Jim Williams to head the General Services Administration over Williams' role in the award of a controversial information technology contract.

Comment on this article in The Forum.If it clears the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a vote Wednesday, "Senator Grassley plans to put a hold on the nomination," a spokeswoman said Monday.

Grassley last week renewed charges that, as head of GSA's Federal Acquisition Service, Williams helped former GSA Administrator Lurita Doan improperly pressure contracting officers to conclude negotiations with Sun Microsystems Inc. on terms similar to those the agency previously rejected.

"Although I agree that he is a well-qualified and devoted civil servant, I don't believe Mr. Williams has the bureaucratic and intestinal fortitude to make the tough decisions at GSA when it matters," Grassley said on the Senate floor Thursday.

"Because he failed to protect the taxpayers at a crucial moment, we should not elevate Mr. Williams to high office," Grassley said.

A hold, which any senator can place, might derail Williams' confirmation. It would at least slow it.

Williams could become GSA administrator through a recess appointment or a lift of the hold, making him the first career civil servant appointed as head of the agency. But Grassley's opposition shows Williams has been hurt by his close work with Doan, who the White House ousted in April after scandals including a finding that she broke a law against political activity by federal officials.

Grassley began criticizing GSA's deal with Sun last year after backing GSA's inspector general in a broader dispute with Doan. At issue is GSA's 2006 extension of Sun's contract, through which federal agencies can buy IT products off a schedule. GSA's IG determined the firm broke an agreement to give the government discounts based on those private buyers got.

The Justice Department later sued Sun for fraud.

Williams got involved in negotiations in August 2006 when subordinates said the contract would likely not be renewed after more than a year of contentious talks, according to reports by Grassley's staff and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

After Doan said losing the contract would be unfortunate for GSA, Williams met with the contracting officer negotiating with Sun. "Lurita wants this contract awarded. I want it awarded," Williams reportedly said.

Williams later asked the officer if he wanted to be removed from negotiations. The officer agreed, and his replacement completed the complex deal in nine days. The September 2007 report by Grassley's staff, obtained by CongressDaily, says the terms are similar to those GSA previously rejected.

The report suggests that, because GSA supports itself through fees for contracting for other agencies, Doan and Williams were more focused on keeping Sun's business than taxpayer value.

"This will protect all our business volume with Sun for the end of the fiscal year and beyond," Williams wrote Doan in a Sept. 9 e-mail after the contract was extended, according to the Grassley staff report.

Williams told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Friday that he believes the contract was a fair deal. He said he told contract officers they could "walk away," if they were not satisfied with Sun's offer.

Grassley said Williams "improperly interfered in the negotiations" and erred by communicating independently with a Sun official.

"At the very least, this was a very poor management decision by Mr. Williams. ... He made the wrong choice. He is now accountable for that decision," Grassley said.

A GSA spokesman said, if confirmed, "Williams looks forward to continuing to work cooperatively with Senator Grassley and all members of Congress."

]]>

White House threatens to veto House e-mail storage bill

Dan Friedman — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Ahead of a scheduled House vote today, the White House threatened to veto a bill aimed at forcing the president and federal agencies to improve preservation of e-mail records.

Comment on this article in The Forum.House aides said that while they expect the measure to get bipartisan support, it will be considered under regular rules because of the veto threat.

The bill has generated some Republican opposition due to a provision the White House says gives the National Archives and Records Administration new responsibility for overseeing White House record-keeping.

The legislation would upset "delicate separation of powers" created in the 1978 Presidential Records Act and would "require the archivist to intrude, in an excessive and inappropriate manner, into the activities of an incumbent president and his or her staff," the White House said in a Statement of Administration Policy issued Tuesday.

Introduced by House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman and two committee Democrats, the bill attempts to legislate a fix to problems that have left the Bush White House unable to find hundreds of days' worth of e-mails.

A committee investigation into the missing e-mails focused on the White House's scrapping of an e-mail records system created during the Clinton administration and eventual reliance on a less-sophisticated system that one former White House technology officer called "primitive." A committee report cites e-mail preservation problems faced by the Clinton White House as well.

The bill would require the National Archives to set standards for White House electronic records and to report annually to Congress on implementation of its recommendations.

Archive officials as well as the White House have said argued the bill unnecessarily expands the agency's job from advice to oversight.

But at a House Rules Committee hearing Tuesday, House Oversight and Government Reform Information Policy Subcommittee Chairman William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., said the bill, of which he is a co-sponsor, only affirms the National Archives' job of advising the White House on record-keeping.

Clay said the bill is meant to offer a nonpartisan fix. The committee "tried to take out the hype of the controversy … and protect records in an apolitical manner," he said.

A less-discussed but farther-reaching part of the bill updates the Federal Records Act to require federal agencies, also under standards set by the National Archives, to save all e-mail records electronically and create systems to allow electronic searches.

According to GAO and a committee report, most agencies now use "print and file" records systems for keeping e-mail, many of them spotty. Historians and open government advocates have said that approach has not kept pace as agencies increasingly reach decisions via e-mail, causing loss of important records.

The White House argues the storage provision "is onerous and overly broad" and "could impose enormous unfunded costs on agencies."

It is not clear if the bill would require storage of instant messages, so-called wikis and emerging communication technology, the White House statement says.

"Existing policy and guidance under current law is sufficient," the statement says.

]]>

Davis asks committee to investigate Bloch's online defenses

Dan Friedman — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0400

House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Tom Davis Tuesday asked committee Democrats to investigate whether Scott Bloch, the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, broke the law by ordering a subordinate to post online messages in his defense under pseudonyms in comment sections of Web publications.

Comment on this article in The Forum."This secret use of government resources and personnel constitutes an unlawful use of appropriated funds to publish covert propaganda," Davis wrote in a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman. The letter cites two laws, including a criminal statute covering executive branch agencies.

CongressDaily reported Friday that Bloch instructed an employee to rebut news stories and, in some cases, single comments by other readers that he considered negative. Bloch helped decide what would be written, an employee involved in the posting said.

Bloch faces a federal investigation into charges he obstructed justice by destroying files sought in a separate administrative probe and the Office of Personnel Management's Inspector General, as well as other allegations.

Roscoe Howard, an attorney for Bloch, said Bloch will not comment due to the continuing federal investigation.

While FBI agents investigating Bloch have not pressed an employee involved in the posting comments about that activity, Davis' letter could create more legal trouble for Bloch.

Davis asked Waxman to subpoena Bloch to appear for a deposition and turn over personal e-mails.

"I also ask that the committee conduct transcribed interviews with all OSC staff and other witnesses with information relating to the unlawful propaganda campaign as well as those witnesses with relevant information relating to the deletion of computer files," Davis wrote.

He noted that Waxman has investigated alleged use of covert propaganda by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the White House's possible misuse of government resources and e-mail accounts.

But it is unclear if Waxman, who has mostly rebuffed requests by Davis to investigate Bloch over various matters in the last year, will start an investigation. A spokeswoman for committee Democrats said "the chairman will give careful consideration to the minority's request."

CongressDaily reported last week that an OSC employee estimated the misleading posts might have numbered "in the double digits" and that an employee who has not served in the military identified himself as "A Combat Vet" in an online response to a July 13, 2007, article on GovernmentExecutive.com.

The article, ironically, described a hearing where Davis blasted Bloch for using personal e-mail to discuss agency business. The anonymous posting said news organizations were devoting too little coverage to OSC's enforcement of the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act, which bars discrimination against people based on service in the armed services.

Several similar posts, also by a person claiming to be a combat veteran and urging more coverage of OSC's work on USERRA, appeared around the same time regarding articles about Bloch in online versions of The Washington Post, The Lawrence Journal-World and other Web sites.

The OSC employee involved in the posting said Bloch, sensitive to media coverage, often held his public relations staff responsible for bad publicity. The employee said he viewed the posts as unimportant, "but they made Scott feel good."

]]>

OSC chief pushed subordinate to post online rebuttals

Dan Friedman — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Scott Bloch, the embattled head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, whose office and home federal agents raided last month, has faced a lot of bad publicity. And he evidently doesn't like it.

Comment on this article in The Forum.On many occasions since 2006, Bloch ordered a subordinate to post comments on blogs and in the "comment" sections of online news stories using a pseudonym, current and former OSC employees told CongressDaily.

The postings have defended Bloch against online articles and comments by readers that he has perceived as negative, the sources said.

"That did go on," said a former employee who has been involved in the activity. "Bloch would suggest posting things in the comments section. ... There'd be a negative article about Scott's involvement on something ... and [the] comment would be something like 'This Bloch guy is doing a good job."

Two former OSC employees have gone so far as to describe Bloch as thin-skinned and "obsessed" with his press coverage.

A federal grand jury is investigating whether Bloch obstructed justice by destroying files sought by the Office of Personnel Management's inspector general, who was looking into allegations that Bloch improperly retaliated against OSC employees for opposing his policies.

The former OSC employee familiar with the anonymous postings on Bloch's behalf was recently interviewed by FBI agents gathering evidence for the grand jury probe but said the agents did not ask about the issue.

Roscoe Howard, an attorney representing Bloch, said Bloch would not comment due to the continuing criminal probe. An OSC spokesman said Bloch was unavailable Thursday.

The former OSC employee, who described the Web posting operation in exchange for anonymity, said such instances might have numbered in "the double digits." Bloch "would be involved in the discussion of what should be said," the employee said.

The employee suggested at least one OSC worker posted comments on the Web sites of such publications as the Washington Post, Topeka Capital-Journal, and the Lawrence Journal World. The two Kansas-based publications have written about Bloch because he is from the state.

In another instance confirmed by CongressDaily, an OSC employee who has not served in the military identified himself as "A Combat Vet" in an online response to a July 13, 2007, article on GovExec.com. In the article, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Republicans faulted Bloch for his use of personal e-mail to discuss agency business.

The anonymous posting said news organizations were devoting too little coverage to OSC's enforcement of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which bars discrimination against people based on service in the armed services.

"Where is the coverage of USERRA?" the posting asked. "OSC helped my buddy out when he couldn't get his job back, and it doesn't seem like anybody is checking into how it helps veterans. ... Who the hell cares if Bloch sent an email about congresscritters goofing off and playing pattycake. This USERRA issue is a huge deal for us who served. Does anyone give a crap?"

At the time, public affairs officials at OSC, which enforces federal workplace rights, were urging reporters to cover USERRA enforcement cases.

During the hearing described in the article, House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Tom Davis, citing an e-mail Bloch had sent, accused him of acting inappropriately in distributing to several people news articles about OSC investigations of federal officials.

Davis offered similar criticism Thursday.

"A public official should be accountable to the public." Davis said in a statement. "To secretly use the resources and personnel of his office -- on government time -- to comment on negative press reports is improper and deprives the public of accountability.

"If true, this could constitute an unlawful use of appropriated funds to publish covert propaganda," Davis said. "This is further evidence that Scott Bloch is unfit for his office and should resign, be fired or at least be placed on administrative leave."

Davis added that he would ask House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman "to initiate an investigation into this activity."

]]>

Obama, McCain give boost to contract data legislation

Dan Friedman — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Even as Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., bash each other on the campaign trail, both are backing a bill beefing up federal contracting transparency.

Comment on this article in The Forum.During a Senate appearance Wednesday, Obama joined Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to introduce legislation to increase information available through USASpending.gov, a database of federal contracts and grants created under a bill the senators co-sponsored in 2006.

McCain and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Management Subcommittee Chairman Thomas Carper, D-Del., joined as original co-sponsors.

While USASpending.gov lists government contract and grant amounts, the bill would require federal agencies to include searchable copies of all contracts they award, details about the bidding process, assessments of work already done and information on civil, criminal or administrative proceedings against award recipients, among other categories.

Despite the relatively late date in the session, Senate aides said the measure could move quickly given past passage of the database bill and its high-profile support.

"It should be pretty easy to pass, especially with the two presidential candidates on it," a Carper aide said. He said the bill could be marked up at either the subcommittee or full committee level by July.

"Having McCain and Obama as backers is very significant," a Coburn spokesman said via e-mail. "Perhaps they can promote the bill during their upcoming joint town hall meetings." McCain recently proposed a series of town-hall style appearances, an idea the Obama camp called "appealing."

The measure may move alone or be attached as an amendment to another bill. While no companion House bill has been introduced, Obama's staff has shared language with the staff of House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, aides said.

Various provisions in the bill address government accountability themes adopted by both presidential candidates. The bill would require that the database indicate if contracts or grants resulted from congressional earmarks, for instance.

The measure also requires that the Web site include information on contractor's tax compliance. It mandates enhancements to USASpending.gov through twice-yearly audits of data quality, a public error-reporting system and reviews of data samples by agency inspectors general.

]]>

National Archives reticent about broadening mission

Dan Friedman — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Chafing at Bush administration secrecy, congressional Democrats are handing the National Archives and Records Administration new jobs promoting government transparency. Officials at the records agency appear to be balking at taking on unfunded mandates beyond their traditional role. If Congress wants the Archives to become open-government cops, archivists may prefer to remain librarians.

Comment on this article in The Forum."They have always had a narrow view of their mandate and have never been particularly inclined to seek any expansion," said Patrice McDermott of OpentheGovernment.org, a coalition of groups urging government transparency. "They see their mission as providing access to historical records. They see [overseeing] contemporaneous records as a shift."

A bill updating the Freedom of Information Act, signed Dec. 31 by President Bush, created an Office of Government Information Services within NARA to help set federal FOIA policy. Another measure, backed by House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman and expected to clear the House soon, gives the Archives a new role overseeing agencies' preservation of electronic records. The bill requires NARA to monitor White House e-mail archiving and report results to Congress, replacing a system where archivists take responsibility for records after presidents leave office.

Through an executive order last month, the Archives received responsibility for standardizing "controlled unclassified information" designations used by federal agencies. NARA has temporary funding to start that work. But critics accuse the Archives of privately pushing to duck the e-mail and FOIA tasks. "They are going to sabotage it," said Thomas Blanton, director of the George Washington University's National Security Archive.

At a May 14 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Financial Management Subcommittee hearing, Blanton argued NARA "went along with" a proposal in the president's FY09 budget to move the new FOIA office to the Justice Department. Sponsors of the FOIA bill, led by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, have vowed to block the move, which they called an effort to undermine the bill.

At an April 23 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, Archives officials questioned the constitutionality and cost of the e-mail bill. Paul Wester, head of NARA's modern records program, said Congress telling NARA to oversee a sitting president's records management might raise separation of power issues. Though NARA officials said they will do any job Congress gives them, critics argued the officials' statements signal reluctance.

A NARA spokeswoman declined to describe the agency's position on the e-mail or FOIA bills, which so far lack funding. But she said the agency, which has a proposed FY09 budget of about $400 million, struggles with an ever-increasing number of records. "The National Archives operates on a very tight budget. ... Whenever we get another responsibility, it means we need to find money to undertake it," she said.

But while conceding budget shortfalls, critics say NARA's reluctance to expand its job is less financial than cultural. "NARA traditionally has not viewed itself as an enforcement entity but rather one that focuses upon collegiality and relationships," National Archives Inspector General Paul Brachfeld said at the May 14 hearing. Lawmakers are handing NARA new jobs because they consider the agency to be nonpartisan and professional. In becoming a records cop, NARA risks hurting that reputation. But critics say it is the agency best positioned to ensure access to government information.

]]>

Authorization bill attracts contracting reform amendments

Dan Friedman and Megan Scully — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Democratic lawmakers are eyeing the House and Senate fiscal 2009 defense authorization bills as vehicles for a series of measures that would change the acquisition system, staffers and industry officials said.

Comment on this article in The Forum.The House recently passed several contracting reform bills that emerged from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. But with similar stand-alone Senate measures not yet taken up in committee, the annual Pentagon policy bill -- scheduled to be marked up by Armed Services subcommittees this week -- may offer the best chance for the measures to become law, House aides and lobbyists said.

"We have heard pretty clearly that there will be effort to put [the Oversight Committee bills] in the defense authorization bill," said Peter Steffes, vice president for government policy at the National Defense Industrial Association. "That's the only train they have leaving the station."

The House on April 23 approved bills mandating a governmentwide contractor performance database, forcing firms that earn most of their revenue from federal contracts to reveal salaries of top officers and ensuring that contractors overseas self-report criminal violations.

On April 15, the House also passed a bill barring firms with tax debts from winning large government contracts. Companion Senate measures to the database and tax bills have been introduced, but the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has taken no action on either one.

A House aide familiar with the issue said Monday that there will almost certainly be efforts to attach the acquisition measures to the defense authorization bill next week during the full committee's markup or during floor debate on the bill expected the week of May 19.

"I imagine that if it [the contracting language] doesn't come out of committee, someone will try to amend it on the floor," the aide said.

Observers also said the Senate's defense authorization bill, which was marked up last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, may be amended to include contracting language when it reaches the floor. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin has said he hopes the chamber will consider the bill before Memorial Day.

Noting that "must-pass" legislation like the defense policy bill and key appropriations measures "become like Christmas trees for bills that would never pass on their own," Trey Hodgkins, senior director of defense and intelligence programs for Information Technology Association of America, said his group is concerned that measures they oppose, such as the House's contractor database bill, could be attached with little debate.

Steffes said he expects a bill introduced on April 25 by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. -- which would require contractors to report crimes by their employees and overpayments they receive -- to be offered as an amendment to the defense bill.

Several acquisition-related measures were already attached to the bill during last week's markup. These include a requirement that the Pentagon create ethics standards to prevent conflicts of interest by contractors who oversee other contractors, language preventing contractor employees from interrogating detainees and a provision ensuring security contractors do not perform "inherently governmental functions," that involve likely combat.

Another provision, similar to a bill introduced by Illinois Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Richard Durbin, seeks to block contractors who use overseas subsidiaries to avoid taxes from receiving competitive advantages.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also attached an amendment, similar to a stand-alone bill she has introduced, requiring the Pentagon to create a database of contractors who have been disciplined for violating procurement laws or regulations.

]]>

Federal e-mail preservation clears House committee

Dan Friedman — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

WASHINGTON - A bill that would force the White House and federal agencies to improve policies for storing e-mails is headed for the House floor after clearing the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a unanimous voice vote Thursday.

Comment on this article in The Forum.The bill (H.R. 5811) responds to concerns government records policies have not kept pace up with the information age by forcing agencies to store e-mail electronically. Laws and regulations governing e-mail retention lack language dealing with record-retention did not envision the use of e-mail, members noted, creating the danger of historians lacking access to much of the deliberation by agency officials.

"The preservation of these records must be ensured to allow historians … access to key information about federal decision-making," said House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

The measure mandates that agencies, many of which use "print and file" systems to store old emails, develop plans to store them electronically. The bill gives the National Archives 18 months to set standards for email retention, and then requires agencies to report within four years on their compliance with the standards.

The two-part bill also takes specific aim at perceived record keeping failures by the Bush White House. The bill amends the Presidential Records Act to give the National Archives and Records Administration a role overseeing the White House's records policy. Currently sitting presidents set their own policies for keeping key documents, before handing records over to the National Archive.

Giving the National Archive power over White House records policy could raise constitutional issues, Paul Wester, director of NARA's modern records program, testified at subcommittee hearing on the bill last week. But Waxman dismissed such concerns Thursday, noting the bill gives NARA, an executive branch agency, the oversight role and does not mandate delivery of documents to Congress.

Waxman criticized the Bush White House for losing hundreds of days of e-mail and allowing some senior officials to use Republican National Committee e-mail accounts for government business. But he noted the bill would likely affect only future administrations.

By unanimous voice vote, the committee passed a substitute amendment that attempts to address concerns raised by witnesses in the subcommittee hearing. While the bill previously urged preservation of "electronic communications" the bill requires electronic storage of just e-mail and successor technologies. It requires preservation of other electronic communications, such as instant messages, only "to the extent practicable."

]]>

White House forces resignation of embattled GSA chief

Dan Friedman and Robert Brodsky — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Lurita Doan, the embattled head of the General Services Administration, resigned at the request of the White House, sources said Tuesday.

According to people familiar with the matter, the controversial agency administrator was summoned to the White House for a late afternoon meeting Tuesday, during which she was asked to step down.

Doan's ouster comes nearly 11 months after the independent Office of Special Counsel concluded an investigation of Doan and called for President Bush to fire her for violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using government resources for partisan politics.

The OSC probe dealt with a January 2007 meeting between Doan, GSA political appointees and former White House political aide Scott Jennings. After Jennings showed a PowerPoint slide show detailing Republican electoral plans Doan asked, "How can we help our candidates?"

Doan has consistently said she does not remember making such a comment.

But the OSC, citing multiple witnesses, concluded the statement was tantamount to instructing subordinates to use their offices to assist Republican candidates. "Doan solicited the political activity of over 30 of her subordinate employees," Special Counsel Scott Bloch wrote in a June 8 summary of his office's investigation.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the ranking member of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Wednesday, "It would be a shame if [Doan's resignation] had anything to do with the hyperbolic and unfounded allegations of Scott Bloch and others who were after her just to claim another administration scalp. There's no doubt personality conflicts played a role. Certainly, her management style was not everyone's cup of tea. But the administrator appears to have fallen victim to a bureaucratic culture that fears, rather than rewards, entrepreneurial spirit, innovation and bold leadership."

Doan faced heavy criticism last year from congressional Democrats. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., grilled Doan at two hearings over the Hatch Act violation and regarding allegations that she improperly intervened to assist a federal contactor, Sun Microsystems, in its negotiations with GSA and over charges that she unsuccessfully attempted to steer a small no-bid contract to a longtime friend.

Doan has battled with her agency's inspector general for nearly two years, drawing strong criticism from Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley.

In an e-mail message to GSA employees, Doan wrote: "The past twenty-two months have been filled with accomplishments: together, we have regained our clean audit opinion, restored fiscal discipline, re-tooled our ability to respond to emergencies, rekindled entrepreneurial energies, reduced bureaucratic barriers to small companies to get a GSA Schedule, ignited a building boom at our nation's ports of entries, boldly led the nation in an aggressive telework initiative, and improved employee morale so that we were selected as one of the best places to work in the federal government. I have great faith in the abilities of GSA's dedicated team."

It was not immediately clear what prompted the timing of Doan's ouster. Though a number of House and Senate members urged Doan's resignation last year, she appeared to have survived the storm. In recent months she has continued to clash publicly with GSA's inspector general, but she has generally avoided drawing fire from Capitol Hill this year.

Recently the IG, Brian Miller, was cleared of allegations of misconduct in a pair of wide-ranging complaints filed by four of the IG office's former attorneys.

The inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service found that Miller had not violated any statute, rule or regulation, according to a letter from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to Doan.

A similar opinion was offered in January by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Integrity Committee, which is responsible for probing complaints against inspectors general.

The closure of the whistleblower case appeared inflame Doan, who has feuded with Miller virtually since the day she took office. Last week, she vowed to continue to advocate for employees who had filed complaints against Miller and his office.

In an e-mail to Government Executive early Wednesday morning after her resignation, Doan wrote, "this remains an enormously serious issue which I still believe ought to be addressed."

"I would rather get fired for something I believe in, and a cause I was willing to fight for, rather than to believe in nothing worth being fired for," Doan wrote in the message.

]]>

OMB: Don't bother submitting 2010 budget requests

Dan Friedman — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0400

The Bush administration will leave much for the next president, but its legacy will not include a fiscal 2010 budget, according to a recent memorandum Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle sent to agency heads.

Comment on this article in The Forum.Instead of readying a full federal budget, Nussle said OMB "will prepare a budget database that includes a current services baseline," or an estimate based on current spending that does not include proposed increases and new policy proposals.

In what some budget analysts called a surprising departure from past practices during the transition from one administration to another, Nussle also said agencies this year need not submit budget requests and supporting documents in September as they normally do.

Instead, agencies should estimate their baseline spending and submit budget requests only after a new administration or transition team arrives, Nussle said in his April 7 memo.

The decision means neither President Bush nor federal agencies will have to bother offering proposals that most experts agree are likely to be ignored by the next White House and Congress.

"We would love to have President Bush's budget policies carried on," OMB Deputy Director Steve McMillin said Thursday. "But as a practical matter, it's the next president who will be negotiating the 2010 budget with the Congress, and they'll probably need to own it."

Before Congress changed the law in 1990 to have incoming presidents, not their predecessors, submit budgets in transition years, lame-duck presidents generally sent a budget to Capitol Hill just before departing, McMillan said. Even President George H.W. Bush, hoping to remain in office, followed standard procedures and prepared a budget in late 1992.

McMillin said OMB's approach is similar to the one taken in 2000 by then-OMB Director Jack Lew under President Clinton.

But Nussle's approach was criticized by several budget analysts who argued it could cause agencies to delay consideration of fiscal 2010 budget plans until well into 2009. "It's pretty outrageous," said one veteran of the congressional budget process.

"It might create a kind of crisis environment in 2009, because they won't have done the planning that is needed," observed Cindy Williams, a former assistant director of CBO who studies the defense budget at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Security Studies Program.

Other budget experts said OMB's collection of baseline spending information would be sufficient for the transition. "I don't think it's a very big deal . . . as long as you have very good baseline information," said Alice Rivlin, who served as OMB Director under Clinton.

Former Congressional Budget Office Director Robert Reischauer said OMB's plan would not cause problems if agencies work on routine parts of their budget proposals before the transition and, as Nussle's memo suggests, work with the incoming president's transition team before January.

"The issue is you don't want to face the new president and his incoming staff the day after the inauguration with, in a sense, a blank sheet," Reischauer said.

Peter Cohn contributed to this report.

]]>

GAO: Military gear for sale on Web poses security risk

Dan Friedman — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Need F-14 components? Try eBay. A team of undercover GAO agents found parts for the fighter plane as well as body armor, night vision goggles and other military items for sale to the highest bidder on eBay, Craigslist.org and other Web sites that allow person-to-person sales, the congressional auditing agency announced today.

Comment on this article in The Forum.Between January 2007 and March, agents using only credit cards, mailing addresses and false names easily bought the items, many of which were stolen from the U.S. military, Gregory Kutz, GAO managing director for forensic audits and special investigations, told a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee. Though the Web-based companies did not break the law and many military items can be purchased legally, the sales suggest foreign states, criminals and terrorists can easily buy sensitive American military equipment, investigators and lawmakers said. The items GAO bought are on a list of munitions that are illegal to sell overseas without Defense Department approval, Kutz said.

"It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand the troubling nature of some of these items being sold online, said House Oversight and Government Reform National Security Subcommittee Chairman John Tierney, D-Mass.

Tierney noted GAO bought Army combat uniforms on eBay a few months after insurgents dressed in U.S. military garb killed five U.S. service members in Karbala, Iraq, in January 2007. Iran, believed to be the only country still flying F-14 Tomcats, was the intended recipient of $750,000 worth of F-14 parts that a Florida man was arrested for trying to export in 2003, Kutz said. States including China and Russia are part of a robust foreign market for U.S. military equipment, Defense Department Deputy Inspector General for Inspections Charles Beardall testified.

GAO's investigation follows undercover investigations in 2002 and 2003 that showed the Defense Department was improperly selling excess sensitive military equipment, such as chemical protective suits, online. Kutz said that while the department has curtailed such sales, GAO's recent investigation shows U.S. military equipment could be sent overseas through middlemen using the Internet.

Tod Cohen, vice president for government relations at eBay, said the company bars the sale of military ordnance and "essentially prohibits" selling military items not properly disposed of under Defense Department rules. The company has a fraud-investigations team that cooperates extensively with government agencies to block sales of military equipment on its site. And it uses detection tools to flag suspicious listings, Cohen added. But with up to 7 million items listed daily, "it is a challenge to enforce our policies," he said. Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster said his company, which offers free classified advertisements in 450 localities, was improperly described by GAO as global marketplace, though he acknowledged some users do sell to people overseas. Buckmaster and Cohen argued any legislation restricting sales of military items should be simple and not limited to online vendors.

"The key is . . . clear rules," Cohen said. With a hodgepodge of rules applying to sales of different military equipment, Tierney said Congress should very seriously consider a ban on sale of sensitive items.

]]>

Most Hill Panels Refrain From Launching Passport Probes

Dan Friedman — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Despite an initial uproar over news that State Department contractors improperly viewed the passport files of presidential candidates, congressional oversight committees are mostly awaiting results of an internal department probe before launching separate investigations, Capitol Hill aides and State officials said.

Comment on this article in The Forum."We're not expecting any big involvement from Congress," said a department official familiar with the matter. House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., said March 21 that his panel will independently investigate the passport snooping.

On March 21, State Department officials announced that contractors that process passports for the department had fired two employees and disciplined another for inappropriately accessing the passport files of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz.

State's response to the issue appears to have at least temporarily headed off inquiries from other committees. Without unexpected revelations from an investigation by the State Department's inspector general, "we think we may have seen the end of this," the agency official said.

A State Department spokesman has attributed the snooping to "imprudent curiosity," rather than political motivation by the employees involved, two of whom were fired. But the spokesman said the inspector general will look more closely at the issue.

Department officials briefed Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers and aides to Obama, whose passport file was accessed multiple times by an employee of a department contractor, and Clinton and McCain, both of whose files were viewed last year. State officials have briefed House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee and House Judiciary Committee staff, a department official said.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will wait for results of the inspector general investigation, a spokeswoman said. "I don't believe there are necessarily any next steps," she said. "The . . . committee is sort of yielding to IG and the [Justice Department]."

The Justice Department is monitoring the IG probe but is not now conducting an independent investigation. House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., last week released a letter to Secretary of State Rice urging that the department release the names of the contractors whose employees reviewed the passport files. The department has since identified the companies. A committee spokeswoman said Waxman has not decided whether to investigate further.

Other lawmakers have expressed interest in the passport issue while urging broader measures to ensure privacy of government information. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has said he is carefully reviewing the passport matter, which he said raises questions about breaches affecting lower-profile citizens.

But the committee is "monitoring" the situation and has no plans for any related investigation, an aide said. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and ranking member Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., urged March 25 that the Justice Department investigate if the accessing of the passport files violated federal privacy laws. They called for passage of a bill they have introduced that would require that federal agencies provide timely notification of data security breaches and increase requirements for how government contractors "guard" sensitive personal data.

]]>

Government Reform panel passes contractor database bill

Dan Friedman — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0400

A bill to set up a public database on federal contractor performance and misconduct won approval Thursday from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee despite Republican concerns the measure could allow unfair attacks on contractors as well as end up barring large companies from receiving government contracts.

Comment on this article in the forum.Introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and passed by voice vote, the measure (H.R. 3033) would require creation of a publically accessible list of any completed criminal, civil and administrative proceedings against federal contractors in the last five years. The database would be maintained by the General Services Administration, though other federal agencies could input data. Maloney helped create a similar database for New York City as a city council member.

"This is a common-sense measure that would allow the federal government to track fraudulent contractors," Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said. Democrats said the bill would give federal acquisition officers a standard source of information on contractor performance. Existing databases maintained by nongovernment groups are incomplete, supporters say.

However, Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Tom Davis, R-Va., said the bill could lead to a "blacklist" used to intimidate contractors. "While the information would have a fair purpose for acquisition officers, I fail to see the value of placing it on a public Web site," Davis said.

Another sticking point was a provision in the bill that requires debarment proceedings against any company that has faced two adverse rulings within three years. Once debarred, a company would be ineligible for further government contracts.

Davis said the measure's "two-strikes-and-you're-out language," if unaltered, would cause debarment of many large contractors. Due to their many contracts, bigger government vendors are more likely to face more adverse actions. Davis noted the Boeing Co. in recent years has entered into various settlements and had several judgments against it involving alleged violations of federal law.

"If those adjudications are included under this bill's terms, Boeing and a great many other firms could face automatic debarment proceedings," Davis said.

The committee approved an amendment adopting a version of the bill passed Tuesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Government Management Subcommittee. In a nod to Republican concerns, the amendment allows listing only completed proceedings in the database and lets contractors rebut entries. The committee also amended the bill to clarify that settlements reached before suspension or debarment proceedings are completed will be not included in the database. Both amendments passed on voice votes.

With Democrats backing the bill, committee Republicans did not attempt to block it. But Davis said even with the amendments, he would oppose it if it reaches the House floor. "This bill is not ready for prime time," he said.

]]>

Telework measure clears subcommittee

Dan Friedman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0500

The House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee on Thursday passed legislation aimed at increasing chances for federal employees to telecommute.

Comment on this article in the forum.The Telework Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R. 4106) passed 3-0 on a voice-vote at a sparsely attended hearing. The bill requires that all federal agencies create telework polices and develop programs to train managers and employees to take advantage of teleworking opportunities. It also requires that all agencies appoint telework managing officers to promote telework. The bill gives the General Services Administration responsibility for helping agencies make those changes.

House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce Subcommittee Chairman Danny Davis, D-Ill., added a manager's amendment that lets agencies restrict employee teleworking during emergencies and allows GSA to waive a requirement that telework managers must be senior-level civil servants. The latter change represents a response to concerns raised by subcommittee Republicans who questioned if agencies need to add senior officials to oversee telework rather than relying on chief human capital officers.

The bill aims to strengthen telework requirements established in 2001. Though that law required agencies to create telework polices, Davis and other members said telework remains underutilized by federal agencies. According to a December Office of Personnel Management report, the number of federal employees who telecommute fell from 119,248 in 2005 to 110,592 in 2007, Davis noted.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., said the bill is particularly important for federal workers in the District of Columbia due to the need to reduce crowding on subways, traffic and pollution in the region.

]]>