LIEBERMAN CITES CONCERNS ABOUT BUSH BUDGET
WASHINGTON - In a letter to the
Budget Committee, Senator Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., expressed
concerns about the new Administration’s spending blueprint as it
relates to a variety of issues under the jurisdiction of the
Governmental Affairs Committee, of which the Senator is ranking
Democrat.
Among the top concerns are the Administration’s weak spending
plan to promote e-government, ensuring adequate pay increases for
government employees, and proposed cuts in the Federal Emergency
Management budget.
Following is a text of the letter:
March 16, 2001
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Kent Conrad
Ranking Member
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senators Domenici and Conrad:
Thank you for requesting me to provide views regarding the
Fiscal Year 2002 budget for matters within the jurisdiction of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. Based on the President’s budget
"blueprint" presented to Congress on February 28, 2001,
I have the following concerns:
Electronic-Government Reform/E-Government
I am encouraged that the Administration wants to use the
Internet to create a "citizen-centric" government. I
wholeheartedly agree that the Internet and other innovative
information technologies allow government to provide greater
access to services and information and to consolidate functions
around the needs of its citizens. I intend to introduce
legislation shortly that will promote these goals, and I look
forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues in
the Senate on this issue.
At the same time, I am disappointed that the Administration is
not making a greater commitment of resources to the effort. I
believe that $10 million is an insufficient initial investment for
the first year of the
- more-
proposed e-government fund, especially considering that this
money will be spent on several ongoing initiatives like agencies’
implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act; this
will probably leave little if any funds remaining for true
innovation. Considering that the federal agencies spend at least
$40 billion on information technology each year, we should be
willing to spend more than $10 million in FY 2002 on technologies
and systems that can create significant new efficiencies and
revolutionize the way government serves the public.
Government Employee Issues
A top priority in the Administration’s blueprint is to assure
that military personnel are adequately paid, and, to this end, the
Administration proposes a 4.6 percent increase in military pay,
plus an additional $1 billion for military compensation to address
specific recruiting and retention needs. I fully support this
proposal. Federal civilian employees, who work side-by-side with
military personnel in service to the Nation, also deserve our
strong support. Adequate pay is essential not only for fairness,
but also for effective human-capital management. As Comptroller
General David Walker testified before our Committee,
high-performance organizations must "competitively recruit,
hire, develop, and retain employees while recognizing industry and
labor market conditions." Especially in the present
competitive job market, adequate pay levels are essential for the
recruitment and retention of the employees that agencies need to
maintain and enhance their performance and achieve their missions.
In the last Congress, the Senate (in a vote of 94 to 6) passed
a resolution calling for parity between civilian and military
personnel pay increases. Now, in considering the FY 2002 budget,
our commitment to adequate military pay must be matched by
ensuring parity in pay increases for civilian employees.
I do not fully understand a provision in the blueprint to
extend higher agency contributions to the retirement fund. The
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required agencies to make increased
payments into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust
Fund through the end of calendar year 2002, and the
"blueprint" apparently would extend this requirement.
This requirement functions as a per-employee tax on the agencies,
consuming resources needed to meet agency missions. However, the
original requirement was mandated to help address the deficit, and
the Administration’s blueprint offers no explanation for
extending this mandate in the present period of surpluses.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
I am concerned that several proposed cuts in FEMA's budget
could have negative consequences for states that have suffered
losses due to major disasters, including my state of Connecticut.
All three proposals would shift part or all of the funding burden
for these programs back on the states, whose resources are already
tightly stretched. Moreover, these programs are designed to reduce
future losses that would in many cases greatly outstrip the
federal government’s original investment; as a result, we will
spend more on recovery programs tomorrow than we will save today
by eliminating these programs. Connecticut, for example, is
already receiving less federal funding for emergency management
than it did in 1995, and it will be hard for states like mine to
absorb these additional cuts and still maintain the current level
of services.
The Administration is proposing to zero out funding for
"Project Impact." This is a $25 million pre_disaster
mitigation and preparedness program that was recently instituted
by FEMA. The agency partners with cities at risk for flooding and
other disasters to create programs boosting awareness of how to
prepare and lessen the damage from disasters. Since Project Impact
is new and still being implemented, it has not yet been fully
evaluated; however, one of Project Impact’s strengths is
providing funding directly to cities. In Connecticut, for example,
four cities have been included in this program — Westport, East
Haven, Norwich and Milford — and zeroing this out without
providing something in its place is "not prudent,"
according to Connecticut's Director of Emergency Management.
Moreover, the program helps FEMA to achieve its Strategic Goal 1,
which seeks to protect lives and prevent the loss of property by
implementing predisaster mitigation and preparedness measures.
Project Impact is a key part of this effort.
The Administration is proposing to save $83 million by cutting
the federal share of funding for hazard mitigation grants which
are given for post_disaster mitigation to prevent future
additional losses. Instead of providing funding to states on a
75/25 ratio, the Administration would reduce the federal
government’s share to 50%. Again, this places the burden back on
the states to fund these efforts. The Administration is also
proposing
to cut the $100 million fire grant program. This is money that
was provided directly to municipalities across the
country to support local fire departments.
Localities really need this money to supplement their limited
budgets, especially in states like Connecticut where many
localities rely on volunteer firefighters.
I am pleased that the Administration has decided to maintain
funding at $140 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program
(EFS). This program, which is administered by FEMA, provides
emergency assistance to supplement community
efforts to meet food, shelter, and other related needs of homeless
and hungry persons in all fifty states. Most of the money is
allocated by local boards composed of representatives from
religious and charitable organizations; these local boards
guarantee that the money is directed to areas where it is most
needed, and that all monies are accounted for. Administrative
overhead is kept to an unusually low amount, less than 3%. In
1999, the Senate passed legislation introduced by Chairman
Thompson and me that increased funding for EFS to $110 million in
fiscal year 2000 and to $140 million for fiscal year 2001.
Government Reform
I am pleased that the President’s budget blueprint supports
continued implementation of management reforms, such as those
required by the Government Performance and Results Act, although
the Administration has not yet set out many specifics concerning
how it plans to achieve its goals in this area. I also support the
Administration’s call for increased financial accountability.
This year, agencies achieved a significant milestone by turning in
their audited financial statements on time for FY 2000; more of
these agencies than ever before received "clean"
opinions on these statements. However, it is imperative that
agencies receive the support they need to make their financial
systems more reliable on a daily basis. OMB Deputy Director Sean O’Keefe
has called for providing agencies the resources they need to
achieve this goal; I hope the Administration will follow through
to combine its call for accountability with the tools agencies
must have to make these necessary changes.
I commend the President’s endorsement of
"share-in-savings" contracts in which contractors employ
innovative, efficient and cost-saving techniques for energy and
information technology contracts and are paid out of the resulting
savings. Agencies are able to realize annual savings which often
total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with little
administrative or initial investment costs to the government.
Budget Process Reform
I am pleased that the Administration has endorsed the precedent
established by prior Administrations in supporting biennial
budgeting and appropriations legislation. The Committee on
Governmental Affairs has reported out biennial budgeting and
appropriations bills in the last two Congresses, both times with
my support, and this year, I am again an original co-sponsor of
the measure introduced by Chairman Domenici. Biennial budgeting
legislation would give Congress more time to work through the
budget and appropriations process in an orderly fashion, and it
would also allow more time to legislate and engage in oversight.
I disagree, however, with the idea that our difficulties in
completing the appropriations process in a timely manner can be
solved, or even improved, by automatic continuing resolution
legislation. I believe that Congress could do more to prevent
government shutdowns by passing its appropriations bills on a
timely basis, and by working responsibly with the President to
negotiate the compromises that are required by our political
process. It is unrealistic for either party to expect it will get
everything it wants simply because it controls Congress or the
White House. However, appropriators and Presidents have frequently
held out until the end of the fiscal year for their preferred
funding levels. Often it is only the looming deadline of a new
fiscal year that forces the necessary negotiations and
compromises. Although the process is not as streamlined as we
would like, as long as both parties agree to enact
"clean" continuing resolutions that do not contain
political conditions and other measures to change the status quo,
there will be no disruptions affecting the American public. The
Administration cites last year’s
appropriations negotiations as an example of why an automatic
continuing resolution law is needed; I wonder, however, how much
longer it would take to iron out differences between the branches
if government could go on auto-pilot indefinitely.
I appreciate this opportunity to comment on issues of interest
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
JIL:lbn
cc: The Honorable Fred Thompson
|