House panel questions GSA’s refusal to release transition funds

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 fell under intense scrutiny Monday during a House subcommittee hearing called to clarify questions about the General Services Administration's decision to withhold transition dollars and other resources. Last week, David Barram, head of GSA, faced criticism from Rep. Steve Horn, R-Calif., for not providing resources-including more than $5 million-to Gov. George W. Bush's transition team. Barram said he will not release the funds until "apparent successful candidates" have been determined, as mandated in the Transition Act. Horn, who chairs the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, called the hearing to clear up questions about the allocation of transition funds. "Clearly, the law allows the administrator certain discretion in complying with its provisions," Horn said in his opening statement. "It is imperative, however, that those charged with implementing this law most carefully consider the implications of their decisions-and the precedents they establish." The Transition Act is the only framework for organizing the shift in power from one President to another, and as such, can mark the success or failure of a presidential administration, witnesses told subcommittee members. Under the act, the GSA chief cannot release the funds and turnover the keys to the transition offices until there are "apparent successful candidates." During the hearing, legislators and witnesses debated exactly when and how "apparent successful candidates" are determined. Republican members asserted that once George W. Bush was certified as the winner in Florida, he became the President-elect and, in turn, an "apparent successful candidate." The funds are not being withheld because "there has been no successful candidate," according to Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., but because the "candidate's success is being questioned in the legal system." "Is the GSA playing favorites or showing [partisanship] by not allowing George W. Bush access to the transition funds and resources?," Biggert asked. Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas, ranking member of the subcommittee, disagreed with Biggert. "The President-elect and Vice President-elect are determined officially after the electoral votes are counted," Turner said. "If the administrator were to incorrectly release funds to one campaign under the [Transition] Act, aside from breaking the law, it could result in a loss of public funds, waste, duplication, diminished credibility for the winner, and a breach of proprietary information." Other members questioned why GSA could not give some funds to both transition teams until the contest was decided, but Barram referred to an opinion from the Department of Justice, which said only one campaign can receive the funds. There is no need to panic simply because the transition process is forced to move along more slowly than usual, some witnesses said. "The sky is not falling and we shouldn't act as though it is," said Jack Watson, former chief of staff for President Jimmy Carter. "Let the system run its course as the Constitution intends it to do." Witnesses agreed that there is a need for reform in the presidential appointee nomination process. Described as long, costly and cumbersome, nearly every witness testified that the process needs revamping. "For the sake of the country, we need to put partisanship aside and reform the presidential appointee confirmation process," Watson said.