<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:26073.wais]
RESTORING THE PUBLIC TRUST: A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL PENSION FORFEITURE
ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 1, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-118
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-073 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
David Marin, Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 1, 2006................................. 1
Statement of:
Claybrook, Joan, president, Public Citizen; and Chellie
Pingree, president and chief executive officer, Common
Cause...................................................... 27
Claybrook, Joan.......................................... 27
Pingree, Chellie......................................... 113
Springer, Linda M., Director, Office of Personnel Management. 13
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Claybrook, Joan, president, Public Citizen:
Information concerning a Matter of Trust................. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 106
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 150
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 3
Pingree, Chellie, president and chief executive officer,
Common Cause, prepared statement of........................ 116
Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of........... 149
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 154
Springer, Linda M., Director, Office of Personnel Management,
prepared statement of...................................... 16
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 8
RESTORING THE PUBLIC TRUST: A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL PENSION FORFEITURE
ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Shays, Souder, Platts,
McHenry, Waxman, Maloney, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, and Norton.
Also Present: Representative Kirk.
Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Keith Ausbrook,
chief counsel; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior
policy counsel; Mason Alinger, deputy legislative director; Amy
Laudeman, special assistant; Jack Callender, Howie Denis, and
Jim Moore, counsels; Robert Borden, counsel/parliamentarian;
Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of
communications; John Brosnan, GAO detailee; Teresa Austin,
chief clerk; Sarah D'Orsie, deputy clerk; Allyson Blandford,
office manager; Leneal Scott and JR Deng, computer systems
managers; Andrew James and Michael Galindo, staff assistants;
Phil Barnett, minority staff director/chief counsel; Kristin
Amerling, minority general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, minority
communications director/senior policy advisor; Kim Trinca,
minority counsel; Richard Butcher and Mark Stephenson, minority
professional staff members; Earley Green, minority chief clerk;
and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order.
We meet today to discuss legislation intended to restore
public trust in the Federal Government. The Federal Pension
Forfeiture Act provides an important deterrent by denying
Federal retirement benefits to Federal policymakers convicted
of accepting bribes, defrauding the Federal Government,
embezzling Federal funds, or falsifying Federal documents.
The public is rightly concerned about how Government
officials interact with the people who get paid to influence
decisions. This isn't anything new. Throughout the Nation's
history, we have regularly experienced cycles of scandal and
reform. The American people do not care about partisanship and
pointing fingers. They want to know that their Government is
working honestly and openly.
The Federal Pension Forfeiture Act will add more teeth to
the penalties for mixing personal gain with Federal policy. A
Federal pension is a sweet deal. One reason it is sweet is to
make Federal employees less susceptible to pressure from
outside groups.
Under this bill, if you commit a felony that undermines the
public trust, you forfeit your Federal pension. American
taxpayers should not be forced to support a person who has
violated the public trust. It is a harsh penalty, but so is the
damage done by even one case of undue influence.
Over the last few years, and particularly this Congress,
several Members have offered similar bills. This Congress,
several bills have been introduced that share the same basic
principle: Commit a felony related to your official duties, you
lose the biggest perk.
Many of us held town hall meetings over the past few weeks
in our districts. People are angry and disillusioned. The bad
acts of a few have tainted all of us who serve in public
office. It is time to begin restoring the public's faith in
Government.
We welcome three distinguished witnesses who have excellent
credentials in working to promote and create trustworthy
Government. First, we will hear from the Honorable Linda
Springer, Director of the Office of Personnel Management. Then
we will hear from Chellie Pingree, who is the president and
chief executive officer of Common Cause, and Joan Claybrook,
president of Public Citizen.
We want to thank everybody for joining us, and we look
forward to their insights on this proposal.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.003
Chairman Tom Davis. I am going to now recognize the
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are holding
this hearing. The indictments and scandals now gripping
Washington have shown that our laws and regulations are not
working to promote honesty and integrity in Government.
Nine years ago, as this committee was launching its ill-
fated campaign finance investigation, I wrote an op-ed in the
New York Times that called for a comprehensive approach to
curbing the influence of money and special interests in
Washington. I wrote that ``the real scandal is what's legal and
common.'' And I said that ``our goal should be to understand
how the process functions at every step, to expose its flaws
and to get rid of the loopholes. This approach may not be
popular in Congress but leaders of both parties must realize
that the situation must change.''
I still believe this today, and I feel confident that under
Chairman Davis' leadership the committee can begin to fulfill
its fundamental responsibility: to ensure our Nation has honest
leadership and open Government.
In the years since I wrote the op-ed, Americans have
witnessed a rising stream of abuses in Congress and across the
Federal Government. There have been allegations of bribes on
the House floor; criminal indictments of high-ranking
officials, including a Congressman and the Vice President's
most trusted adviser; rigged Federal contracts; K Street
shakedowns; and a burgeoning corruption scandal. Our committee
has an essential role to play in restoring public confidence in
Government.
We are the committee with the authority to reform the
ethics laws that govern the Federal Government. We are the
committee with the authority to restore the principles of open
Government. And we are the committee with the authority to
close the revolving door between Federal agencies and the
private sector, to ban secret meetings between Government
officials and lobbyists, and to halt procurement abuses.
To meet these challenges, we must do two things: first, we
must use our broad investigative power to investigate abuses
and ensure accountability; and, second, we must take a
comprehensive approach to reform. The legislation we are
discussing today denying pensions to political appointees
convicted of felonies may win broad support, but it won't do
much to clean up Washington. In fact, most political appointees
don't even serve long enough for their pensions to vest.
We need an approach that stops political appointees from
giving lobbyists and special interests secret access to the
halls of Government, that halts or at least slows down the
revolving door that spins between the White House and K Street,
and that assures that the Government's business is conducted in
the sunshine. We need to restore honesty in Federal
contracting, to stop cronyism, and to rebuild the integrity of
our science-based agencies. And we must encourage
whistleblowers to come forward and ban the insidious use of
covert propaganda.
This is a large agenda, but it is absolutely vital. Corrupt
practices have taken a deep hold in Washington, and it will
take comprehensive reforms to restore honesty and
accountability.
The chairman and I met earlier this week to discuss these
issues. We did not agree on every detail, but we did agree on
two fundamental points: reform should be comprehensive and far-
reaching, and now is the time to act. And we pledged to work
together to see if a true bipartisanship can be achieved.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to working with you on these
matters.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.007
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Let me say we
did agree there needs to be a comprehensive approach, and this
is just a small piece, and hopefully we can. Unfortunately, we
may not have jurisdiction over everything we would like to do,
but we have a lot of jurisdiction, and let's try to use it. We
have a window of opportunity, and hopefully we can work
together on these issues.
Any other Members wish to make statements?
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, one, thank you for holding this hearing.
Thank you for working with Mr. Waxman during the past year and
a half. It has been very important that we work together to
deal with this issue, and admittedly, it seems like a small
part of what is truly a very big problem. But after having 20
community meetings in my district, this issue right here is a
no-brainer. And after having 20 community meetings in my
district, the biggest message I got was that they want us to
act, as we should, as an independent branch of Government and
not as a parliament that somehow is closely tied with this
administration.
The administration has its sole and complete
responsibilities. We have our sole and complete
responsibilities. And I am grateful we are dealing with this
issue, and I hope that we will be dealing with a number of
other issues in the weeks and months to come.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. We are at another critical
crossroads in America, and based on what we have seen in some
of our fellow Members of Congress, including some in our own
party's leadership, we need to really--we cannot ignore the
present crisis. We need to move ahead. Quite frankly, we should
have moved last fall. Some of those proposals were blocked
inside of our own leadership, including one applying to
congressional pensions by Congressman Shadegg. But I am glad to
see that we are starting right out this year in a first hearing
with this proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts to bring some changes
to Government in our first week back. As everyone knows, we
have lately been faced with corruption, malfeasance, and abuse
of the public trust. It is high time that public officials are
held accountable for their actions. We cannot allow individuals
to line their pockets by taking advantage of their position in
Government. I believe the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act sends
a message to any would-be lawmaker that your punishment will be
more than a jail sentence. It will impact the rest of your
life. We must root out corruption wherever it may be found.
I strongly support Chairman Davis' bill. The bill, as it
has been drafted, covers only Members of Congress,
congressional staff, and political appointees in the executive
branch. As we move forward, I believe this bill should be
expanded to cover all Federal employees. The most important
part is for the elected officials and our appointees to be held
accountable, and I understand that. And I realize that the
high-profile nature of recent scandals make legislation dealing
specifically with those scandals a very immediate priority. But
I also believe that we need to take this opportunity to make
complete reform of Government as well as send a message to all
Federal employees that corruption will not be tolerated at any
level of Government.
In the late 1990's, a theft ring involving collaboration
between outside contractors and the Department of Education
employees operated for at least 3 years, stealing more than
$300,000 worth of electronic equipment--computers, televisions,
VCRs, etc.--and collecting more than $700,000 in false overtime
pay. The scheme involved a Department of Education employee
charged with overseeing an outside contract. The employee
ordered equipment through the contract paid for by the
Education Department and had it delivered by a complicit
contract employee to her house or the homes of friends and
relatives. The complicit contract employees also did personal
errands for her, such as driving to Baltimore to bring crab
cakes for her to eat lunch in Washington. In return, she signed
off on false weekend and holiday hours that they never worked,
paid for by the Department of Education. Eleven individuals,
including four Education Department employees, have been
charged in a 19-count indictment.
Another theft ring was exposed in 2000, in which $1.9
million in Federal impact aid funds intended for two school
districts in South Dakota were fraudulently wired to several
bank accounts in Maryland. The funds were used to buy $135,000
worth of real estate, a $50,000 Lincoln Navigator, and a
$47,000 Cadillac Escalade. This theft was only uncovered when a
car salesman alerted the FBI after thieves tried to use false
credit information to purchase a Corvette.
These instances show that non-elected and the supposedly
non-political employees also abuse the public trust. As much as
we should be concerned about Members, staff, and political
appointees abusing the public trust, we should also punish
rank-and-file bureaucrats who line their pockets with taxpayer
money. They are also abusing the public trust, albeit it not in
the high-profile manner that gets flashed across the news. That
said, I applaud the chairman for his leadership and fast action
on this legislation. First we must clean our own house. We must
clean our own party, and we need to be aggressive in this, or
the public will do it for us. They are angry. They are
justifiably angry, and this important piece of legislation must
be moved immediately.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Souder.
Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements.
We are now going to hear from our first witness, the
Honorable Linda Springer, the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management. Linda, thank you for being here today.
You know it is our policy we swear you in before your
testimony, so if you would rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Go ahead and proceed.
STATEMENT OF LINDA M. SPRINGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
Ms. Springer. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
am pleased to be here today to discuss the Federal Pension
Forfeiture Act. The bill would expand the list of offenses in
current law that trigger a loss of Federal retirement rights.
It would add to the current list of violations a wide range of
offenses, from accepting a bribe to making false statements on
a Federal benefit application. The expanded list would apply to
violations committed while in office, if punishable by
imprisonment for more than 1 year, by a Member of Congress, a
congressional employee, or a Presidential appointee. As
drafted, it would apply to a number of clerical and
administrative employees at very modest salary levels as well
as to individuals occupying positions at the highest levels of
Government. The administration is supportive of the concepts
outlined in this draft bill and looks forward to working with
Congress on the details of the legislation.
With one exception, under both current law and the bill's
expanded list of offenses, survivor annuities for the widow or
widower and children of an offender are barred. Payment of
spousal benefits is permitted only in forfeiture cases when the
Attorney General determines that the spouse cooperated with
Federal authorities in the conduct of a criminal investigation
and subsequent prosecution of the individual which resulted in
such forfeiture. This exception would be applicable to the
offenses that would be added under this act.
The Office of Personnel Management wholeheartedly endorses
merit principles, with a strong emphasis on honesty and
integrity in Government service. We would like to take this
opportunity to briefly discuss the history of the forfeiture
provisions.
The Hiss Act, approved in 1954, contained a list of job-
related Federal felonies, the conviction of which would bar
retirement benefits that would be payable to Federal employees
and their families. Most of the convictions under which
annuities were denied were for violations of postal law and
other felony convictions that did not involve national
security.
Controversy over the Hiss Act arose in cases where the
courts had imposed minimal penalties, such as suspended
sentences, small fines, or probation, yet the offenders and
their families suffered the additional penalty of losing all
annuity benefits, sometimes based on decades of service. In
some cases, individuals were re-employed by the Federal
Government subsequent to their convictions and were denied
annuity benefits based on that employment as well. Due to these
effects and other concerns, Congress made major changes in the
Hiss Act in 1961. The amendments strengthened the provisions
dealing with national security offenses and eliminated
provisions applicable to non-security offenses. The amendments
also provided for retroactive annuity benefits for individuals
who had lost them based on the commission of offenses unrelated
to national security.
Now, the bill being considered today, while expanding the
types of violations that would result in forfeiture of annuity,
would apply only if the offense is punishable by imprisonment
for more than 1 year. And that is punishable, whether the
sentence was for that amount or not. Even if the actual
sentence imposed was suspended or there was probation, the
annuity would be forfeited.
Under certain circumstances, all of the offenses listed in
the bill may be punished by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
In 1972, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia forbade application of the forfeiture law to the very
individual, Mr. Hiss, whose malfeasance led to its passage.
This bill would apply to acts committed after enactment. And by
so providing, the effective date provision avoids that problem.
Under the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act, the functions of
the Office of Personnel Management would be limited. As with
any other organization administering a covered pension system,
OPM would be responsible for ensuring that the act is applied
in accordance with its provisions, and that is something we are
able to do. It would, in effect, be an expansion of what we do
under existing regulations applicable to offenses upon which
annuity forfeiture can be based, and under those circumstances,
obviously, OPM affords the individual full due process,
including the right to an evidentiary hearing before an
administrative law judge.
So, to summarize, OPM is testifying in two dimensions here:
one, that, yes, we can administer the law should it be enacted;
and, second, on behalf of the administration that we are
supportive of the proposed bill. So I hope that is helpful
information, and I would be glad to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Springer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.011
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. I am going to
start the questioning with Mr. Waxman, who is going to have to
leave the hearing to go to a Democratic conference, which
accounts for some of the Members not being here. He will ask
his questions first, go there and vote, and then try to get
back.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There is a
vote going on in the Democratic Caucus, and there will be a
second ballot, so I am going to have to leave in a minute.
Ms. Springer, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we
have witnessed in the past few years a series of serious
incidents involving conflicts of interest, lobbying abuses, and
public corruption. Some of these episodes involved Congress
itself, Members of Congress, and it is clear that we must clean
our own house on Capitol Hill.
Yet equally serious and disturbing, we have seen a number
of incidents at the executive branch of Government: the
indictment of the Vice President's chief of staff, his actions
relating to outing a CIA agent, fraud and other abuses in Iraq
reconstruction contracts, a top senior HHS official negotiating
future employment while working on major health care changes,
politically connected individuals appointed to senior positions
with little or no relevant experience. It was disappointing to
me that the President barely mentioned these issues in his
address last night.
The first step, it seems to me, is to recognize the problem
that exists. So my first question for you is: Does the
administration believe that there are problems concerning the
ethical conduct of the executive branch? And what is the
administration proposing to do to clean up the executive
branch?
Ms. Springer. Well, I think that the first step, as it
relates to OPM and within our purview, is to work with you on
things like this bill. For our part in the administration,
which is the oversight of the Federal civilian workforce, we
are very concerned that high ethical standards and standards of
integrity are met. Certainly as a political appointee, I have
to hold to those standards, but those are things that should
apply to everyone.
This particular act is one that, as I said, we have a
responsibility for administering as well as supporting, and the
administration does support it. I would view this as just one
piece. As you have noted, there is a need for a more
comprehensive approach, and I think that we would be willing to
work with you and the chairman and the committee on that.
Mr. Waxman. I also think there ought to be a comprehensive
approach. This issue alone, taking away pensions, is, I do not
believe, going to solve the problem. I don't think you believe
that either. We have to do more. Isn't that right?
Ms. Springer. You know, one could question the deterrent
value, if you will, and I think that is part of what you may be
suggesting. But, clearly, it is an important penalty. Beyond
just the pension, there are other things that would flow from
this, for example, elimination of health benefits; the FEHB
benefits would be forfeited as well, as a derivative of this.
So it is pretty far-reaching as a penalty. Whether it has
deterrent value would be a question.
Mr. Waxman. Well, one major means of shedding light on the
access of special interests is to require meaningful disclosure
of lobbying contacts. Current law requires self-reporting by
the lobbyists, and there is no requirement that specific
contacts or the subject matter of the meetings be disclosed. As
a result, there has been little accountability in executive
branch lobbying.
For example, the White House has refused to disclose
information about Mr. Abramoff's contacts with the White House
or the subjects on which he lobbied the White House officials.
We even had the Vice President of the United States chair a
task force on energy, and he went to court, even to the U.S.
Supreme Court, so he would not have to disclose who came in and
lobbied him.
Does the administration support strengthening lobbying
disclosure laws such that a reporting must include a
description of the subject matter and the Government official
contacted or such that the executive branch officials have a
duty to disclose as well as the lobbyists?
Ms. Springer. I have not been a part of any administration
deliberations on that topic, so I am not in a position to
comment on that.
Mr. Waxman. Does the administration have a proposal for
strengthening lobbying disclosure laws?
Ms. Springer. That does not fall within the purview of my
OPM responsibility, so I would not be able to answer that for
you.
Mr. Waxman. Another area where reform is necessary involves
the revolving door between the executive branch and lobbyists
and special interests, and a striking example of an existing
loophole in these revolving door rules is Tom Scully. He is the
former head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services
who negotiated a job with firms representing pharmaceutical
interests at the same time he was leading the administration's
efforts to develop the Medicare Prescription Drug Act.
Does the administration believe that it is necessary to
take steps to tighten the revolving door?
Ms. Springer. I don't know about the Scully case, you know,
the details, and I couldn't comment there. But I do know that
in my own case, because I was just a year ago planning to leave
another position I held in the administration, that I was held
to some pretty high level of scrutiny and standard of any kind
of contact. And the way I interpreted it, I decided not to do
any kind of contact with potential future employers until I
left entirely and severed.
So I think that, by and large, most individuals are able to
function with integrity under the current standards. You know,
there may be some outliers here and there, but I think, by and
large, it works.
Mr. Waxman. One of the main means of deterring and rooting
out Government abuse is to ensure appropriate public access to
public information. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has
systematically undermined our laws that promote sunshine in
Government, so we are facing a situation where there are deep-
rooted ethical problems with little accountability. I believe
it is time to take comprehensive action. I hope we can move
forward expeditiously with a package that includes
strengthening lobbying disclosure, closing these revolving
doors, restoring open Government, addressing the widespread
waste, fraud, and abuse. We have witnesses in Federal
contracting in recent years, ensuring political appointees for
positions of public safety have qualifications other than
simply being politically well connected, and preventing
political interference in science-based policymaking,
protecting whistleblowers who shine light on Government abuses,
and preventing the use of taxpayer dollars for political
propaganda.
These are the positions that I have taken, and I have
introduced legislation on each one of those, and I would urge
the administration to support such a comprehensive reform so
that we can address public corruption at its very roots.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Waxman, thank you very much. I look
forward to working with you on a number of these issues.
Let me ask you, Ms. Springer, if an individual's retirement
benefits are forfeited, what happens to the health benefits and
life insurance coverage?
Ms. Springer. They are generally, by and large, also
forfeited. There are a few small exceptions. There are
opportunities for the Government equivalent of COBRA to kick
in. But, in effect, they are forfeited, by and large.
Chairman Tom Davis. This is not a cure-all, obviously, for
public corruption, but you would hope that somebody in a
decisionmaking mode, when they are looking at perhaps breaking
the law, understands the downside just from going to jail, that
they jeopardize their family and everything else. That is
really the purpose of doing this.
We have tried to tailor--there are a number of pieces of
legislation that are looking at different aspects of what
crimes would apply and at what level of Civil Service this
applies to. It obviously applies to Members of Congress and
staffs, some who are here apply to Schedule Cs in the case of
my bill, some of them go all the way down and across the
bureaucracy. Does OPM have any thoughts on where it ought to
apply at this point, or you are just more concerned about the
implementation?
Ms. Springer. Well, our focus certainly is on
implementation, but as we have reviewed this bill, we think it
certainly goes to a level that includes public officials that I
think the American citizens have a direct line to elected
officials and to political appointees. So we think that there
is a special standard, a high standard to which this group that
you have included in your bill need to adhere, and that there
is a special relationship with the American public that we need
to be the tone setters, if you will. So I think that your group
is very appropriate.
Chairman Tom Davis. You know, the crimes right now, there
are already some crimes that cover Federal workers, mostly in
the espionage-sabotage-treason route, as you noted before. This
takes it a step further.
Under existing law, which I think now is tailored to
treason and those issues--sabotage--how many cases of pension
forfeiture have there been?
Ms. Springer. There have been four cases in the past 35 or
so years since the last major change to that Hiss Act, and that
is what we are operating under currently.
In one of those cases, the spouse was found to have
cooperated to the satisfaction of the Justice authorities, and
the pension was restored to the spouse at its reduced level
under the normal formula. But in the other three cases, it was
a complete forfeiture. Certain people availed themselves of the
appeal right, but they did not prevail. So four cases.
Chairman Tom Davis. Under the legislation as we have it, if
the spouse were to cooperate with the government, the pension
then could be saved, I would gather.
Ms. Springer. It could be, yes. There would be a
determination made by the Attorney General, the Justice
Department, that would determine that.
Chairman Tom Davis. If nothing else, it is a great
prosecutorial tool when you are sitting there trying to break a
corruption ring, you have somebody who has obviously been
caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but their pension is
at stake.
Ms. Springer. I think that is true.
Chairman Tom Davis. Their family is at stake. They want to
cut their losses, or a spouse wants to--look, what is going to
happen if my husband goes away to jail, and this way we--I
mean, it just seems to me from a prosecutorial point of view,
this is a great way to break the logjam sometimes.
Ms. Springer. I think that is very true. I also think that
to have the fullest effect will require OPM and other officials
and organizations to make this known to the covered population,
as opposed to finding out after the fact. But I think making
this known will just add to its strength.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I think this is a pretty
straightforward issue, but I look at it on two sides of the
equation. One is I don't think someone deserves a pension if
they have committed fraud and have been found guilty. The other
side of the equation would be does this represent in any way a
deterrent to fraud, and I am not sure it does. I am just
curious to know if there have been any studies that you have
done, your agency has done that would enlighten us on this
issue?
Ms. Springer. I am sorry. Enlighten as to?
Mr. Shays. Whether taking away someone's pension is a
deterrent----
Ms. Springer. Oh, a deterrent, yes. I am sorry. I have not
seen any studies to that effect in the course of our review
here. Again, I think to the extent that the bill is known and
its penalties are known--there are very few people, for
example, today who are as familiar with the Hiss Act because it
was a very narrow scope. But in this case, making this known I
think could have some effect, but if you think about it, these
are acts that are already subject to some pretty severe
criminal penalties. So this would just be one added factor.
Chairman Tom Davis. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Shays. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. One other thing is from a prosecutorial
point of view, having that tool with the prosecutor to hang
that over. To get somebody either to talk or to compromise or
get their spouse I think could be helpful sometimes in
breaking--when you have a conspiracy or something like that.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Let me just ask, in terms of when employees come into the
Federal Government, are they given--I mean, obviously they know
fraud is wrong, but is there a specific course or orientation
that deals with fraud and would in this case let them know--I
mean, I would think conceptually it would wake them up to say,
you know, if you have committed fraud and you are found guilty,
you would lose your pension and you could have many years. I
would think that would also have an impact. But do we have
courses on ethics that are required or are they voluntary?
Ms. Springer. There are several ways that information is
given. I am trying to think of my own experience. I don't think
that I personally had a course, but I was directed to certain
Web site material that is maintained that covers that material,
which is obviously read and there are obviously certain
statements and representations that you make generally when you
come into the political appointee positions.
But I think you are absolutely right that making this
known--and that would be something that OPM, for example, for
the Federal civilian work force, the Presidential appointees,
would be happy to explore.
Mr. Shays. I would just observe, Mr. Chairman, it strikes
me that those employees, Members of Congress, whoever, who are
playing on the edge and have been employed for a long time
would probably have to think twice--it might make them think if
they had been close to the edge that they might need to pull
back a bit because of the risk of actually losing the one thing
that they would probably count on to provide for----
Ms. Springer. Well, I would say that if their spouse knew
about it, that might add some pressure, too.
Mr. Shays. Good point.
I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have first a couple of technical questions. In the Hiss
v. Hampton case, are you saying that, for example, in the case
of Duke Cunningham, we cannot do something retroactively on his
pension?
Ms. Springer. I believe that is correct, yes.
Mr. Souder. So the longer we wait, we may have a number of
cases that could conceivably--that is interesting. I understand
the legal concept, but it shows what is in front of us in our
failure to act earlier and the need for fast action.
Second, because I am just seeing the legislation and trying
to absorb this, too, if an offense is only punishable by--it
has to be imprisonment for a year or more. How do plea bargains
affect this? In other words, does it have to be a conviction
where the penalty is, if it is a plea bargain and the plea
bargain isn't for a year or more?
Ms. Springer. That wouldn't change it. If you are convicted
for a crime that carries with it a penalty that could be
imposed--could be, doesn't have to be. So even if it is less
than a year, for some reason, or even if it was suspended or
something like that, if that conviction of that particular
crime carried with it potentially the opportunity to impose a
sentence of more than a year, then it would apply. The pension
would be forfeited.
Mr. Souder. So the negotiated plea bargain would have to
carry the offense of a year or more, not the original crime----
Ms. Springer. No, the crime itself for which you were
convicted.
Mr. Souder. Another question I have, I was concerned about
your statement where you separated that you believe clerical or
administrative employees at a very modest salary should not be
covered. Is that the administration's----
Ms. Springer. No. Actually, what I said was that this would
apply. If they are in any of the groups that are----
Mr. Souder. No, what I mean is the implication is you don't
think they should be covered. Is that the----
Ms. Springer. No, no. No, I am just saying that--to just
show that it is not just at the high levels, that it would
include all levels of the pay range.
Mr. Souder. Does the administration support this being
broader than the bill is or----
Ms. Springer. Well, we have financed a study to review the
proposed act as it has been presented here, and we support it
as it has been presented with this group.
Mr. Souder. In the private sector--the spousal and family
questions are interesting here. In the private sector, if
someone--do you know of models in the private sector of how
pension law works if somebody forfeits or does something, how
it works with their family? Do they forfeit all their pension?
Half their pension? What about if they leave the company?
Ms. Springer. I don't know the answer to that, and there
may be some precedent out there that we could study and find
out for you. I don't know right off the top of my head the
answer.
Mr. Souder. In the current law as it relates to bribes,
false statements, and espionage, do you know if that covers
narcotics?
Ms. Springer. No, it does not.
Mr. Souder. So, for example, in Colombia, where we had the
spouse of an embassy employee, we had certain people in our
Government who were actually working with the cocaine
traffickers, they wouldn't lose their pensions if convicted?
Ms. Springer. I do not believe that the current law would
cover that.
OK. It is possible that if it involved something that is on
that list, it may, but----
Mr. Souder. But you are not sure whether narcotics--it
would depend whether narcotics----
Ms. Springer. Not narcotics in and of themselves, but if it
is in connection with one of the security type of offenses that
are listed under the current act, then it could be swept in
just, you know, on that basis.
Mr. Souder. In the US-VISIT program, where we had clear
deals being made to accelerate people getting in outside--many
from Saudi Arabia, which is one of the more flagrant
violations, if they were on a terrorist watchlist, would that
classify as a security risk, or do they have to actually have
committed a terrorist act? And what about illegal immigration
where it is not--where the link is difficult here? Because the
penalty, I mean, if it has to be convicted of a crime where the
penalty is more than 1 year, you could be basically letting
people in on a watchlist who we have not been able to convict
under US-VISIT, be convicted of that, but that may not be
national security, so it would not impact your pension.
Ms. Springer. Well, this particular bill that we are
studying here does--you know, it obviously adds on to the Hiss
bill. It doesn't, you know, take away anything in the Hiss
bill. This bill talks about the actual conviction, as you say,
carrying with it the penalty, potential penalty of a year or
more. And that is the way this has been written, and beyond
that scope, it might be something else that you would need to
consider separately.
Mr. Souder. Where I disagree with the implications of my
friend and colleague from California, he implied that suddenly
corruption came under this administration, which is laughable.
We did not even raise the question here of Presidential
pardons. But even so, we had multiple people in the last
administration who clearly were lining up jobs while they were
Government employees for Monica Lewinsky to silence a sex
scandal, that the last administration had many of these
problems, too. The question of corruption is broad, crosses
parties, and needs to be addressed.
One of the other problems we had in the last administration
was Citizenship USA where there were many people brought in
before the campaign, we had multiple hearings in the
subcommittee that was then chaired by now-Speaker Dennis
Hastert, where I was vice chairman, where they would take in
7,000 forms at a time and you saw the same writing on the
citizenship forms, and they were rushed through before the
election. But under that criteria, right now that would not be
a national security violation because citizenship questions
wouldn't not be covered under current law unless we passed
legislation like this that would apply.
My understanding of what you said is that wouldn't be
covered under current law, immigration fraud, or would it?
Ms. Springer. No, it would not.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask one other thing, because this is
important as we look whether this needs to be broadened beyond
elected officials. At our Southwest border, as we deal with
difficult questions of narcotics, of coyotes who are running
large groups of people, and people inside the Border Patrol,
whether it be terrorist watchlists, whether it be narcotics,
whether it be large groups of illegal immigrants, it is clear
that occasionally they are penetrating our system. They are
penetrating it at border crossings where there may be a
cooperation when an agent comes on. There may be no look. I do
not believe it is high in our Government, but it is fairly
consistent. But under current law, these people could keep
their pensions even if convicted.
Ms. Springer. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. This is a big problem. I am not sure how much
of a deterrent it will be. I think it will be some deterrent. I
am willing to look at some of the variations of this. But quite
frankly, it is a justice question, as Congressman Shays said.
Whether you are elected--it is especially egregious if you are
an elected official, and we should be the first accountable.
But anybody who is a public official who is put in trust of our
borders, of our narcotics efforts, of the very citizenship of
the United States, that you have an obligation not to take
private deals to cooperate with people who are around that, and
at the very least the taxpayers should not have to pay you a
pension for the rest of your life if you are convicted.
I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Any other comments?
Ms. Springer. No, we just look forward to continuing to
work with the committee on this.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Souder for
your questions.
We will call our second panel now. We have Ms. Chellie
Pingree, who is the president and chief executive officer of
Common Cause, and Ms. Joan Claybrook, the president of Public
Citizen. I want to thank you both for being here. Thanks for
your patience.
It is our policy that we swear witnesses before you
testify, so if you would rise with me and raise your right
hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Claybrook, we will start with you. We have a light in
front--your entire statements are part of the record. We have a
light in front that turns green when you go on, orange after 4,
red after 5. Try to stick as close to that as you can, but we
want to make sure you get to make your salient points, too. So,
Ms. Claybrook, we will start with you, and thank you for being
with us.
STATEMENTS OF JOAN CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC CITIZEN; AND
CHELLIE PINGREE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMON
CAUSE
STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK
Ms. Claybrook. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to be here to testify this morning on behalf of Public
Citizen and our 150,000 members nationwide.
The lobbying reform debate has largely focused on the
lobbying and ethics as it applies to Congress. It is my
understanding that the committee's discussion today really grew
out of the Randy Cunningham case. We strongly welcome your
initiative to deny pension benefits to Members of Congress,
congressional employees, and executive branch political
appointees guilty of crimes related to public corruption.
But the debate on lobbying and ethics reform must go beyond
that legislative proposal and beyond Congress. It must also
include the ethical behavior of executive branch officials who
become lobbyists and officers of companies they previously
oversaw or regulated, and it should also address strengthening
and monitoring the enforcement of the Ethics Reform Act for the
executive branch.
A few months ago, a report by 15 civic organizations,
including Public Citizen, prepared a report called the
Revolving Door Working Group, and here it is, and I would like
to submit it for the record, if I could do so at your pleasure.
I would like to submit this for the record. It is quite a
comprehensive report.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, we will submit that
for the record.
Ms. Claybrook. It is called ``A Matter of Trust,'' and I
think it could help the committee.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.085
Ms. Claybrook. It shows at least two significant lobbying
and ethics problems in the executive branch. One is the
pervasive problem of the revolving door, by which executive
branch officials rotate between public service and the private
sector, typically working for the same companies that they
previously regulated, granted contracts to, or considered the
effects of legislation on.
The second is the loose patchwork of enforcement
responsibilities spread among many executive branch agencies
and vesting in one agency--the Office of Government Ethics--as
the primary police watchdog of ethics in the executive branch,
OGE has been created more as an advisory partner to individual
Government agencies in implementing the ethics standards.
So first I would like to address the revolving door. In
order to establish a sense of trust that Government officials
are not trading Government contracts or regulations for
lucrative private sector jobs, Federal law requires a 1-year
``cooling-off'' period in which retiring public officials are
not supposed to lobby their former colleagues in Government.
Additional conflict-of-interest laws and regulations have
extended similar cooling-off periods to retiring procurement
officers to prevent them from immediately taking jobs with
companies that have received Government contracts that the
procurement officer had authority over.
Specifically, ``very senior'' executive branch officials,
those in Executive Schedules I and II salary ranges, are
prohibited from appearing as a paid lobbyist before any
political employee in the executive branch for 1 year. And
``senior'' executive branch staff, those in Executive Schedule
V and up, are prohibited for 1 year from appearing as lobbyists
before their former agency or representing or advising a
foreign government or foreign political party in lobbying
matters.
Unfortunately, the revolving door policy has two very
significant weaknesses. First, it prohibits former Government
officials from making direct lobbying contacts with their
former colleagues. But it permits them to engage in other
lobbying activity. Former officials are not prohibited from
developing lobbying strategy, organizing the lobbying team,
supervising lobbying efforts during the cooling-off period. In
fact, retiring former officials frequently become registered
lobbyists immediately on leaving the Government. They simply
cannot pick up the telephone. That is all.
Second, the scope of the cooling-off period that applies to
Government contracting is so narrow that former procurement
officers may now immediately accept employment with the same
companies to whom they had issued contracts while in public
service. Only employment within a specific division of a
company is prohibited if that division was under the official's
contracting authority, but not employment for the company
itself. And this loophole, as we remember, allowed Darleen
Druyun to land a well-paid position at Boeing after overseeing
the company's bids on weapons programs for many years in her
capacity as a Pentagon procurement official.
The Center for Public Integrity surveyed how the revolving
door has turned for the top 100 officers in the executive
branch at the end of the Clinton administration and concluded
that about a quarter of the senior-level administrators left
public service for lobbying careers. Another quarter of the
administrators accepted positions as directors of private
businesses they had once regulated.
For these issues we recommend the following: Expand the
scope of the revolving door restrictions so that former
officials are prohibited not only from conducting paid lobbying
activity during the cooling-off period but the development and
supervising of lobbying efforts.
Two, expand the time period for the cooling-off period to 2
years.
Three, extend the cooling-off period to senior executive
branch staff of Level V or higher policymakers involving
contracts that now apply primarily to procurement officers.
Four, close the loophole allowing former Government
procurement employees to work for a different department or
division of a contractor from the division that they oversaw as
a Government employee, and the cooling-off period should apply
governmentwide.
And, five, when public officials discuss future employment
that may pose a conflict of interest, the fact that the
discussion is underway should be public information. If there
is any potential conflict of interest, recusal from public
officials affecting the potential employer should be mandatory
unless a waiver from the conflict-of-interest rules is
absolutely necessary. This relates, for example, to the Thomas
Scully scandal.
And then, second, with regard to the operation of the
Office of Government Ethics, it operates more as an advisory
partner in the executive branch rather than an enforcement
watchdog. Responsibility for implementation of executive branch
ethics laws and regulations is widely dispersed among executive
agencies. And OGE has not served as an effective central
clearinghouse for making public records on ethics matters
readily available to Congress and the public.
Although it is professionally staffed and independent from
political operatives, OGE is far from an ideal agency. Its
primary weakness is that it lacks enforcement authority. Its
rules are not binding within the executive branch, but are
subject to interpretation by ethics officers in each separate
executive branch agency. While it has developed guidelines for
granting waivers for employees from conflict-of-interest laws
governing future employment, these are only guidelines. Each
executive branch agency also promulgates its own waiver
procedures, which are then interpreted and enforced by the
specific ethics officer appointed within that office. As a
result, there is not one set of procedures for seeking and
receiving waivers from conflict-of-interest laws, and each set
of waivers is interpreted differently by different officers.
One of the granted waivers dealt with Thomas Scully, and my
testimony details that.
The resulting embarrassment prompted the White House in
2004 to step in and issue an Executive order requiring that all
waivers be reviewed by White House counsel. But this should be
the responsibility of OGE, a more robust OGE, where decisions
are more immune to political considerations.
OGE has neglected to establish itself as an effective
public information source as well. Though the agency compiles
and scrutinizes previous Government records for scores of
executive branch employees and appointees, it makes little
effort to make these records available to the public. There is
no OGE Web site that posts public records of prior employment,
financial statements, conflict-of-interest waivers, or even
enforcement actions. And when it comes to ethics records in the
Federal Government, this type of information is not centralized
and is exceedingly hard to secure.
For the most part, OGE appears to be serving the interests
of the executive branch, not the public and the Ethics in
Government Act. Ironically, OGE has recently sought to weaken
public disclosure of personal financial records of political
employees. At the prodding of the White House and some
congressional leaders, the OGE has been considering capping the
reporting of personal wealth of senior executive branch
officials at $2.5 million for disclosure, rather than the $50
million cap that exists today, and allowing officials to omit
the dates of major stock transactions from financial reports,
which would make it difficult to tie Government actions to an
employee's choices. Reducing disclosure is not the way to go.
Thus, we recommend three things, and I will conclude with
this, and I am sorry I took a little bit longer than your 5
minutes.
Given strong enforcement authority for OGE with the ability
to promulgate rules and regulations that are binding on all
executive branch agencies, conduct investigations, subpoena
witnesses, and issue civil penalties for violations.
Two, empowered as a central agency for implementing and
monitoring its responsibilities.
Three, be required to serve as the central clearing house
for all public records relevant to ethics in the executive
branch and place this information on its Web site.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Claybrook follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.092
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Pingree, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF CHELLIE PINGREE
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much.
Chairman Davis, members of the committee, and particularly
Representative Shays, who has worked very closely with Common
Cause in the past, I appreciate this opportunity to testify
before you and address some of the recent scandals that have
been challenging Congress and the executive branch and give our
suggestions about restoring the public's trust in Government.
As you know, Common Cause has been active for 35 years on a
nonpartisan basis, commenting on the issues of ethics and the
influence of money in politics, and we find this a very
critical time. As both Congressman Davis and Congressman Waxman
mentioned in their earlier remarks, this is an enormous
opportunity as the public reacts with great criticism toward
the scandals that are evident every day and more and more
Members of Congress are interested in finding ways to change
the perspective and enforce real reform.
We believe that vigorous enforcement of existing laws is
critical to restoring trust, and legislation that makes clear
that wrongdoing will not go unpunished is an important part of
the solution to this problem. For this reason, Common Cause
supports the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act. We believe this
legislation that would deny Federal retirement benefits to
Federal policy holders, including Members of Congress and their
staffs, and political appointees in the executive branch who
are convicted of crimes related to public corruption, crimes
such as accepting bribes or defrauding the Federal Government,
embezzling Federal property or falsifying Federal documents.
Losing a pension to us appears as if it will be a deterrent
to officials who may be considering action that betray the
public trust. The retirement benefits that Members of Congress
and high-level Federal employees are entitled to receive after
they retire often are more than the average American earns
annually from a full-time job. The fact that public servants
who have seriously violated their duties to the public would be
rewarded by a lifetime pension seems grossly unfair to average
citizens. It seems particularly unfair when the majority of
Americans can expect no pension when they retire and when
corporations like Enron implode and deny millions of innocent
workers their retirement savings.
Passage of the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act is a good
step in a multi-pronged effort to restore the public's faith in
Government.
While we do support this legislation, we believe that much
more is needed.
Common Cause is currently supporting an expansive reform
agenda, dealing with Congress and lobbying, including such as
issues as disclosure, gifts, travel ban, restrictions on
lobbyists and lobbyists' fundraising, and tremendous increases
in transparency, accountability, and disclosure.
We also believe that House and Senate leaders of both
parties should agree to establish an independent ethics
commission with the power to accept complaints, investigate
them, and make recommendations to the respective House and
Senate Ethics Committees. And restoring, again, that public
trust can only happen if the public has confidence that
Congress is committed to cleaning up its own house.
Within the jurisdiction of this committee, we would like to
comment on a couple of other proposals before you, some of
which my colleague, Joan, has already discussed. But we do
appreciate the Chair's taking this opportunity to expand the
jurisdiction of the committee and looking at as many ways as
possible to restore the public faith.
We agree the problem with the revolving door and the
conflicts of interest when Government officials with serious
responsibilities are looking to advance their careers in the
public sector again has gotten out of control and is an
important means of restoring faith in the public.
We were all familiar, as mentioned earlier, with former
Medicare Administrator Thomas Scully's effort to conceal the
true cost of the President's Medicare prescription drug plan
from Congress while negotiating for a job with private sector
interests that would be favorably affected by this passage.
Administrator Scully got a waiver from his agency to
conduct these employment discussions, and since then, to its
credit, as you heard, the administration has clamped down on
the practice of granting waivers. However, the time may be ripe
for even stricter rules, perhaps written into the law, that
simply do not allow for waivers, period. Government and
legislative employees should not be negotiating with
prospective employers while they have a role in legislation or
regulation that affects those same employers.
Political cronyism is another concern of ours, and the
appointment of political cronies is a problem that has infected
both Democratic and Republican administrations. But the issue
has come into much sharper focus recently.
When the head of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, turned out to have little prior experience in disaster
preparedness, our ability to respond to Hurricane Katrina
clearly was impaired. Unfortunately, Michael Brown's apparent
political appointment is not the exception. Cronyism rears its
head in other, less visible appointments to boards and
commissions that affect our lives. Most recently, two
appointees to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose
duty is to protect public television and public ratio from
political interference, were major donors and partisans with no
experience in public broadcasting. These appointees have helped
jeopardize the editorial independence of public broadcasting at
a time when the public needs fact-based investigative
journalism more than ever before.
Both Democratic and Republican administrations have been
guilty of placing political supporters and major donors in
Government jobs or on Government commissions.
We support the proposals contained in the Anti-Cronyism and
Public Safety Act that require a political appointee
responsible for public safety to have superior credentials and
experience that is relevant to the position for which he or she
is being considered. We also believe that the candidate should
be free of potential conflicts of interest that might arise
from regulating a former employer.
Let me mention a couple of others.
All of our proposals, both in front of the issues that
regard Congress and in the executive branch, suggest that
greater disclosure is critical but currently insufficient. As
we know, every day an army of lobbyists descends on Congress
and various agencies of the Federal Government. Lobbying the
Government has become a billion-dollar industry, but the public
knows relatively little about what lobbyists are working on and
almost nothing about who they are talking to.
As Congress considers new lobbying rules in the wake of the
Abramoff scandal, there are a number of common-sense reforms
that would greatly improve the system and should apply to the
executive branch as well.
Another place that disclosure rules need to be tightened is
privately funded travel for Federal officials. Federal ethics
laws require travel disclosure reports of every executive
agency. However, the Vice President's office insists that they
do not have to inform the American people about the trips that
are taken through them, the speeches that are made, or the
special interests that the Vice President meets with.
The Vice President contends that his office is not an
executive agency and the disclosure rules don't apply because
he does not make any trips that are privately funded. But
according to the Center for Public Integrity, the Vice
President has made more than 275 speeches and appearances,
including 23 speeches to think tanks and trade groups and 16
colleges. While the Vice President calls this travel ``official
business'' and puts it on the public tab and not giving the
public any information of whether these trips truly serve the
public interest or were a good use of Government funds.
Avoiding privately financed travel is a good practice in
principle, but not if it is used as a strategy to keep the
public in the dark about the office's comings and goings.
We also want too talk a little bit about Government
contract policies and procedures that have not been up to the
task. And since my time is limited, I will just say that is yet
another area of concern particularly raised in the wake of
Katrina, relying on no-bid, sole-source contracts, and feel
that there is much more concern about disclosure and
accountability in that area.
We want to thank again the committee for this opportunity
to discuss increasing ethical conduct, the opportunities for
transparency and accountability in the Federal Government, and
we, too, look forward to working with you as you craft these
legislative proposals and think about these issues seriously.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pingree follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.104
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much for your thoughtful
testimony.
Mr. Kirk, I am going to start questions with you.
Mr. Kirk has a bill up that does much of the same thing.
Really the differences on the legislation, which is narrowly
crafted today, basically it is who it applies to and what the
crimes are. Of course, reasonable people can disagree, and we
are trying to figure it out.
Mark, go ahead.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
agreeing to have a member of another committee here for a
statement. Last year, I introduced a bill, H.R. 4535, the
Congressional Integrity and Pension Forfeiture Act, which was
cosponsored by 37 Members. It was based almost exclusively on
Congressman Randy Tate's bill in the 104th Congress, H.R. 4011.
That bill had 74 cosponsors. It was taken up and passed by the
House of Representatives on September 22, 1996, by an
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 391-32, with 1 present.
I will note that the now-Speaker of the House, Dennis
Hastert, voted for that legislation. The now-Minority Leader of
the House Nancy Pelosi also voted for that legislation. For
members of this committee, the vote broke out 16-3.
That bill was patterned after legislation introduced by my
predecessor, John Porter, during the 101st Congress in 1990. It
was he who in the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation
to deny a member of the General Assembly convicted of a felony
of their Illinois State pension, which is now the law of our
State.
I think it is incumbent upon the Congress now to take this
action because the Congress, by its very nature, is largely run
by senior Members. Junior Members do not have the right to a
pension. Senior Members have very large pensions. The beauty of
this provision is that the penalties go up with seniority, and
since they are the ones who run both majority and minority
parties, the penalties fall most heavily on them.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mark, the Members do not say that in
their campaign literature.
Mr. Kirk. That is right. [Laughter.]
Chairman Tom Davis. The Members do not say they do not run
the place. It is a rare admission.
Mr. Kirk. I would also just recommend, on crimes that are
covered, I am comfortable making the level of penalties on
crimes higher on Members of Congress than anyone else because I
think as lawmakers it is incumbent on us to set a higher
standard and to be judged against a higher standard. And so
while there are other proposals before this committee to deny
pensions to all Federal employees that are convicted of a
felony or to restrict the number of crimes that would affect a
congressional pension, I would recommend that this committee
follow the direction the Congress took in 1996 and have a very
broad range of public crimes apply only to Members of Congress,
denying their pension, because I think it is up to us to set a
higher standard.
Now, unfortunately, despite overwhelming bipartisan support
in 1996, this legislation was killed by the Senate leaders of
both sides in 1996. But the Senate leaders of 1996 are all gone
now. We have entirely different leaders, both Republican and
Democratic sides. And so my hope is this Congress can send back
this common-sense legislation, which already overwhelmingly
passed the House, set a higher standard for Members of Congress
on a broad range of public crimes.
I am very comfortable with that. I don't think we need to
drag other Federal employees in it, but I think for this body,
a higher standard is something that we should be very
comfortable with.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for that, and I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing. Thank you to both our witnesses for being here,
and thank you for your testimony.
I want to just commend the chairman on introducing this
piece of legislation and holding this hearing. But as he
himself, I believe, said earlier--and I think we all
acknowledge--the scope of the problem goes beyond this piece of
legislation. I support this bill, but I think that if we are
going to attack this issue of special influence in Washington
and the influence of lobbying over legislation and the product
that passes the Congress, we need to go way beyond that. You
have addressed that, both of you, in your testimony as well.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I hope this will be the first of a
number of hearings where we begin to take some serious
oversight over this general issue. Let me just mention, for
example, many of my constituents who work for the Federal
Government have felt that political pressure arising from
special interests lobbying the administration has interfered
with their ability to pass public policy in the public
interest. And you can think of many examples where pressure has
been put on scientists in the administration to change their
judgments or to try and pressure them not to speak out.
We just heard over the weekend--it was widely reported--
James Hansen at NASA said that he was pressured not to speak
his mind on issues of global warming because it was not
consistent with the Bush administration's policy.
I participated in a forum over the weekend with Susan Wood,
who used to be head of one of the public health divisions,
women's public health over at FDA, who resigned in protest
after an expert panel was overruled at the political level with
respect to emergency contraceptives and Plan B.
There are numerous examples, especially in the last 5
years, of people's independent judgment being overruled as a
result of political pressures brought by special interests, and
I think it is very important that we look into those issues as
a committee.
With respect to lobbying reforms, I think many of the
proposals you have made here are right on target, and I think
we should have a gift ban, and I think we need to be very
aggressive about this. The end result cannot just be window
dressing. It cannot be an attempt here to create the perception
among the American people that Congress has done something if,
in fact, it has not done something, because that will just
breed more cynicism, and people will lose even more confidence
in the Congress and the administration and how we make public
policy.
If you could address what I really think is the nub of a
lot of this issue, which is the whole question of the campaign
finance system, and we don't need at this point to get into
different campaign finance reform proposals, which I support
many of them and I know that your organizations have been
advocates, and I am a cosponsor of those. But just the nexus
right now between lobbying and lobbyists for special interests
and their role in the fundraising process, and whether or not
you have any specific proposals aimed to address that issue.
Ms. Claybrook. We do, and thank you for asking that
question. We do believe that for both the Democratic and
Republican--sorry. Thank you for asking that question, Mr. Van
Hollen. We do believe that is a missing link in both the
Democratic and Republican proposals that are now pending in the
Congress, and that link, as we see it, is the link between
money, lobbyists, and politics. And we have advocated--and I
would like to submit for the record--while I realize it is not
totally under the jurisdiction of this committee--the six
benchmarks for lobbying reform that Common Cause, Public
Citizen, and other groups have supported, and one of the key
elements of that is not to have lobbyists be able to bundle
money from Members of Congress, that is, to go collect it from
a lot of other places and hand over a number of checks from
various people; not to be treasurers or campaign officials for
a Member of Congress; not to hold fundraising events or events
that honor Members of Congress; not to hold events, for
example, at the political conventions that are recognizing
Members of Congress.
So we believe that this nexus of the deep involvement, if
you would, of lobbyists in the fundraising process for Members
of Congress should be prohibited, and that is one step.
We do support--and I know Chellie does as well because she
has been a leader on this in the State of Maine, where she was
a public official. We do believe that public funding of
elections in the end is really the solution, and we support, of
course, reform of the Presidential funding system. And I think
that those kinds of proposals really deserve consideration now,
now that we have had so many scandals and so many difficulties
with this nexus between money, lobbyists, and politicians.
Ms. Pingree. If I might just make a quick comment, and that
is a very comprehensive look at exactly what both of our
organizations are supporting.
Two interesting facts. If you look at the most recent
Washington Post survey, 57 percent of the public believes that
all lobbying fundraising should be banned, so this is a very
salient issue. People see the connection between lobbyists and
Members of Congress as something they have deep concerns about.
As Joan said, we are also enormous supporters of the idea of
thinking now about congressional public financing and more and
more conversations are revolving around this. I know
Representative Shays just had to leave the room, but the
Connecticut Legislature just passed public financing with
bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats. Maryland has
a bill pending. So it is an issue that is being looked at in
many States around the country. The California Legislature
passed public financing in the House 2 days ago.
So in the wake of all these scandals, while there are very
discrete proposals that we have to deal with in this connection
between lobbying and fundraising is important, this
conversation will go on for a while and people will continue to
look at their Members and say, ``So what are you doing in the
long run to make sure that we break these ties and that we
really change the system of money and its influence in the
political process?''
Mr. Van Hollen. Well, thank you for those comments, and I
agree with you. And I hope as Congress reviews different
proposals you will continue to hold its feet to the fire and be
the judge of whether or not what comes out of Congress is
window dressing or whether it is something that will make a
real difference.
I agree with you with respect to public financing. I am a
cosponsor of a piece of legislation that has been introduced
here. It did not get a lot of traction until recently. Now
people are, fortunately, taking another look. But you know as
well as I do that it will take an awful big push from the
grass-roots level to pass campaign reform legislation through
this body.
When I was in the State legislature, we pushed for it in
Maryland, and we still have a ways to go there. Other States,
as you said, have since moved forward, which I think is a good
thing. But I think that is ultimately the solution for ensuring
that Members, elected Members, essentially owe their loyalty to
the public and there is not a question raised in the public
mind about whether or not there are other influences at work
beyond just the commitment of public officials to the public
interest. So let's work on all these fronts, and thank you for
your work.
Ms. Claybrook. Mr. Van Hollen, I would just like to say
that it would be the best investment the taxpayer ever made. It
is a cost of one B1 bomber to have public funding of elections
for Members of Congress.
Mr. Van Hollen. And, Mr. Chairman, just if I could, the key
issue here--because when you poll people and you ask them of
their priorities where does campaign finance reform rank, for
example, it usually comes down pretty low. But above that you
will find issues like health care reform and energy policy. The
important thing is that the public understand that getting the
foundation of our system right has a direct impact on the
policies that we work on with respect to health care and
energy.
It is my view, for example, that the prescription drug bill
that was passed--I think people are finding out, seniors now
when they look at all the complications, that it wasn't written
with them in mind. And certainly the prohibition on the Federal
Government, you know, being able to negotiate prices on behalf
of the taxpayer, that prohibition was certainly not in the
public interest. And I think you see similar issues arising
with the energy bill.
So the public needs to understand the direct connection
between getting our campaign finance system right, getting our
foundation in order, and the impact that has on all these other
big policies.
Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Let me just note that I come from Virginia, which is
``anything goes'' in terms of campaign contributions, but
transparency--and we have really no history of corruption or
anything else within the State, but we do have complete
transparency and you cannot raise money during legislative
sessions and the like. So we could have a good discussion on
this, and I don't think this is the time to do that. I will
note on some of the lobbying reforms that you have advocated
forever, that some Members--like Mr. Kirk had put his bill
forward last year before this became a hot item. We have a
short window of opportunity to act. And Mr. Waxman and I have
sat down, and we would like to take advantage of this. We are
not going to agree on everything, but we can work a lot of
things out and move the ball down the field.
We welcome your comments as we do this, your criticisms and
everything else. We think it adds to it. But the public right
now is beginning to get focused on these issues, and that gives
us a rare opportunity, where generally this may rank 14th or
15th, to move it to the top.
So let's try to take advantage of it. We need to have an
honest discussion. We are not going to agree on everything. I
am certainly not going to agree on public financing. But let's
have the--we ought to be able to talk about it and maybe close
some things that ought to be closed and try to do some common-
sense things.
Ms. Claybrook. I would certainly commend to you to look at
some recommendations by a number of the same groups that are
working on lobbying reform on the Presidential public funding
system. That is a system that already exists. It is quite
broken, and it really needs to be amended. And we would seek
your help on that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. The big loophole we are
getting to now is the court decisions that allow wealthy
individuals to spend unlimited amounts. And if you did not have
that, I think we could--some of these other items might make
some sense. But you are getting into a point where people can
spend vast amounts and there is no other way. But that is a
discussion that we can have and try to deal with.
On the legislation before us, I don't represent this as a
cure-all at all. We saw this as something within our
committee's jurisdiction that we can move quickly. It may or
may not be attached to something else, but let's get a piece
down, but Mr. Waxman and I have agreed that this is by a long
ways not the end of what this committee will do and we hope not
what the Congress will do. And he has listed some of the things
in his opening statement about some of the areas that he wants
to look at, and we have agreed to look at them. And I think in
some cases, we will come to closure.
Immediately, the legislation before us in the bill that I
put forward, we don't include every Federal employee. We
include people who are in policymaking positions for the most
part, Schedule Cs. Now, some of these people don't have big
pensions because they are not career, but some of them have
gone in and out of Government over time, and the cumulative
effect is fairly significant as well, and, of course, Congress,
who is an elected body on that.
As you heard Mr. Kirk, some would like to expand this
across Government to everybody working for the Federal
Government. We have had some discussions on whether you do
that. Career civil servants, do you put their families out of
their pension? Any thoughts on that?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, I would like to look at his bill more
carefully.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK.
Ms. Claybrook. I am an attorney, so I want to do that, and
I would like to submit our comments. But, generally, my
inclination would be to support a broader piece of legislation
like Mr. Kirk's. I worked in the Federal Government for 16
years. I started as a GS-5, so I know the capacity of
individuals in the Federal Government to misbehave and I have
seen it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Sure.
Ms. Claybrook. So I think that--I do believe it would be a
deterrent if people thought they could lose their pension. Many
people go to work for the Government and stay there because it
does have a good pension system, and particularly in these days
where pension systems now are hard to come by, it is probably
even more important.
So I would not be opposed to looking more broadly at what
these penalties should be and who they should cover. I
certainly think they should cover the SES positions. I am not
sure whether the bill does that or not.
Chairman Tom Davis. That is a good point.
Ms. Claybrook. But I definitely think all political
appointees and the SES positions. But I think probably more
broadly.
Chairman Tom Davis. All right. If you would like to submit
anything else, we may move on this quickly, but we would be
happy to have it.
Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. I would concur with Joan and just reinforce
again the public perception from the outside of people who work
for the Federal Government, who are Members of Congress, who
basically, you know, work for all of us, having opportunities
to keep their pension even if they do significant wrongdoing.
So I do think it would be a deterrent effect. I thought your
comment that it would be a prosecutorial tool was important,
particularly at a time when there is a great need for access to
information. And we see in the Abramoff issue where being able
to have that information is extremely important to cleaning up
what goes on behind the scenes that we often do not know about.
So I thought that was an important point.
And I don't know exactly what the legal issues are, but,
again, I think perhaps it was Representative Shays who
mentioned that as people come into these jobs, they need to be
fully informed about the fact that there will be significant
penalties if they do wrongdoing and attach those to every
decision that they are making when they make those decisions.
So I think we would support that.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you.
I just had one other question. Ms. Claybrook, I am just
confused about one thing. You suggested that OGE has sought to
weaken public disclosure at the prodding of the White House.
Was that fair?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, no, it was the White House that took
the initiative.
Chairman Tom Davis. Right. The White House is prodding OGE
to weaken these things.
Ms. Claybrook. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. But have they been successful in that?
Ms. Claybrook. I don't know. I have not had the capacity
to--
Chairman Tom Davis. OK, because our hope is that OGE has
been immune from political considerations. I mean, that is why
it was created originally, and that is why I think we want to
give them more authority in some of these areas.
Ms. Claybrook. That is correct. We very strongly believe
that OGE should have independent authority and that it should
be as immune as possible from political considerations.
Obviously, if you get a directive from the chief of staff at
the White House, you are going to pay attention to it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Of course you are, and there are
political considerations in everything.
Ms. Claybrook. That is right.
Chairman Tom Davis. You do not have to be elected to have
them. I would just add one other thing. There are going to be
times when career people come up with a different conclusion
than the elected administration.
Ms. Claybrook. That is right.
Chairman Tom Davis. And we have seen some of those issues,
too. My feeling on that, though, is the administration should
not be afraid to come forward and explain their position if it
is at variance.
Ms. Claybrook. Absolutely.
Chairman Tom Davis. But there is nothing wrong with that,
whether it is voting rights or whether it is on drugs. If it is
a policy position, that is fine. But they should not be timid
about sharing their information with Congress and coming
forward and explaining it.
Ms. Claybrook. That is correct. That happened to me as
actually the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, and John Dingell and I had quite a set-
to over this because one of my employees did not like airbags,
and we had a public debate about it. And I supported airbags,
and I think in the end having that public debate was just
perfect.
Chairman Tom Davis. It is never pretty, but it is
democracy.
Ms. Claybrook. That is right.
Chairman Tom Davis. Again, the elected policymakers can
overturn career people, but they should not be afraid of being
able to come forward and explain it. And that is what--well,
thank you very much.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I regret
that I was not here when these very important witnesses
testified. I have had a chance to glance quickly at their
testimony. I certainly wanted to be here when the OPM Director
testified.
A Member--and I don't recall his name--on the other side
was saying as I entered that he thought that Members of
Congress should be held to a higher standard. I must say that I
have to agree. We, of course, passed legislation that said that
at the very least Members ought to be held to the same standard
as others. But, you know, isn't it amazing that it took us a
long time to get to the point of saying that the laws that
apply to everybody else, hey, guess what? They also apply to
Members of Congress.
Now that we have said that and now that we have this
pervasive scandal, let's look to see who a Member of Congress
is. And when it comes to matters of ethics and the fact that
there are so few of us that these positions are so sought
after, are the highest public trust, and particularly in light
of the scandals before us, it is very hard to argue anything
but set the example, not only raise the standard but say, look,
they have a higher standard that applies to them than applies
to the average American.
I simply want to say, however that plays out--and we have
to look closely at how that plays out, and indeed I have a
question for you about how that plays out--I do think that is
certainly the place to begin.
I want to congratulate my good friend who has made the
first hearing a hearing dealing with this egregious issue. Now,
what he has done is to choose the most egregious case, the case
that is mind-blowing to anyone who knows anything about it. But
if I may say so, for that reason it is not the most urgent
case. In some respects, it is the easiest case because you know
you got to do something about that. If the lobbying can result
in the consequences that we now know from the plea, then you
certainly have to do something about that.
I would have preferred--and I know it is early in the
session, and that is why I am grateful that we have started, at
least. I would have preferred--and I think there would have
been a greater understanding, particularly of the public, if we
said there are a whole bunch of things that are wrong, wrong
with that Member, because everybody knows how unusual that is.
And if they don't know, beware, Congress, because too many
think that he is typical.
One way to dispel that is say here is a whole flock of
things we are going to do. So I am going to assume that my good
friend, Tom Davis, who has taken the leadership here, first
committee to come forward in this way, is having the first of a
series of important hearings on this issue.
I believe that the matter ranks so low, as my colleague
here from Maryland said, because we have failed to make the
nexus between the issues that affect the American people and
lobbying. So we talk about lobbying. Who could care less what
happens in Washington? And maybe it is difficult to make that
nexus, but not if we begin to talk more about the issues that
we know have been determined exclusively by lobbying money.
And, of course, the best and prime example is the great hopes
of seniors that have been dashed by the Medicare prescription
drug program. Not only is it indefensibly complicated, but now
it is so full of holes that they cannot even work their way
through it because there is yet a whole new set of problems
that have just erupted. We have to do better on that.
I would like to just ask a question. When I look at these
things, I tend to look at them legislatively and more
technically. One of the things I find most difficult, because
it is hard for me to see what difference it has made, is the
notion of, you know, 1 year or 2 years that you do not get to
lobby.
Now, in, I guess, the Common Cause testimony, to show just
how difficult this is, in your explanation of the revolving
door, you understand that people have to have a right to
practice an occupation, so you say slow the revolving door. But
to show how hard it is, in your explanation you say--and here I
am quoting from your testimony--``Expanding the definition of
lobbying will capture those Members of Congress who join
lobbying/law firms and who do not register as lobbyists, but
who share their invaluable experience they have had as elected
officials with lobbyists in the firm.'' I find that a very
difficult matter to deal with. You know, on the face of it, it
seems to have free association and free speech implications. I
don't even know how in the world you would enforce it. And I am
bothered by it.
At the same time, I cannot tell the difference between 1
and 2 years. So it would help me if you have anything further
to say, because the rest of the things you say under that I
hope we do immediately, like eliminate floor privileges, deal
with negotiation for employment contracts, prohibit lobbyists
from being the treasurers, etc., but when it comes to, OK, you
can't even talk to, you can't share your experience, I don't
know how that can survive constitutional muster, much as I am
attracted to it. I would just like to hear you, perhaps you
have views on why you think that is constitutional or why that
would work, or why it would be, for that matter, enforceable?
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, and I am happy to attempt to answer
that question, and, again, Public Citizen has been doing a lot
of work on this issue of the revolving door.
I would say that for most of the reform groups we have been
trying to address, two concerns. One is to extend the period of
time--and you raise a good question, you know, will 1-year be
different from 2-year? We feel that it represents a greater
deterrent from this notion that people serve as Members of
Congress, looking forward to an opportunity to both parlay that
influence into a high-paying job, and maybe are making
decisions based on their time in Congress that will be affected
by the future employment, so I think we are trying to extend
that period, and talking about it in the executive branch as
well.
I think the second point that you have raised, that perhaps
will be heard, to actually regulate, is this concern that there
are former Members of Congress or the executive branch who
actually go to work in large lobbying--large law firms that
have a significant lobbying presence. So they may have the
opportunity to direct lobbying activities, to work on
strategies and political thinking, yet they may never appear on
the floor or be seen in these halls. But their influence and
the significance of that influence may be much greater than we
are able to assess based on whether or not they are here in the
hallways.
Ms. Norton. Yes. We may have reached the limit of what we
can prohibit, is my problem with that.
Ms. Pingree. And you may well be raising an important
point, but it is really one of the most frequently mentioned
proposals because I think people are deeply concerned about
what is going on behind--
Ms. Norton. That same Member could go and teach at
Georgetown Law School and say the very same things, and then
the lobbyists could simply register for his course. And people
do that, they do teach part time. I am just not sure about
that, and I am not sure, as much as I want to do something
about this problem, that I could--because I think it is
unconstitutional on its face, not just as applied, not to
mention all kinds of problems about attorney-client problems.
The reason I ask it is I am befuddled by the 1 and 2-year, and
I see the problem there, and therefore respect your notion of
trying to get to something that is more meaningful. To me, in a
real sense, it points up the difficulty of trying to do
something other than the yearly matter.
I am sorry. Ms. Claybrook did want to answer.
Ms. Claybrook. Could I comment on that, Mr. Chairman, for
just a second?
First of all, I understand your concern about the
constitutional issues. The reason that we favor this type of
proposal is because the intent of the current law that you not
lobby for 1 year after you leave the Congress has been
completely undermined by Members of Congress being paid multi-
bucks to go to either a lobby firm or law firm, and they set up
shop as the director of the issue. Maybe Mr. Tauzin would be a
good example, where behind the scenes, is directing the
lobbyists, telling them what to do, which Members of Congress
to contact, what issues that they care about. And so he is
essentially the lobbyist without actually making the telephone
calls.
Everyone knows that Tauzin's lobbyists are coming to talk
to them, and they are bringing a message from Mr. Tauzin, for
example. And he is not the only one. Believe me, I am not
picking just on Mr. Tauzin.
So the question is whether or not Members of Congress can
sell themselves to these entities, these law firms and lobbying
shops, as the director, working on particular issues where they
have intimate knowledge and intimate contacts that is
essentially selling the public trust. And it is a balancing
act. It is a balancing issue.
I would prefer that they not be able to work for 5 years in
these kind of jobs, if you ask me personally, because there are
plenty of things Members of Congress are talented to do, and
they don't have to become Washington lobbyists in order to make
a living. I think it has perverted the system and undermined
the whole process of legislation. So I would apply a much
tougher standard in terms of the number of years, and I think
that you would admit that there's a difference between 1 year
and 5 years in terms of whether Members of Congress are still
here and their staffs are still here, and do they have the same
relationships?
But in terms of directing and controlling the strategy or
laying out the strategy for other lobbyists to affect
legislation on their behalf, hopefully there is some way that
we can write that would pass constitutional muster with you, as
a great lawyer, and the courts, so that there would be some
distance, if you would, between Members of Congress and
lobbying on issues that they work on.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I think this issue is pretty straightforward. It
is just something that needs to happen. Though you all in your
testimony have obviously gone beyond this issue, and so I will
seize the opportunity to talk about that. Both of you would ban
gifts entirely?
Ms. Claybrook. Yes.
Ms. Pingree. Yes.
Mr. Shays. What I wrestle with in terms of trips, tell me
what trips you would allow?
Ms. Claybrook. We would allow?
Mr. Shays. Yes.
Ms. Claybrook. Well, that is an interesting issue that I
think our collective judgment has not yet made--sorted out.
Mr. Shays. I am not asking you to be collective. I am
asking each of you to talk as independent thinking people. What
would you allow?
Ms. Claybrook. We haven't had the kind of conversations
that would allow us to sort it out, but I am going to tell
you----
Mr. Shays. I don't understand the word ``we.'' I am asking
you.
Ms. Claybrook. We at Public Citizen, we at Public Citizen.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Ms. Claybrook. I believe that if a Member of Congress is
doing the public business, the public treasury ought to pay for
that trip. And the one issue that has been raised in the Senate
to us has been whether or not nonprofit organizations, and not
the ones that are front groups for lobbyists, but educational
institutions, for example, should be allowed to pay the travel
for a Member of Congress to, say, make a graduation speech. And
that----
Mr. Shays. I am wrestling with these things. I am
interrupting you. I am sorry. But I am not quite sure where you
are really coming down.
Ms. Claybrook. Well, I don't know either on that particular
issue.
Mr. Shays. Let's just ask a question----
Ms. Claybrook. On that narrow issue I would say all other
travel that is on the public----
Mr. Shays. What I am wondering is, as I wrestle with this,
are we going to do something that ends up being superficial in
the process of trying to look like we are doing something, and
really not getting at the issue. I mean it seems so clear to
me. If you go on a trip to Scotland to play golf at all the
best courses, and they are spending thousands of dollars just
for the fees on the golf course, I mean, that is like a no-
brainer, it shouldn't happen.
Ms. Claybrook. Right.
Mr. Shays. But I am thinking if I am invited to give a
speech to a group from APAC in Miami, should that be allowed?
That is a question.
Ms. Claybrook. I am not sure who APAC is, I am sorry.
Mr. Shays. Well, any group. I will just use APAC.
Ms. Claybrook. Any group that is a business group or a
lobby group, absolutely not. I believe that----
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you this: if I going to raise money
in Miami, how do I pay for that if it ends up being the same
kind of group?
Ms. Claybrook. Out of your campaign fund.
Mr. Shays. But then what is the difference? I mean, with
all due respect, they gave you the money and they put it in
your campaign. There is no way that I think we are going to
want to say to someone that the only way they can raise money
is in their district. I mean that is easy for me. If everybody
in Round Hill Road in Greenwich, CT gave me a contribution, I
could run for President. But what does someone do in a very
poor district? What does someone do when they are the spokesman
on a particular group? If my opponent, for instance, goes to
every law firm in the district to raise money, is she also
allowed to go to every law firm outside the district, and why
not? If I am the champion of tort reform, and the law community
doesn't want to support me at all, but the medical community
does, why wouldn't I want to, and why wouldn't it be logical
that a group in Miami or Chicago or somewhere else would want
to contribute to my campaign, and why wouldn't I go to a
fundraiser?
I particularly think of Senators. Senators go all over the
country doing this and----
Ms. Claybrook. Well, they can. They just have to pay for
it. It should be paid for out of the campaign fund.
Mr. Shays. Then just tell me how is that any different? You
got the campaign dollars from the very group that you went to
do the fundraiser with.
Ms. Claybrook. That is right, but----
Mr. Shays. What is the difference?
Ms. Claybrook. I think that there is a difference, because
if you get it directly from the medical association or whatever
it is that wants to bring you in, and then they are going to
raise big bucks for you, then you are getting it from them and
they are paying for your money, and I know that it counts in
terms of your campaign funds, but I still think that it----
Mr. Shays. What happens if that same medical community
invited me to give a speech about something I believe in, and
only paid for my travel, only paid for my hotel and maybe paid
for the dinner that night? How is that any different? I don't
see the difference. That is what I wrestle with. What I also
wonder about is, think of the causes you believe in, and I
believe in your causes; you are basically saying to me that I
can't go and speak and rally the Nation for campaign finance
reform, which I believe in, that I am stuck in my district. The
only way I can go outside to rally people on something like
campaign finance reform is if I do a fundraiser.
Ms. Claybrook. No, no, no. I am not saying that. I am
saying that if you are doing the public's businesses, then the
public should pay for it. It should come out of the Federal
treasury, out of----
Mr. Shays. So you are saying that if I want to go to San
Francisco to talk about campaign finance reform, I have to--and
where do I get the money from? What fund do I get it from here?
Ms. Claybrook. I believe there should be a congressional
fund to pay for the travel. I would far rather that you travel
every day and have the public pay for it if that is what the
Congress agrees to, if there is some system for deciding who
gets that, the allocation of those funds, than to have it paid
for by private business. I think that is the harm, because once
you say that is OK, then it extends----
Mr. Shays. I think that is a consistent policy. I mean I
could argue that. That is almost like saying that the
Government pays for your campaign. But you would take that same
analogy and say, I would take it out of, basically out of my
office expenses if I wanted to travel to give a speech.
Ms. Claybrook. But I think there ought to be a larger fund
that is put together, whether it is allocated by Members of
Congress, by a committee, maybe a combination of both, that is
who pays for your travel. And you report it publicly, and you
report on what you did and said. That is publicly available
very quickly. Then I think the public could live with that.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask Common Cause what they think.
Ms. Pingree. I thought you made an important thought when
you started off this conversation, and I think it does get to
the heart of what is going to be a plethora of conversations
about what is real reform here, because, as everyone has
stated, there is going to be a kind of rush to pass a variety
of fixes on what is perceived as corruption here in Washington.
The danger is, I think, going after things that are too small
and aren't appropriate fixes, and creating an even more complex
system of what you can and can't do. So I do think you are
addressing an appropriate concern, and in a way it requires us
all to back up.
And of course, that is why organizations like ours--and
certainly you have been a champion of this in the past--talk
about until we end the nexus between money and politics, and
until we really talk about public financing for congressional
offices, there will always be this question: were you at that
meeting, or did you go on that trip, or were you at that lunch,
so that someone could have closer access to you and an unfair
advantage?
Mr. Shays. Let me just ask this last question because I
have run out. When I was invited to speak to the League of
Women Voters in Florida with Marty Meehan, I want you to tell
me how I would get there?
Ms. Pingree. Well, I mean, I think Joan makes a perfectly
good point. We have to talk about separating this because it is
the whole issue around travel.
Mr. Shays. So just answer the question. So how would I pay?
Ms. Pingree. We should have a public fund. You should pay
for it. It should be an important part of your job, expanding
both who you are able to speak to and what you are able to view
around the world.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
Ms. Pingree. We have to change the system.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I want to thank both of you very much for your
presentation to us. I am pleased that you are here because it
expands the perspective of this issue from the bill that we
have before us, which is to deny pensions to people who are
convicted of crime, certain people if they are convicted.
I think what we need is honesty. We need honest leaders and
we need open Government. An open Government is very important
to keep people honest. I often wonder, when I hear about a
colleague doing something that is so outrageous, taking a
bribe, you wonder, what was this person thinking? Well, most
people who commit crimes think no one will know about it.
One of the problems I see is that under current law, only
the lobbyists, not the officials they lobby, are required to
make disclosure about the fact that they are lobbying, and a
lot of them don't bother. We don't enforce that law. I saw
somewhere that there was something like 80 percent of people
who lobby don't bother to live up to the lobbying laws that are
on the books now. It seems to me that there is a lack of
accountability regarding lobbyists in the executive branch.
Don't you think it would make more sense for people who are
being lobbied to have to disclose the fact that they were
lobbied and the subject matter? There is nothing wrong with it,
by the way. I think lobbyists serve a very important purpose.
They represent different interest groups, and we don't want to
pass legislation without getting all the input and views of
various groups.
I think back to the time when Vice President Cheney chaired
an energy task force to come up with a proposal for
legislation. He wouldn't even hear from people that would tell
him what the President said last night, which is our country is
addicted to oil and we need to break that addiction. One of the
ways of breaking addiction is to be more efficient in the use
of oil. His view, he stated publicly, was, it is virtuous, but
it is not a good policy.
Well, I hope the President's views last night will become
the policy for this country. Let's be more efficient in the use
of energy. Let's make sure we look for alternatives. Let's wean
ourselves off this addiction.
But if we wanted to look at who the Vice President was
hearing from as he did this official job of trying to develop
an energy policy for the administration, it seems to me a
realistic question to ask is: what groups did you hear from?
What did they ask you about? He took such offense at that
question that he went to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that
he didn't have to disclose such information. Do you think there
ought to be a requirement that people who are lobbied in the
executive branch have to have a disclosure of the fact they
have been lobbied and what position was being advanced?
Ms. Claybrook. I do. As a public official, my calendar was
public. I believe that the calendars of public officials ought
to be clear and public. From time to time Public Citizen has
seen some problems and we have asked for calendars and we have
been turned down. In other cases we have gotten them. But I
think there ought to be a clear rule, that is, that the
calendar of public officials should be a public calendar.
Mr. Waxman. Is that subject to FOIA, Freedom of Information
Act?
Ms. Claybrook. It is, but there have been different
rulings. At this moment I can't remember them all, but in some
case I know we have gotten the calendars and in others we
haven't. I would be glad to submit a memo to you on our
understanding that the current law, under the Freedom of
Information Act, is one of our specialties at Public Citizen,
and I will be happy to give that to you. But I do believe that
the law ought to be clear, and that when public officials have
meetings, they ought to be public, not that everyone ought to
be able to join them and come--surely they can have private
meetings, but I think that who was at the meeting and what the
subject matter of the meeting was about should be public.
We also have this fight with the Office of Management and
Budget. It's been from time to time, every time we raise a big
stink about it, then every once in a while they say, John
Graham said, ``Oh, we're going to have a public process,'' and
then of course it wasn't a public process after the hullabaloo
died down. I would like to have a clear rule in the law.
Mr. Waxman. I think open Government is very important, and
one of the problems that I am seeing is that this
administration is restricting the release of information under
the Freedom of Information Act. They sent out mandates to
agencies to stretch FOIA exemptions to withhold, ``sensitive''
information. Now, there is noting in the law that says you can
withhold information that is sensitive. They even came up with
some pseudo classification designations such as, ``sensitive
but unclassified.'' Now, if it is classified and you are
revealing national security matters, well, I think all of us
would agree that shouldn't be disclosed to the public. But if
it is classified as ``sensitive but unclassified'' to avoid
disclosure, it seems to me this administration is going out of
its way to figure out how to undermine openness in Government.
Ms. Claybrook. I agree with that, Mr. Waxman. I would like
to mention one other thing though.
Mr. Waxman. Just because I see my yellow light, I am just
going to suggest to you that I would appreciate if you look at
the law that I propose called the Restore Open Government Act,
H.R. 2331. I would be interested in having your opinions on
that legislation. And then I just quickly want to touch one
other thing.
I think that when we have people like Tom Scully, who was
representing the administration--he got a waiver to go out and
negotiate a job with companies that represented the
pharmaceutical industry while he was negotiating the Medicare
Prescription Drug Bill. You mentioned Billy Tauzin. It wasn't
that he went to work as a lobbyist for the drug companies. What
offended me was that while he was negotiating the bill relating
to Medicare, he was in obvious conflict of interest because he
was working on the legislation and doing things that benefited
the pharmaceutical industry.
Now, I just think that sort of thing has to be tightened
up. We shouldn't allow people to be in a conflict of interest
situation. Part of it is to have openness, but I don't think
the administration ought to give waivers to a guy like Tom
Scully, and I think that we can't even reach--this is a
violation of the ethics for Congressman Tauzin, but there is
nothing we can do to him because he is gone. Now he is making
$2 million a year at the chief person at the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association [PhRMA].
So I just raise these issues. Appreciate your input on
them, and I think that we need to do more than this piece of
legislation. We need to look at it in a broader way.
Ms. Claybrook. We certainly agree that the ethics--that the
waivers for conflicts of interest ought to be very narrow and
very unusual.
I just want to comment on the Freedom of Information Act.
One of the things that is undermining the Freedom of
Information Act today, and I believe it is within the
jurisdiction of this committee, is the issue of attorneys fees.
When the law was originally amended in 1974, it included
attorneys fees. Now, under some very unusual court decisions,
you can only get attorneys fees if you get a clear win in the
case. But if you are like 90 percent through the case and the
Government comes in and negotiates and says, ``We are going to
give you all the documents now,'' because they realize they are
going to lose, you don't get attorneys fees. I think that
perversion of the original intent of the law really has
undermined the likelihood that people will bring these cases.
We would love to have a small amendment in whatever bills that
you do in terms of public disclosure, to rather encourage
people to raise issues. You don't always win, and you don't
always get your attorneys fees, but you are much more likely to
if the Government concedes, whether they concede because the
court made it the final ruling or whether the Government
conceded because it gave in.
Mr. Waxman. We ought to reward people who try to get
information, and not punish whistleblowers who try to disclose
information. I think those two concepts should both fit within
legislation that is in the jurisdiction of this committee.
Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. McHenry, you have any questions?
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The question I have for both of you is that we are
imperfect in the laws that we have in this Nation, and no
matter the set of laws that we put out governing lobbying and
ethics in Government, there will always be a criminal element
that will try to find a way around those laws.
For instance, in the matter of Duke Cunningham. The
disclosure forms that we as Members of Congress fill out, there
is one exemption, and that is your home mortgage. Now, it is
very unique that you have to disclose whether or not you have a
savings account that has $4 in it, you have to disclose the
institution it is in. You have to disclose the amount of
interest you derive from that $4 through the course of a year.
But you can have a mortgage for a home, or no mortgage at all,
and an enormously expensive home. So the question I have for
you, are you coming forward with a sunshine proposal, rather
than simple restrictions to just provide the public with more
information?
Ms. Pingree. Well, I would address that in two ways. I
think you're correct that just providing a variety of new rules
won't necessarily stop first criminal behavior, and then maybe
behavior that's of questionable ethics.
I mean two of the things that we've focused on,
particularly in the broader perspective of Congress, but also
in some ways affecting the executive branch, are a tremendous
amount more disclosure and information available to the public
about the people who in fact work for them, so that the
information is more readily available, and people can make
those judgments on their own.
But the second part, that I think would have a significant
effect, again, when people are intent on breaking the law--you
know, whatever system you're working in, you can't stop someone
from breaking the law--but it's been very clear in terms of the
ethics process here in Congress, there's been very lax
enforcement, and in many of these cases, as was mentioned
earlier, many of those who were already regulated aren't
bothering to fill out travel disclosures, gift disclosures, all
the things that should have been done, and it's obviously gone
to a much deeper level.
We propose an independent ethics commission, which is
employed in over 30 States around the country, to have a level
of outside complaints, to have a level of higher disclosure and
enforcement, and we just think it's an important juncture here.
While people are looking at their deep concerns about whether
there is, you know, outrageous amounts of corruption here in
Washington, but on the other hand, is the fox guarding the hen
house, and is the job being well done? So we think, again, to
restore confidence, there has to be an independent ethics
commission and it has to have very strict guidelines about how
it brings these concerns to light.
Mr. McHenry. OK.
Ms. Claybrook. If I were you, I would, if you were pushing
this, I would cite James Madison in the Federalist Paper No.
57, because what he says is that the purpose of every
constitution is not only to have the best rulers, but, he says,
in the next place take the most effectual precautions for
keeping them virtuous while they continue to hold the public
trust.
And I think that's the issue really that we have raised
with regard to the Office of Government Ethics here in this
hearing today, and also with the lobbying----
Mr. McHenry. I have two other questions, so I want to keep
moving forward if we could. Is the timing of a contribution an
evil?
Ms. Pingree. Well, it certainly can be associated with an
evil, as some of the people who are currently under indictment
would suggest. And I think that it raises, again, public
perception and questions about whether the timing of a
contribution was related to a decision that a policymaker made.
And no one can be free of those questions, and the more
opportunities you have to either regulate that process, allow
more disclosure of that process, or prohibit it, the better off
lawmakers will be.
Mr. McHenry. OK. Ms. Claybrook.
Ms. Claybrook. That's a very difficult question, but, yes,
there are times when you can say a Member of Congress got a
contribution just before or after they introduced a bill, they
voted on a particular piece of legislation that's very
controversial, yes, you could say that.
I don't think that it's the most important issue. I think
that the most important issue to me is that there be very clear
rules about how you can behave. Obviously, today you can accept
campaign contributions. We believe the public funding of
elections would end a lot of this. Even free TV would cut down
the burden on Members to have to do the money machine
fundraising constantly, and would help to solve this problem.
Mr. McHenry. It is interesting, the inconsistency here,
because also lobbying. You say that a 1-year addition to the 1-
year ban on Members going and lobbying would cut down on
corruption, yet you say you have to fully ban money in
politics, so why not fully ban lobbying?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, the Constitution won't allow that, and
you're not going to ban money. What you're going to do is
you're going to give Members of Congress an opportunity, under
the public funding bills, to opt in, to take public funding so
they don't have to take private money. There will have to be
some kind of an initial screening device, small contributions
or petitions or something to qualify for public funding, but
it's an option for the Member of Congress, it's not mandated.
Mr. McHenry. OK. Because there are many of us that believe
that both lobbying and money in politics have the element of
free speech, and that full disclosure is what we should be all
about, rather than simple limitations, because when you put
those arbitrary limitations, you create other problems that are
unintended, and I think we are dealing with some of those here
in Washington, just as we were 20 years before with similar
public corruption issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Watson, any questions?
Ms. Watson. I will pass.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Clay, any questions?
Mr. Clay. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask both of the witnesses. We have heard a lot of
proposals come forward about reform. However, I have not heard
anyone mention the practice--I guess it is a little-known
practice--of lobbyists giving to, say, the DCCC and the RNCC in
the name of a Member, and giving that Member credit for, say, a
$5,000, $10,000 contribution. Don't you think that practice
also kind of allows for a cozy relationship, allows for
favoritism? I would like to hear both of your thoughts about
that. Has anyone looked at that and suggested any kind of
reform to that practice?
Ms. Pingree. Again, I think it's why we're such staunch
supporters of changing to a system of public financing of
elections, because one of the things, as you've rightly
observed, is in spite of a tremendous amount of reform to the
system of soft money and in terms of more disclosure, there are
always those who will find a way around the back door and
another way to make sure that you're allowed to use a certain
amount of money to influence a Member and a Member's decision.
And at its very core, that's what we're trying to get it.
In effect, although I know that people often feel we're
placing a burden on elected officials, in a sense we're trying
to relieve this burden of any of these questions. You know, did
you get the contribution the day before you took the vote? Did
the money go to the party instead of you, but they called you
up and said, ``Oh, by the way, I put some money in the party?''
I mean these are things that, frankly, you shouldn't have
questioned about the behavior and the decisions that any of you
make. The fact that there is so much resistance about this
sometimes shocks me because the ability to be an elected
official and never have to wonder whether people will suspect
that you got the money because some organization feels that
you're a good supporter of theirs, or you got the money because
they were counting on you doing something after you got the
money. I just think is something we should eliminate the
process, and there is no better time than now.
Ms. Claybrook. Ditto.
Mr. Clay. Has anyone brought that subject up in the form of
legislation? Has anyone proposed eliminating that practice?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, as far as I know it's not an
authorized practice. It's a back door, you know, wink and nod
informal communication, so it's kind of hard to prohibit that.
So I believe it's a very informal thing because it's not, as
far as I know, something that's a matter of record. I know it
happens.
Mr. Clay. Perhaps you all should look again because you
will find that both congressional campaign committees give
credit to Members, because they direct a lobbyist to put money
into those committees, and the Member gets credit for it. So I
mean that is just--I think it is an oversight that all of your
groups have missed and you may want to take a look at it.
Ms. Claybrook. OK.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Thank the gentleman.
Ms. Watson, I think you are next.
Ms. Watson. Thank you. I would like to tell the two
panelists that we appreciate you coming because you represent
the public trust. I found myself being elected into a culture
of corruption, and I have been very agitated by it throughout
my term. Have the two of you looked at the ethics laws already
on the books? And what I feel is that we as a Congress have
abdicated our responsibility, because we have very few
oversight hearings. We have very few whistleblowers to come in
and testify. And it seems like we have bypassed what I feel are
offenses that should be brought to the public's attention. For
instance, we have not held an ethics hearing since both parties
sat down and negotiated its composition.
So can you respond to this question: are there not adequate
provisions already in law that will cover whatever offense that
might come about by Members, or do we need new legislation? I
know we are talking about the forfeiture of public pensions.
That is certainly a new area. But are there not enough
provisions, but they lack compliance? Can you respond?
Ms. Claybrook. I will speak first. I know Chellie has some
very strong thoughts on this as well.
First of all, in the Senate, an outside party is allowed to
file a complaint with the Ethics Committee. In the House that's
been prohibited. We used to be able to. We now cannot. And as a
result, the two parties find themselves in a position where if
a Member of Congress files an ethics complaint against a Member
of the other party--rarely do they do it to a Member of their
own party--then it becomes a game of warfare, and then they're
filing complaints against the other party. And so what happened
was, that after all of the hullabaloo over--in the late 1990's,
what happened was that they came to a deal, we won't file a
complaint against you, you don't file a complaint against us,
because it's like nuclear war.
And I think that's been a terrible result. And so a major
thing that we think is that outside parties should be able to
file complaints in the Ethics Committee.
But more importantly, or as importantly as that, we see the
Ethics Committee as totally disabled and unable to enforce the
law, and we think there ought to be an outside independent
office of public integrity or commission that is not staffed by
Members of Congress or their staff, that can do the independent
prosecutorial work when a complaint is filed, and either clear
it or pursue it. And until that happens, there will never be a
clear ethics process because there's not a clear ethics
enforcement process.
Today we testified that we also believe that the office of
public integrity, or Office of Government Ethics, rather, in
the executive branch, which does not have enforcement
authority, should have enforcement authority, and that's one of
the reasons that we were asked to testify today, and that they
ought to be staffed to do that, and that this should not be
delegated as it is now within each individual Government agency
setting its own ethics rules, essentially, and doing its own
enforcement or not, which is mostly what happens.
Ms. Pingree. And I would just followup, a little bit of a
yes and no. Yes, there are quite a few rules that were never
enforced, and Joan's made that very clear, and why we think
there should be some outside level of enforcement and enhanced
enforcement, and there are some areas where we've suggested
more rules, in the areas of disclosure and restrictions of
lobbyists. And whether it's complicated or not, Congress has to
look at the gift and travel ban. You know, the Washington Post
said 90 percent of the American public wants to eliminate all
gifts. People are--these have become high profile issues, and
while they're sticky to understand at the very bottom level of
what's appropriate travel and what's not, this has to be delved
into.
But I want to just enforce again this issue of who--is the
fox guarding the hen house? Has there been a good job done? And
when you lose the confidence of the public, you have to
consider a different system to restore that confidence.
Again, we have talked to many executive directors and
agencies in the States where they have independent ethics
commissions, they have ways to deal with frivolous complaints,
they have ways to make sure that the Members have final
authority, but that there is outside complaints and outside
investigations. It seems to me, again, in the end, that Members
do themselves a disservice not having a way to have these
things enforced, so that when something isn't a problem, people
are immediately cleared, and when something is a problem, that
person doesn't continue to bring shame on the body.
Ms. Watson. My staff and I have been quite concerned, and
so we have looked at the ethics process, and we are drawing up
some provisions, and we will discuss them once we get them
drawn up. But one would be that any complaint that is filed
must be heard within a given amount of time. So that all
complaints are heard. Now, they might not need to be heard in a
full committee, but I would think the chair and the ranking
member ought to decide which are frivolous and which should go
forward, and that we need to put a time limit on it.
I am looking at starting at that point, using the
provisions that are already in law, and so I am in a quandary
right now because I don't know, but I like this idea of an
outside commission, because I represent Los Angeles. I am on
the West Coast. It takes 5 hours to get there by plane. So most
often people don't have the details regarding the processes
here in Congress. They look at the polls, and say, ``Well,
you're no better than they are.'' We all get tainted and
painted with a brush when we have Members selling their homes
and reaping the profit, and living on yachts, and going
together to play golf, and representing that private interest
back here. We all get tainted because they don't feel any
better about Congress than they do about other divisions of
Government.
So what is the best way to do it? I think an independent
outside commission needs to come there because it is going to
be like this as long as we have a two-party system, we are
going to find--yes, I will just finish my sentence--as long as
we have a two-party system there is going to be resistance to
bringing your own up to ethics.
So thank you for that recommendation.
Ms. Claybrook. I would just like to clarify that because
the Constitution requires the House to judge itself, or each
body to judge itself, the Ethics Committee would not be
abolished, but rather, you would have the outside commission
would process all of the complaints and whatever, do the
investigation and recommend penalties. It would have to go back
to the Ethic Committee in the end, but they wouldn't do that
nitty-gritty everyday work.
Chairman Tom Davis [presiding]. OK. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome our two panelists and thank them
for their hard work for the public trust and for good
Government, and we appreciate all that you do.
Clearly, taking trips to play golf is an outrageous abuse
of position and power and lobbying, and it should absolutely be
stopped. But in my own life I have worked as a lobbyist, as a
volunteer for Common Cause, a former State issues chair for New
York State, and professionally for the New York City Board of
Education, and I truly believed in what I was lobbying for, and
felt that I played an important role in educating legislators
who are really spread too thin. You have to really be an expert
on so many things that you are voting on, and I think it is
important that you can explain education, you can explain good
Government laws, and they need that help.
Now, I would like to ask a specific question about
educational travel, and I think my colleague, Chris Shays,
started down this thing. There is an institute. It is a
nonprofit bipartisan institute called the Aspen Institute. I
have never been on one of their trips. But my colleagues tell
me that they have learned a great deal. What they do is they
will go a certain site, and they have a theme. It is either
health care or education or the environment or energy, and they
bring in a panel of experts in a nonpartisan way to explain the
depth of understanding. They have had them on many, many
different areas. My colleagues have told me that the trips have
helped them understand complex issues. And every issue, you can
look at it and say, this is right, that is wrong. You start
looking at it, there is always complexities. There are nuances,
that you may vote a certain way and it has ramifications that
you didn't realize on various areas of our economy and of our
constituency.
And they think that these trips are very, very helpful for
their understanding and coming up with good policy.
I think that we need to have a good balance. We want to
take out anything that is not working for the good
understanding. I think, obviously, some of the abuses that have
come out are just sickening. I can't imagine why any Member of
Congress would even want to go on these trips, first of all.
Second, how in the world do they have enough time with all of
the pressures that we have on us?
So I wanted to ask a question specifically about the Aspen
Institute. I would like to crack down on abuses of lobbying,
but I do not want to crack down on the ability of Congress
Members to learn and understand and make better judgments, and
I would like both panelists to respond to that.
Ms. Pingree. I think you've, again, brought up a very
important consideration. The value of both this committee
having this hearing and what I imagine will be a variety of
other conversations that will continue to go on, is it gives us
the opportunity the dig in a little deeper about how you
regulate travel in the case of golf trips to Scotland that
don't pass the straight-face test and look bad in the eyes of
the public, and how you make sure that this very important role
of educating a Member of Congress on the things that they would
like to and need to know more about is still allowed to
continue, and whether it becomes, you know, strictly a public
fund that Member has to spend, or if there is some middle
ground, I think is a conversation that we're happy to be a part
of.
Now, some people have proposed that in the case of the
Aspen Institute--and I'm very familiar with the work that they
do--that travel be allowed by organizations that are
educational in purpose or 501(c)(3)'s by their IRS designation,
which would include the Aspen Institute. But in fact, some of
the money that Jack Abramoff funneled for travel was to
501(c)(3) organizations, in theory doing educational purposes.
So the question becomes, how do we decide how to regulate this
in a way that's appropriate and not overly restrictive, but
that doesn't allow for these tremendous loopholes.
I want to add one other quick point--and I've mentioned
this story before--I was formerly a State legislator myself,
and had the opportunity to do a certain amount of travel on
trips sponsored by 501(c)(3) organizations. And on the one
hand, they can have a great stated purpose, and many times they
did--they had educational seminars and they had interesting
places that we were visiting where there were things that we
were learning, but I must say at the same time, half of the
people in the room were working as commercial lobbyists. They
were working for Verizon, or Citibank or a variety of other
interests, and we spent 3 days together, not only learning a
few things, but attending the symphony and perhaps going
golfing or whatever was provided on the trip. And it gave a
somewhat unreasonable amount of access to Members of the
legislature, and perhaps got back to this question that we've
asked before about were there future campaign contributions
tied to relationships? Were they able to lobby us in ways that
the general public or other advocacy lobbyists like Public
Citizen or Common Cause aren't able to do?
So there have been proposals that say that maybe it's about
how these are done by 501(c)(3). Maybe you can't have trips
where lobbyists are arranging them or attending the trip. I
think there's a lot of questions to be asked, and I don't think
we have a definitive answer today, but we appreciate the
dialog.
Ms. Claybrook. I would just like to say that I believe
there ought to be a public fund. This is something that's
important for Members of Congress to go to. They're going to
add expertise from their own experience. They're going to learn
from others. And I think that there is a public fund--there
should be a public fund that pays for this. This is something
that Members of Congress should have paid for.
If you are an employee of the executive branch, as I was
for many years, and you believe that there is an important trip
that you have to take, you have a process that you clear it
through and then it's paid for by the public. You have to be
compensated based on certain schedules for how much you can pay
for a hotel and how much you can pay for the airfare and so on.
And I think that's the way that it ought to work.
Poor people don't have luxurious conferences at the Aspen
Institute. I've been at some of them. I think that they're
wonderful. But, you know, I don't think that--if you start
making that exception, then you're going to have, you know,
other exceptions, and you're going to have these front group
501(c)(3)'s that have popped up all over the place by business,
and I just think that for fairness for the public, that it
ought to be a public fund. You decide how you want to spend
that public fund as a Member of Congress. You disclose it and
you justify it.
Mrs. Maloney. May I followup with a question, Mr. Chairman?
My time is up, but----
Chairman Tom Davis. Sure.
Mrs. Maloney. Quite frankly, I would support public funding
of elections, and I supported it when we had a surplus, but
there is no way we are going to have public funding of
elections with the economy that we have and the deficit that we
have. I don't think that there is any way we would be able to
create a public fund for educational purposes.
Now there is official travel, but there is usually an
official purpose, Iraq, Afghanistan, trade agreements in
Australia, the Davos Economic Conference. There are official
duties of Members of Congress where I think if you don't go to
the country you don't really understand it, and you are voting
on huge matters. So I support travel. But there is a difference
between official travel that you are there for a specific
purpose, and second, educational travel, where you are just
going to learn more about an issue. And I personally do not
think that in our budget situation, they would ever create a
special fund for travel.
I just read in the paper today that Coretta Scott King
received 60 honorary doctorates, and I would like to followup
on the question of my colleague, who has been a great leader of
reform in this body, Christopher Shays, who worked tirelessly
for years for campaign finance reform. And he was asking about
educational institutions. Say, for example, if some university
wanted to give our chairman, Tom Davis, a honorary degree, and
they wanted to pay for him to come and get the honorary degree.
And he has a tough election, so he's not going to pay for it
out of--you can't pay for it out of your campaign.
If you were doing official business or something related to
your job, you cannot use campaign funds. There is a very strict
division. You cannot use campaign funds except for campaigns.
People contribute to have you reelected. You can't use it to go
to an educational conference or to go to get an honorary
degree, because they did not give you that money for that
purpose, that was for campaigns.
So there are some situations--and I am all for knocking
down on influence of abuse of power on elected bodies, but
there are some situations where that legislator may be a better
legislator because of having attended a conference that they
understood the energy policies and the complexities, or the
education or the health care in a deeper form. And I would like
to throw that question back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Will the gentlelady yield for just a
second? I also note the problem is if Government pays for
everything, you get what Government wants you to see. You are
never going to get a trip to the ANWR, given the current line-
up, to go up and look at the negative side, if you don't get an
environmental group to pay for it. You will get the Government
coming up there showing you what they want to show you. If you
want to go to Mexico or Central America and see the effects of
free trade, the AFL-CIO ought to be entitled to take you down
there and give you their perspective. If you want the
Government perspective, you get the Government line.
I think there is some utility here, and I just throw that
out. I don't know how we are going to deal with it, because,
clearly, the trips got out of hand, but those are the kinds of
issues I think Mrs. Maloney is trying to get at.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I thought you were
going to make a joke about getting the honorary doctorate.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, I don't think Amherst is going to
give me--I earned it the first time, but I don't meet the
litmus test. [Laughter.]
Mrs. Maloney. I would like to followup on the chairman's
comments because I am in several disagreements with the current
administration on ANWR, on United Nations family planning, and
other areas where we have votes literally on the floor on these
issues. And in terms of the United Nations Population Fund, I
attended a conference in South America that was paid by a not-
for-profit on international family planning. In other words,
that would have been--you understand what I am saying--ANWR
would have been cutoff. So when you are taking a position in
opposition to the ruling Government, there would be no way for
you to learn the other side. Quite frankly, I was invited to
several conferences in Canada on campaign finance reform, that
was at one time in opposition to the administration.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, let's get this--you want to react
to that?
Ms. Claybrook. I would just like to say that I'm not
suggesting that the executive branch decide where you're
supposed to go, nor do I suggest that the leaders in Congress
decide where you should go. I think that the fund should be one
that's allocated to the Member of Congress to make that
decision. And they can't do everything, so they're going to
have to make certain decisions. And if your preference is to go
to South America or up to ANWR or to the Mexican border, then
that would be your decision, and that's the way I think the
fund ought to be allocated. Plus there already are some
committee funds that are allocated to Members of Congress to
take trips. And so that's the way I would see it.
I think that having a public fund frees you from all of
these other problems that you are experiencing now, and really
hurts the public trust. While I understand the need for
education institutions and organizations like the Aspen
Institute, perhaps we ought to have you--I still think that's
something that's a part of your job, and you're a public
official. I think it ought to be paid for by the public purse,
and I think it's the best investment that the taxpayer would
ever make. And by the way, it's one B-1 bomber for public
funding for the U.S. Congress every other year, and I think
that's a pretty cheap price, and I would do it any day of the
week, rather than have--we wouldn't have the deficit that we
have now because Members of Congress wouldn't be able to waste
the money that they do.
Ms. Pingree. I'll just add a couple of quick thoughts,
because, again, as I said, this is an important part of the
dialog between understanding what's appropriate and what could
be financed. I appreciate the concerns that you raised, and I,
again, just want to reinforce that I do think travel is
important for Members, and I think expanding your horizons is
important.
But the other sort of bigger picture question, which I
think is the reason that you're all here today and there's so
much attention, is what is it going to take to restore public
trust in Congress? I, again, don't think we're done here. I
think this is going to go on because it's a campaign cycle, and
because there's going to be more indictments.
And so the question becomes, I think of all of you, what
will you be willing to do to restore that faith again? It's not
as if anybody wanted to be in this situation or somehow we
think a gift ban will bring it all back together again. But it
may in fact be worth the investment of taxpayer dollars to
spend on a travel fund or to have public financing.
I just want to say, I know we're all quick to discount how
hard it is to use public money for these things, but the
Connecticut Legislature, with a Republican Governor and
Democrats, just passed public financing. The House in
California just passed public financing. And these things are
going to keep happening. So when the States and the public is
ahead of the rest of the elected officials, I think sometimes
you have to look behind and say, wait a minute, they might be
more ready than we think, and we shouldn't discount that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. My last comment. Congressmen Meehan and
Pelosi have really developed a bill, and they are introducing
it today, and I would like very much to hear your comments, and
I am sure the committee would on those two pieces of
legislation.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize with coming in late, and also to run off to
another commitment, but I do want to first thank you for your
leadership on this issue as we work to promote greater
confidence and trust in Congress, in the Federal Government in
general, and specifically with your legislation of the Federal
Pension Forfeiture Act. I know that our colleague, Congressman
Kirk, was here earlier, and I have been working with Mark on
the legislation that is similar in some ways to your
legislation, different in some ways, and specifically different
about the specific crimes that would be included, and we
certainly look forward to working with you as you move this
legislation forward to address the breadth of individuals who
should be held accountable for wrongful conduct, Members of
Congress, as well as executive political appointees, but also
the crimes that are relevant to their forfeiture of their
pensions.
On the broader issue, I certainly appreciate both of our
witnesses here. Your efforts and your organizations' efforts
focusing on good Government, and your input today, appreciate
the written testimony. I think this is an issue that is
integral to everything we do in Washington. As I say, having
the public's trust is critical to us being able to address
serious issues facing our Nation and people believing that the
actions we took were truly in their best interest and not in
the interest of a special interest. So restoring trust cuts
across all issues out there, and the efforts of your
organizations and the chairman's leadership hopefully will have
success and move very favorably in the right direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Any other questions? If not, anything
else you would like to add?
Ms. Claybrook. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, we very much appreciate it. We
want to, at least this committee, keep you a part of the dialog
as we move forward. If you have any additional thoughts you
would like to share with us, I will be happy to make it part of
the hearing.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Todd Russell Platts,
Elijah E. Cummings, and Hon. Jon C. Porter follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6073.111
<all>