Byrd Amendment; Section 112 of HUD Reform Act

Legal Opinion: GMP-0005

Index: 6.600, 6.665

Subject: Byrd Amendment; Section 112 of HUD Reform Act

October 17, 1991

MEMORANDUM FOR: Arnold Haiman, Director, Office of Ethics

FROM: Carole W. Wilson, Associate General Counsel for Equal

Opportunity and Administrative Law

SUBJECT: Responses to Requests for Legal Opinions

This memorandum contains our responses to various questions

raised by you and your staff in a meeting with members of my

staff on October 2, 1991, concerning the implementation of the

Byrd Amendment and Section 112 of the HUD Reform Act.

Byrd Amendment

Byrd Amendment

1\. Denver has added language to a standard format

\"Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance\" which states

that Standard Form-LLL must be submitted \"only if other than

Federal appropriated funds for lobbying activities have been used

or will be used.\" In addition, they have modified the

Certification Form by adding an asterisk after the description of

the Standard Form-LLL discussion to state \"Submit only if

applicable.\" Neither of the modified forms is an OPM or HUD

form. Apparently the addendum was prepared because entities

which were not engaged in lobbying were filing the Standard Form-

LLL.

Question: Is this language appropriate?

Question

Response: The addendum is not very clear. We suggest that

Response

the language be modified to state that the Standard Form-LLL must

be submitted only if other than Federal appropriated funds have

been used or will be used for lobbying activities. Otherwise, we

have no objection to the addendum.

2\. Some Program Offices (example CDBG) use funding

applications which contain one certification statement requiring

the applicant to certify to all mandatory certification

requirements (Byrd, drug-free environment, fair housing, etc.).

In the case of the CDBG package, the only signature which appears

on the application package is that which appears at the bottom of

the face page of the application package, under a statement which

includes the proviso that the applicant will comply with the

\"attached assurances\" if funding is approved.

2

Question: Is this signature sufficient or should the

Question

applicant also be required to separately sign the certification?

Response: As long as the signatory has the authority to

Response

bind the applicant to the certifications as well as to the other

parts of the package, we do not believe that a separate signature

is required. It is our position that the certifications could be

enforced. However, we do not have any opposition to requiring a

separate signature on the certification.

Section 112

Section 112

1\. The Registration form, by statute, requires the lobbyist

or consultant to state whether he or she has been employed by the

federal government during the preceding two years and, if so, in

what capacity.

Question: If the response to that question reveals that the

Question

lobbyist is violating the Standards of Conduct statutes and

regulations, what should be done?

Response: If the information provided on the registration

Response

form indicates a potential violation of statutory post-employment

restrictions, the matter should be referred to the Inspector

General. Both Section 112 and 18 USC Section 207 (restricting

employment activities following federal employment) were

intended, in part, to reduce \"influence-peddling\" by former

federal officials. The requirement in Section 112 that a

registrant report recent federal employment provides one

mechanism for ensuring that this \"influence-peddling\" does not

occur, both by revealing and, consequently, deterring violations

of 18 USC Section 207.

2\. A law firm which has registered as a lobbyist/consultant

has asked whether the state and local government exemption in

Section 1121 applies to departments of the federal government as

well.

Question: Is the federal government covered by Section 112?

Question

Response: Pursuant to Section 112 (f) the definition of

Response

the term \"person\" includes an \"individual\" and \"any other

organization or group of people.\" Technically, therefore, the

Federal government may be covered under Section 112. However,

the reporting and registration requirements of Section 112 extend

only to actions by persons who make expenditures or receive

1In fact, this exemption was created in the final rule, not

the statute.

3

consideration for the purpose of influencing decisions by

Department employees. As a matter of practice, covered

expenditures are not made by federal agencies.

We will communicate guidance to the remaining questions

which were raised during the October 2 meeting as soon as we have

completed our research into the issues which have been raised in

those questions.

If you have any questions concerning the above, please

contact either Judy Keeler or Aaron Santa Anna on my staff.