U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

32–968 PDF 2007

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF

GOVERNMENT ETHICS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 23, 2006

Serial No. 109–211

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Deputy Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION

JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

EX OFFICIO

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA

RON MARTINSON, Staff Director

SHANNON MEADE, Professional Staff Member

ALEX COOPER, Legislative Assistant

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 23, 2006 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Glynn, Marilyn, Acting Director, Office of Government Ethics .................... 6

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Glynn, Marilyn, Acting Director, Office of Government Ethics, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 10

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 3

Schmidt, Hon. Jean, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 33

(1)

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF

GOVERNMENT ETHICS

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY

ORGANIZATION,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Porter, Schmidt, Davis of Illinois, Norton, and Van Hollen.

Staff present: Ronald Martinson, staff director; Chad Bungard,

deputy staff director/chief counsel; Shannon Meade, professional

staff member; Patrick Jennings, OPM detailee/senior counsel; Chad

Christofferson and Alex Cooper, legislative assistants; Mark Stephenson and Tania Shand, minority professional staff members;

and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. PORTER. I would like to bring the meeting to order, I appreciate you all being here today. This is a hearing entitled, ‘‘Reauthorization of the Office of Government Ethics.’’ A quorum being

present, I would like to begin the meeting.

Ethics in government has been an issue of considerable prominence not only in Washington but across this country and in the

media recently. I believe that Congress must take every step possible to protect and sustain public confidence that Federal officials

are honest and trustworthy. Today’s hearing affords us such an opportunity by allowing this subcommittee to examine the role of the

Office of Government Ethics [OGE], and to consider extending its

authorization for appropriations which expires at the end of this

fiscal year.

Undoubtedly, OGE performs critically essential ethics functions

throughout the executive branch, such as reviewing disclosure

statements to resolve potential conflicts of interest for nominees

and appointees to the Senate confirmed positions, conducting oversight and evaluations of ethics programs throughout the executive

branch, issuing ethics regulations and guidance pertaining to the

executive branch employees, providing ethics counseling to agency

officials, developing ethics training programs, and providing ethics

training for Presidential appointees and other employees throughout the executive branch.

2

The ultimate question to be asked is whether these important

functions should be handled by OGE as an independent agency or

as a separate office within an existing agency or department.

Within the next couple of weeks, I will be introducing the Ethics

in Government Reauthorization Act. This bill will extend the authorization of appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics,

through fiscal year 2009, will require the Comptroller General of

the United States to study by the end of fiscal year 2008 the functions of OGE and the need for the permanent authorization of OGE

as a stand-alone agency or the transfer of the office’s functions to

another agency or department.

This GAO study will greatly assist the subcommittee in reaching

the right determination on OGE’s permanent reauthorization.

OGE’s functions are critical and it is vital that when a permanent

decision is made it is made with a complete understanding of the

functions and the role of OGE so that the public has the highest

confidence that the government’s business is conducted with impartiality and integrity.

OGE is a small agency within the executive branch. It was created by the Ethics in Government Act in 1978, originally part of

the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. OGE became a separate agency in 1989 as a part of the Office of Government Ethics

Reauthorization Act of 1988. The rationale supporting OGE’s independence was to not only promote its visibility and heighten awareness of ethics but to also promote administrative efficiency.

A recent proposal submitted by the Republican Study Committee

[RSC], in its fiscal year 2007 budget recommends the elimination

of all budget authority for OGE. According to the RSC, the job now

performed by OGE can be performed by the Department of Justice

and does not need a separate agency.

By eliminating OGE, the estimated savings in 2007 would be $11

million. In terms of cost savings another option is to transfer

OGE’s functions back to OPM. OGE, however, has indicated to the

subcommittee staff that having its functions embedded within a

large department or even OPM would be adverse to effective performance of its duties because of the added layer of bureaucracy.

Additionally, OGE pointed out to the staff that having it as a

stand-alone agency highlights the importance of its functions and

gives needed visibility to an ethics program in the executive

branch.

The American people expect government to be open, transparent

and accountable. As such, it should be the practice of Federal Government to maintain a high standard of ethics in order to build and

maintain the public’s trust. The Office of Government Ethics has

been an important executive branch agency that helps ensure accountability and openness.

With that, I would like to thank Ms. Glynn, the Acting Director

for being here, and I look forward to the discussion.

I would like to now recognize my colleague and friend ranking

minority member of the subcommittee, Mr. Danny Davis. Mr.

Davis.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me

thank you for calling this hearing. And I guess there couldn’t be

a better time in which to talk about and discuss ethics in all facets

of government. It has been 2 years since the subcommittee has

held an oversight hearing on the Office of Government Ethics, and

it is prudent that we establish a record of how the agency is operating.

OGE’s mission is not only to prevent and to resolve conflicts of

interest and to foster high ethical standards for Federal employees,

it is also to strengthen the public’s confidence that the government’s business is conducted with impartiality and integrity.

OGE does this in the following ways: By reviewing and certifying

the financial disclosure forms filed by Presidential nominees who

require Senate confirmation; by serving as the primary source of

advice and counseling on conduct and financial disclosure issues;

and by providing information on and promoting understanding of

ethical standards in executive agencies.

OGE plays a critical role in preventing conflicts of interest on the

part of officials and employees of the executive branch. Given the

ethical lapse by Federal officials that have been reported in the

media, we need OGE now more than ever.

I look forward to hearing from Ms. Glynn regarding OGE’s reauthorization, the work that it has been doing, and the work that it

needs to continue to do.

So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing and

I look forward to hearing from our witness, and I yield back.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Davis, and I appreciate your comments and we concur someone now more than ever needs to be in

this oversight position and we do appreciate your comments.

Also to my immediate left is my colleague, Jean Schmidt. Do you

have opening comments?

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on the reauthorization of the Office of Government

Ethics.

It is imperative that we carefully consider the issues related to

this reauthorization, and I am looking forward to hearing from

Mrs. Glynn, the Acting Director of OGE.

OGE was established in 1978 by the Ethics in Government Act

to provide leadership and guidance to the executive branch on ethics matters.

OGE educates executive branch employees on ethics matters,

issues regulations and opinions, provides oversight, attempts to

prevents ethics conflicts and resolves conflicts that do occur.

Fostering the highest ethical standards is of the utmost importance in our democratic system of government. We must do all that

we can to ensure that our citizens have confidence in our government and our leaders. OGE’s leadership is an important part of

that process.

H.R. 4071, legislation introduced by my colleague from Cincinnati, Representative Steve Chabot, would extend the authorization of the Office of Government Ethics through fiscal year 2011.

It appears that this is indeed a prudent use of our taxpayer dollars.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and I

look forward to Mrs. Glynn’s testimony.

6

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much. I would like to note for the

record I have mentioned looking at the Office of Government Ethics

with a study through the fiscal year 2008. I would like to correct

that to 2007; 2008 was a mistype.

At this time I would like to do some procedural matters and ask

unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to

submit written statements and questions for the hearing record,

and any answers to written records provided by the witnesses also

be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be included in

the hearing record, that all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, so ordered.

It is also the practice of the subcommittee to administer the oath

to all witnesses, so today if you would please stand, raise your

right hand.

Thank you.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. PORTER. Let the record reflect that the witness has answered

in the affirmative. Please be seated.

Note that as far as testimony today we originally said approximately 5 minutes, but you may take a little longer if you would

like. We appreciate you being here today and, again as it was mentioned in our opening comments, it is very critical now more than

ever in the ethics of government and government employees. So we

appreciate what you have done in the past and we look forward to

working with you in the future.

And today we are going to hear from our Director, Marilyn

Glynn, the Acting Director of the Office of Government Ethics.

Again, thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF MARILYN GLYNN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

Ms. GLYNN. I definitely appreciate the opportunity for speaking

today. Chairman Porter, Ranking Member Davis and Representative Schmidt, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking today. I appreciate your statements and honestly, I can’t say that I disagree

with any of them. There might be a few things here and there, but

the sentiments I think are shared by people throughout the executive branch.

I am the Acting Director of OGE, but I am also the General

Counsel. I have worked there for quite a large number of years so

I have a little bit of a memory, institutional memory of the office.

As you mentioned, our current authorization ends at the end of

this fiscal year. We are seeking a 5-year reauthorization along the

approach of H.R. 4701 that Representative Schmidt referenced, and

in a minute I’ll tell you why that timing is important to us.

I have prepared a written statement that sets out in detail the

history of the office, and so on, so I would like to try to keep my

comments as brief as possible today and try to stay within the 5

minutes.

We are a small agency, but we have a unique and crucial mission. Our organic act states it succinctly that we are created with

7

the intention of providing the overall direction for the prevention

of conflicts of interest in the executive branch.

We were created as part of the Ethics in Government Act of

1978, along with the IG cadre, and you know the reform efforts

that took place at that time. And Congress stated at the time that

they were looking for a central expert ethics unit in the executive

branch to provide consistency, credibility, and oversight for preventing conflicts of interest.

As you noted, we were originally part of OPM. In 1988, however,

Congress felt that being buried in a bigger organization of that

type was not as efficient as it should have been and they made the

decision to make us a separate agency. We have since been reauthorized four times, most recently in 2002.

We continue to perform the important prevention functions for

which we were created. Other agencies, like the Department of

Justice and components of agencies such as the Inspectors General,

focus on enforcement of ethics rules and laws. Only OGE has as its

central function the prevention of conflicts of interest and the promotion of high ethical standards.

And our ethics program, as you also eloquently noted, is more

than simply just another government activity. It is an essential element in the fabric of our government. Few would argue with the

notion that the success of a democracy depends on public confidence in the integrity of government operations, and that is why

OGE was created, to set in place policies and programs to enhance

our citizens’ understanding that government is working for them

and not for special interests.

Now, let me just mention a few of our most important functions

and a couple of examples of some what I would call recent accomplishments.

First, we play an integral role in the Presidential appointments

process. I don’t want to underestimate this because we spend a lot

of time on this function. We review the financial statements of all

Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation and at both

ends of Pennsylvania Avenue people rely on us quite heavily to determine whether incoming appointees are going to be free from conflicts of interest.

We draft what we call ethics agreements. These are actual written documents that incoming appointees must promise to adhere to

during their time in government, and we track their compliance

with those promises. So in a Presidential transition year, as you

can imagine, this is a major activity. But even in a nontransition

year this is a key function and we do spend a lot of time on this

activity.

For example in 2005, we reviewed and certified 1,500 forms submitted by Presidential appointees. That includes nominees and

folks who are filing forms on an annual basis and termination

forms.

Another important aspect of our prevention program involves the

oversight of executive agencies. We conduct periodic audits of the

ethics programs at agencies to make sure they are working well.

For example, a recent audit of NIH resulted in the issuance of new,

stricter standards for NIH scientists who were engaged in consulting activities.

8

A central OGE function is developing ethics policies. This is done

primarily through regulations on a wide range of subjects that includes standards of conduct, financial disclosure, financial conflicts

of interest, post employment, and ethics training.

Just this month, for example, we issued two rules, a final rule

streamlining and improving the confidential financial disclosure

system and then another rule, a proposed rule, describing the

standards of conduct that would apply to folks who are coming into

the government from the private sector under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act as detailees.

In recent years—well, I should go back and say we also provide

a large body of written guidance, and we do that through opinions

to individuals who have questions. But we also sort of proactively

write memos and things of that type to agency ethics officials to

help them understand how to interpret the ethics rules.

In recent years we have published a pretty big compendium on

post-employment rules, for example, and we also published a book

length document called a reviewer’s reference. This provides detailed guidance to agencies who are reviewing financial disclosure

forms. This kind of high quality written guidance helps ensure consistency across the agencies on how they interpret and enforce ethics rules.

We maintain an active outreach program to agency ethics officials, including a desk officer system that assigns designated OGE

employees to provide prompt assistance to specific agencies.

Training is an important part of our prevention efforts. Our regulations require that agencies provide ethics training to their employees. But to promote high quality training, we develop aids ourself, such as Videos and training programs that agencies can use.

We also conduct our own training, both for ethics officials and

sometimes for employees. This year, for example, we expect to train

approximately 2,300 ethics officials over the course of about 70 sessions on various topics.

In addition to these additional programmatic functions, we are

uniquely positioned to focus on emerging ethics issues. For example, we recently issued reports on the effectiveness of the criminal

conflict of interest laws and on the financial disclosure law, including recommendations for improvement, and to draw attention to

new ethics issues that may emerge from the government’s increasing use of contract personal OGE testified before the Services Acquisition Advisory Panel and participated in a working group of the

National Academy of Public Administration.

Another emerging issue involves the ethics issues that arise during a response to emergencies. So earlier this year we organized a

conference of ethics officials to develop best practices and how they

address the ethics issues that come up during an event such as a

Hurricane Katrina.

Finally, I want to note that OGE works hard to maintain an effective relationship with the enforcement community, including

agency Inspectors General and the Department of Justice.

As an example, we advise IGs on the ethics laws and rules and

how they might apply in specific investigations. We maintain a

close liaison with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal DiviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:44 Mar 05, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\32968.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
9

sion at DOJ and the Office of Legal Counsel. This helps ensure consistent guidance on the application of the conflict of interest laws.

Now I think what I have just described gives you a good idea of

who we are at OGE and what we do. I urge you to consider the

importance of our mission, which I think I have already demonstrated that we do, and the significant activities we carry out

with a relatively small budget.

As the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound

of cure, and OGE has been very successful, I think, in delivering

that ounce of prevention.

Now I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Glynn follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Mr. PORTER. Thank you for your testimony. Before we go on to

the questions section, I would like to know, Mr. Van Hollen, any

opening statement you would like to make at this time?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to get to the

questions as soon as possible. Just to underline my support for

your work at OGE and instead of even considering any weakening

of OGE and the resources we provide to OGE, I think the current

climate and recent events throughout Washington are testimony to

the fact that we need to make sure we strengthen our ethics laws

and our ethics oversight. And I have a number of questions at the

appropriate time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you.

I guess just a couple of things before we get into the questions,

more of a comment. I think we need to strengthen our ethics rules

and regulations and enforcement. I understand you are not in the

enforcement end, but could you maybe walk us through the process? Let’s say I am an applicant or I am going to have to go before

an appointment hearing in the Senate or considering an appointment. Can you walk us through how that process works?

Ms. GLYNN. Sure. If you are talking about senior officials, Presidential appointees, obviously they are selected by the White House.

The first thing after they fill out those mounds of paper that everyone complains about they come to our office, not physically but via

their financial disclosure statement.

That statement is really important because what it does, it gives

us the opportunity to kind of set the stage to get them off on the

right foot in government. We go through these statements literally

with a fine tooth comb, line by line, and we communicate either

with the appointee or the nominee directly or their attorney or an

accountant or the agency where this person would go, and we highlight all the things that create problems, conflicts of interest or impartiality concerns.

We are not that popular, frankly, with this group because we require a lot of divestitures, a lot of recusal, and resignations from

positions. So people tend to have to turn their lives upside down

when they come into the executive branch in government, and we

are the body that is in place to make sure that it happens.

As I say, they, all this is sort of consolidated into a written document called the ethics agreement, which they sign or the agency

signs in a letter to our office, and then we transmit that entire

package to the Senate committee that is considering the nomination and they take that into account in deciding whether to confirm

the person.

Once they are in the position, they have 90 days to comply with

all these promises they made in this ethics agreement, and we

track each person carefully. They need to get actual written extensions of time if they have some reason why they can’t comply, but

the overwhelming majority comply promptly if not sooner than the

90 days.

Then after they are in their position I would say a lot of the responsibility for this nominee shifts over to the agency ethics official, who is the person designated for spearheading that ethics efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:44 Mar 05, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\32968.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
19

fort at that agency. And that person presumably works with the

appointee on a frequent basis to advise them.

They only come back to our office after that, once again as a

form, because they file financial disclosure forms every year. And

then when they leave government we do carefully once again review those forms and we are required to certify them. If we are not

satisfied we don’t certify them. And once again we make people

take steps to make changes if there are problems.

So that is kind of the life cycle of a nominee. They are also required to have annual ethics training, but their agency does that

training for them. We see our job more as training the trainers. In

other words, I think I mentioned in my oral statement that we are

training 2,300 ethics officials this year at 70 sessions. So our job

is to make sure that this army of ethics officials understands the

advice that they need to be giving to their appointees.

Now for an average employee, a person that is not a Presidential

appointee, the majority of those do not file financial disclosure

forms although, honestly, 260,000 Federal, mid-level Federal employees file financial forms that are confidential. They are not

made available to the public. And those folks get an initial ethics

orientation when they come into government, and then they are on

the receiving end of ethics training. But I would say that they

probably don’t get the same hands-on attention that the top level

people would get for obvious reasons. I think that the top level people who are more in the public’s eye are those that are most likely

to be scrutinized carefully by the media and others. So those are

the ones we are most concerned that don’t take any missteps.

Mr. PORTER. Are there any things that you would suggest that

would give more teeth to the process, to give you more authority?

And by the way, I don’t hear complaints and I appreciate the job

that you do, and you should be commended.

But are there some things that you would suggest as we look to

the future that would improve your ability to be a larger part of

this process?

Ms. GLYNN. I honestly believe that the process is working pretty

well right now. I don’t believe that there are many unresolved conflicts of interest or instances of unethical conduct in the executive

branch that go unpunished.

We do have currently so-called corrective action authority that

allows us to actually hold a hearing if an agency or an individual

at an agency refuses to comply on an ongoing basis with some direction in effect that we have given them, and we have never had

to use it. I think we have a little bit of the power of the bully pulpit. We can call very high level folks at the agency, all the way up

to a Secretary’s office or an Administrator’s office, and say, so and

so on your staff is doing thus and such and it needs to stop. And

it stops immediately. We do not find pushback from agencies. So

I am not sure that there is a need to particularly strengthen our

role.

Since every agency has an Inspector General, there is a body in

place already to investigate allegations of actual misconduct, and

I am not sure that having us duplicate that function would really

make sense. So we are——

20

Mr. PORTER. If you find something then you turn it over to the

IG. Then the next time if you find a problem——

Ms. GLYNN. Yes.

Mr. PORTER [continuing]. That is not correctable, I assume?

Ms. GLYNN. Yes, that is true. Well, let me put it this way. If it

is something that rises to the level of potential criminal violation

we would refer it to the Department of Justice, to the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division.

If it is not something of that type, if it is more in the sort of

fuzzy, gray ethical area, we would then talk to the Inspector General. And if it is a really fuzzy area we just go directly to the agency ethics official. I would say, for example, in any given week I

make about three phone calls to agencies based on articles I read

in the paper about certain things that may have happened. And of

course as we all know, the papers are not necessarily always right

on target.

But it is a common practice for us to call agencies and say, can

you look into this and report back to us? And they always do. I

can’t think of a case where they haven’t responded appropriately.

Mr. PORTER. Maybe you can check into some of the papers, too,

at the same time to make sure that they are saying everything

properly. I am saying that in jest.

Ms. GLYNN. I know you are, but just as an aside I can’t tell you

how many times we have written to the Washington Post asking

them to correct certain things that they have written and they

never do.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Glynn, do you know how many Presidential appointees require financial confirmation?

Ms. GLYNN. 1,100. 1,100, thereabouts. That is a rough——

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Roughly 1,100 of those.

The chairman mentioned in his opening statement some question

relative to the possibility—or some people believe or think that it

might make sense to rejoin the function with another agency. Of

course there are others who think that its independent status is

absolutely essential.

Do you have a position?

Ms. GLYNN. Yes, I do. I don’t favor folding us into another agency

for some of the reasons that we spelled out in our written testimony.

Honestly, I think history shows that being buried in a bigger organization really diminishes the importance of the function and it

sort of suggests that it is just another government program.

I also think that I would be a little concerned about hampering

with the independence of the Director of the office. I think our

agency, while small but mighty, has a good reputation for independence. In the time that I have been there, which is about 15

years, I don’t recall us ever being accused of acting on the basis of

partisan, any kind of political partisanship, and I think that is a

very, very important quality that needs to be recognized.

Honestly, I think if this agency ever were to become politicized

then I would have to agree, I think it should be abolished because

I think it wouldn’t be performing a useful function.

21

But having it independent—although it is not truly independent

of course, the Director reports to the President—but having it independent of another agency I think ensures somewhat that we

wouldn’t fall into any kind of partisan political squabbles and, in

particular, I think if we were to be merged into an enforcement oriented agency such as the Department of Justice, I would be very

concerned that the kind of preventive activities that we consider

important would be sort of lost in that sexier and more glamorous

activity of prosecution. I would think it would be a mistake to do

that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. There are always those who attempt to

make cases on the basis of cost efficiency and effectiveness. Do you

think that the preventive nature of the agency is such that it really

diminishes the notion? Because it seems to me that if you prevent

something from happening, then you don’t have to go through all

of the other processes of what to do about it, and it would actually

be more cost effective in the long run to keep the agency independent than to be able to make the case that if it was some place else

you might save a bit of money.

Ms. GLYNN. I wish I could prove that with statistics, but I do believe that, as I said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of

cure. I would think that a single criminal prosecution would be

vastly more expensive than some kind of a training effort directed

at thousands of employees, and hopefully we could keep the vast

majority of those thousands of employees out of trouble through a

training effort.

As far as the cost effectiveness of rolling us into another agency,

I have to question whether $11 million truly would be saved. Our

budget for fiscal year 2007 is $11.4 I think, and unless we were to

truly abolish all the functions all that money couldn’t be saved. I

guess I would have to concede, and I certainly don’t want to quibble, that we would probably be able to save on some administrative

costs because we wouldn’t need to have our own IT people, let’s

say, or our own administrative officer. But I am not sure that if

we wanted to continue these preventive activities whether we

would really truly save that much.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Can you think of one instance, without

divulging any information, where you could pretty concretely suggest that a preventive action had occurred that probably saved the

government some money?

Ms. GLYNN. Honestly, I could probably name hundreds of them.

Particularly when a top level official gets in trouble for some kind

of misconduct, we all know what happens in Washington. The

media descends like herpes essentially on this person, and the

agency’s Public Affairs Program and Office of General Counsel

spends essentially all their time in trying to explain why this happened, and so on. Really very good people who come into government with good motivation and a lot of talent sometimes get sidetracked by some small ethical misstep, and then the attention of

the entire agency is devoted to explaining why this misstep wasn’t

as bad as it really seems.

As far as a concrete example is concerned, I can think of a case—

we see a lot of the issues come up on financial disclosure forms, of

22

course, because people have outside activities and outside associations that need to be dealt with and addressed.

I can think of a situation where a person was—once again this

was a Presidential appointee—was very reluctant to sell certain

stock and to get out of a certain company and divest interest in

that company, and we insisted that this person do that. And that

company turned out to be Enron, and that person turned out to be

in a position that had some governmental involvement with Enron.

So I think that is a concrete example.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much and thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for your indulgence. I know I went a bit over but I appreciate it.

Ms. SCHMIDT. Yes, thank you. First off, reaction to the $11.4 million in your budget. Even if you were to be placed into another department or agency, you would still have to have an operating

budget to process all of the volumes of activity, so the savings

would not be in moving it over just in one or two positions, am I

correct?

Ms. GLYNN. Oh, absolutely. As I say, if we want to really continue these functions focused on prevention, really, I think all we

would lose is our administrative staff, which is—there would be a

savings there but I think we would be talking more in the realm

of——

Ms. SCHMIDT. Pennies compared to when you are talking $11

million, your savings would be far less?

Ms. GLYNN. Yes, I agree.

Ms. SCHMIDT. I guess what I would like to hear, what have been

the major accomplishments of OGE since its independence from

OPM?

Ms. GLYNN. Once it was made independent from OPM, the then

President Bush signed an Executive order which more or less vastly increased our responsibilities. He charged us with drafting a

comprehensive code of conduct for the entire executive branch

which there had never really been anything of that type before.

That was a very big project and we did that in a timely way, and

it has been, I think, a good exercise.

He also charged us in an Executive order with drafting regulations interpreting criminal conflict of interest laws, post-employment laws, and we have done all that. Those are all major accomplishments of the office.

It has been really a very useful exercise because finally the various agencies are all kind of on the same page to the extent possible in interpreting these laws.

What I think is another big accomplishment is that we established this agency audit function. This means we go into agencies,

we do right now, with our current staffing, about 35 a year, and

we actually examine how well their ethics programs are operating.

As I mentioned in my oral testimony, a good example of that is the

NIH and involving the problems of NIH a couple of years ago.

There was a certain preventive effect in having those audits because when the agency knows we are coming in then they all rush

around and that is when they start putting resources toward the

programs.

23

So it is actually quite a useful thing. I think we have done a very

good job with those agency audits. I think we have done a decent

job with our training program as well.

But we are now moving into a new era, and I wanted to emphasize something that I mentioned in my oral testimony and I think

is in my statement, too, and that is that we are seeing, as we all

know, an increasing use of contractors as more or less substitutes

for government employees, and I think this is really the big issue

that we need to address next. I think there is going to be concern

raised that contractor personnel who function more or less as employees sitting in government agency buildings side by side with

real—when I say real government employees, you know what I

mean—and yet they are not held to the same level of accountability

as employees are. And I think we need to get on top of this question. And I am not suggesting that I know the answer, and I am

not suggesting that I think they need to be subject to the whole

panoply of rules that regular employees are subject to, but I think

we ought to start addressing the question and deciding for purposes of ensuring confidence in government that our contractor employees are also held to high ethical standards.

So that is our next—on my watch anyway—our next big project.

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you. And one final question, how would you

describe the current state of ethics in the executive branch, and

what is your basis for this assessment?

Ms. GLYNN. I think it is pretty good. We do a survey of agencies

every year and ask them how many disciplinary actions they take

against employees for violation of ethics rules. Now I wish I could

swear to the accuracy of this, but this is information reported by

the agencies, so you know I can’t. But what we found is that consistently the overwhelming majority of violations occur with misuse

of property and time. You know the kind that, I don’t want to say

penny ante things but the smaller things, sort of taking a piece of

paper home, small things, wasting time on government time. As far

as significant violations of things like criminal laws and having

conflicting financial interests, those kinds of violations reported to

us are barely in the hundreds every year. And we do a prosecution

survey every year. We go to the Department of Justice and all the

individual U.S. Attorney’s offices and ask them to report to us the

prosecutions that they have each year. And I would say it is usually in the 15 to 25 range. So considering there are almost 3 million

executive branch employees, I think we are doing pretty well.

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you.

Mr. PORTER. When working with the GAO study I would like to

include the contract portion and your recommendation.

Ms. GLYNN. I would welcome that.

Mr. PORTER. I think it is critical that they be held to as high a

standard, if not higher in some cases, but I certainly would appreciate as we work together on that to include that in the GAO report.

Ms. GLYNN. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that would be

very helpful because there is a lack of data right now on exactly

how many contractors there are and what they are doing and if

GAO could assist us in gathering data of that type I think that

would be extremely useful.

24

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms.

Glynn, for your testimony. I agree with respect to the contractors

because you said you have Federal employees sitting right next to

Federal contractors doing in many cases similar work, and it

makes no sense to have different sets of ethics rules applying to

them both. They should both be held to the high standard. So I

would encourage all of us to work together toward that end.

The full committee, the full Government Reform Committee,

back in February had a hearing on various ethics issues in the government and the result of that was actually a piece of legislation

that was introduced by the chairman of the full committee, Tom

Davis. Mr. Waxman and I was the cosponsor which later I believe

unanimously passed the full committee, and part of that gave additional responsibility actually to the OGE. Have you had a chance

to look at that bill?

Ms. GLYNN. I have, I am familiar with it. I have some concerns

about that bill. As far as the additional responsibilities for OGE,

I think it is evident that we couldn’t do it with our current staffing

and budget, so we would be begging for more money. That goes

without saying. But beyond that aspect of it, which I know seems

a little parochial, I have concerns with two major things or maybe

three.

One is there is some overlap in that bill with existing provisions

in criminal law, and I think there is a potential for some confusion

among employees, were the bill to be passed, about which law applies in which situation.

The second thing I am somewhat concerned about is the fact that

it would call for current employees to keep a record of all contacts

made to them by folks outside the government and I honestly——

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. By employees covered by the bill I believe not

every, but certain, depending on their level of responsibility.

Ms. GLYNN. Of responsibility, that is right. But I think some

thought needs to be given to how practical that really would be and

whether changes, exceptions need to be made for common sense situations.

I understand that it is addressed at lobbying type communications made to government officials. But as drafted, it is considerably broader than that.

And finally, this is my own major concern with the bill, and that

is the cooling, I guess what I would call a reverse cooling off period

that would require folks who come from certain industries for, I

think it is 2 years, from participating in government matters, affecting or involving that industry.

I think that would be very difficult. I think we would have trouble getting the experts that we need in certain agencies, scientists

and securities experts and things of that type.

So honestly I think it needs a little massaging.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate the comments and maybe it would

be helpful for all of us if you could put some of these suggestions

in writing if you have the opportunity to do that.

Ms. GLYNN. Yes. If I can get clearance from the Office of Management and Budget, I will.

25

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You don’t have any objection to the other cooling off period; in other words, if you are a Federal employee and

you are doing business with somebody and part of your responsibilities involved overseeing someone in the private sector, that you

would have a 2-year cooling off period before you left government

service and——

Ms. GLYNN. We issued——

Mr. VAN HOLLEN [continuing]. Started lobbying the same government agency that you were——

Ms. GLYNN. Right. It is the extension of. There is a current 1-

year cooling off period. This would extend to 2 years. We have a

report on the criminal conflict of interest laws that we just issued

January of this year in which we do not endorse that provision. We

think that the current restrictions are sufficient, but I can’t say

that it particularly troubles me if that bill were to pass.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And who is it that made that recommendation?

Ms. GLYNN. Our office.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Against the 2 years. OK, let me ask you with

respect to waiver authority, because as I understand the situation

now, if you wanted to get a waiver from, for example, the 1-year

cooling off period, you don’t come through your office, you go

through the office—or the provisions that prevents you from negotiating, outside employment——

Ms. GLYNN. It is that. It is that. It is that.

Mr. VAN HOLLAND. Outside employment at the same time you

are in a job. Those are important provisions, wouldn’t you agree?

Ms. GLYNN. Yes.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But the waiver right now as I understand it

your office has no oversight—you provide guidance but you don’t

provide direct, you don’t have the sign-off?

Ms. GLYNN. We don’t have the sign-off authority. By Executive

order agencies are supposed to consult with us as practicable.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. One of the provisions in this bill that this committee passed would give you some centralized sign-off authority to

provide uniformity. Do you have any objection to that?

Ms. GLYNN. Honestly I am not sure if we are in the best position

to make the decisions, but it may be a tempest in a teapot because

these waivers for negotiating employment are extremely rare. And

I know which ones, I know which waiver prompted this provision

to be put into the bill. But honestly very few agencies issue waivers. It may have been a kind of unique situation. So while I am

not sure that it is a necessary provision, I don’t think that the

workload for OGE would be that great because these waivers are

hardly ever issued anyway.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If I could, Mr. Chairman, and again this is testimony that was given before the full committee at the time that

we were considering these issues back in February from Public Citizen, who pointed out that at the Department of Health and

Human Services in a period of time from January 2000 to 2004

there were 37 requests for waivers, all 37 were granted. That is in

one agency.

And as you point out, there was one that was particularly controversial because Tom Scully, who at the time was the head of

CMS, as you know, was given the authority by the then Secretary

26

of the Department, Secretary Thompson, to negotiate an employment contract with a number of entities at the same time that had

an interest in the prescription drug bill, the pharmaceutical bill before the Congress and before the administration. And at the same

time he was the head of CMS which, as you know, is an agency

with a direct interest as well.

Ms. GLYNN. Hmm-hmm.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It seems to me, and I don’t know why, assuming you had the resources to do it, why it doesn’t make sense to

have one entity make decisions with respect to granting waivers so

this is not done on a political basis, so it is done in a uniform manner, and that everybody knows what the rules are and everyone is

playing by one set of rules.

Ms. GLYNN. I mean, the argument against having it come to

OGE is that we are not really close to the facts. So using Mr.

Scully as an example, we would have to kind of do a little mini investigation to figure out exactly what is he involved in, what are

the hot issues in the Medicare program. Those are things we would

not normally know.

I am not saying we can’t do it. I am not sure that it needs to

come to us because of the rarity of these waivers to begin with. And

in that particular case I have to say that I think the government,

the executive branch as a whole, took very swift and decisive action

in response to it. Our office put out a memo right after that explaining why we think these waivers are a bad idea and reminding

agencies that they are supposed to consult with us on them, which

they did not in that case by the way, as well as the White House

put out a memo saying that for Presidential appointees any such

waiver also had to be cleared through the White House Counsel’s

Office.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is now administration policy and that

could change. I thought you made a good argument about the need

for the independence for OGE and not folding it into another agency, and so I find it a little bit contradictory to say, well, in cases

of waivers it is OK if those are made within an agency when I

think it probably would make sense from an ethics point of view

to have an independent agency, such as yourself, make that review

for the same reasons you said it was important to maintain the

independence of the agency. Otherwise you have people within an

agency making decisions about waivers for other individuals within

that same agency and, looking at the data, and maybe all 37 cases

were good but 37 out of 37, especially since Scully was one of them,

everybody recognizes this was a case that should not have been

granted. It seems to me an independent review on a centralized

uniform basis makes sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. I am going to have another round of

questions here in a moment, but Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton is

here and would like to make an opening comment.

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry I wasn’t here to hear your entire testimony. Just following my colleague’s concern, I heard you, and I can

understand what you are talking about, we are not—the notion of

independence for me is really not to have somebody do a—how

27

would we say it in the law—a de novo review. It is much more like

appellate, it is much more like fresh eyes to break it down.

I am concerned about notification of somebody who can ask questions. They may not have the background, as you I think quite

rightly say, to do the review because knowledge of the underlying

issues are important here. And I am not sure I would want you to

go through that so long as the staff knew the kind—and here one

doesn’t have to know a thing about the agency, not a thing, in

order to ask questions that could rise, that could bring issues to the

top, which might otherwise not be flagged. But that of course requires that every time there is a waiver there is a mandatory opportunity for your office to give that kind of fresh eyed look and

that you are given the opportunity to raise those questions and

that it is required of the agency to respond to those questions within a period of time before the waiver is granted.

I am not certain whether that is in the legislation, I mean

whether those steps are specifically included in the legislation, but,

Mr. Chairman, that would be my concern. Could you indicate to me

whether those are in the legislation or if you have any difficulty

with any of that?

Ms. GLYNN. I think the point you made is very well taken about

the benefit of our office being involved is that we can point out

things that others haven’t thought of. And in particular one of the

things that we stress now on these waiver consultations is that we

tell agencies what other agencies are doing. They are not uniform

at all. Some agencies are very free with waivers. Others are not.

And I am not talking about waivers for negotiating for employment. I am just talking about waivers generally.

We try to not impose a sense of uniformity here, but we try to

get agencies to understand the kinds of things that other agencies

are taking into account so that they can sort of improve their

thinking on the process.

Now, if what you believe needs to be done is that after that

whole consultation is done that we still need to be the issuing entity, as I say, for waivers for negotiating an employment, that

wouldn’t concern me terribly. I think it would be a little bit of a

workload, but not so much that it would be debilitating because

there aren’t many of those waivers. If we were talking about waivers from the criminal conflict of interest law generally, then we

would have a huge problem, because the criminal conflict of interest law is extremely broad and very prophylactic and waivers for

stock holdings and things of that sort are issued by some agencies

routinely and if we had to be sign-off authority on every single one

of those we would be in trouble.

Ms. NORTON. I am also less concerned about the bureaucracy. I

understand the piling on of regulations. I believe in, I believe that

government should regulate things and I believe that we do a disservice if we just make it so hard to regulate and people say what

the hell in the first place. I am really, I am looking for what concerns me, and frankly, the issuance is of less concern to me.

And I don’t speak for anyone but myself. What is of concern to

me, though, is that the fresh eyes again speak in, I think, terms

that I think everybody can understand, that the concerns that were

raised, the questions were raised be written down somewhere, that

28

the answers be written down somewhere. And here I am not talking about a transcript, and that we have a written understanding

that these issues were ever raised.

Now, if somebody wants to go ahead, after you have raised the

flag, you know, at their own peril, I really wonder if they’d do that.

Let me tell you what my overall concern is. My concern is less for

straight out violations of the kind we seldom see. It’s the extent to

which we have lost our way on appearance. When you’re a first

year law student, you learn that violations of the law are rare, but

lawyers are held to a higher standard. Government officials are

held to a higher standard than whether or not you’ve done something crooked.

Because you have the public trust in your hands, the standard

is how does this appear. Because if it does not appear to be

straight, then, of course, confidence in that, not only you, but in

government, is lost. So for me, this is, an agency might well not

see the appearances problem. The agency knows exactly what this

person is going to be doing and they know good and well it doesn’t

involve any conflict, and that may be quite beside the point. When

you raise issues, I take it that appearances are as important as violations.

Ms. GLYNN. Well, we’ve certainly raised the appearance question.

I think that everyone commonly calls that the ‘‘Washington Post

Test,’’ that if it’s something that you wouldn’t want seen written

in the paper about you the next day, then you better think twice

about doing it. We actually have a rule that narrows that test quite

a bit, and what we say is if a reasonable person with knowledge

of the relevant facts would question your impartiality, then you

shouldn’t do it. We always raise those issues with people. We might

say, legally you can do this, but do you really want to? Is this a

good idea? So I think your point is well taken.

Ms. NORTON. I like your Washington Post rule. I think that

somehow gets the point across. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. You know, I mentioned earlier about the GAO being

involved over a period of time and a short window of time. But

also, I am convinced that we must reauthorize it as soon as possible. And I certainly have an open mind as to the changes. It appears to me, from the short time I have had to look at this, that

things are working quite well. And again, I applaud you for that.

Under the assumption of the reauthorization, I would like to

work closer in the reauthorization bill on the contract issue, which

means there is a shorter window of time. I would like to work with

you soon so we can and provide some language to at least start

that process. I think it’s critical.

Ms. GLYNN. Sir, I would beg you not to make the reauthorization

go to 2009, because that is the first year after a Presidential election, and honestly, we’re a madhouse that year.

Mr. PORTER. Well, we would like to help you and not hurt you,

because by helping you, it helps the government, and helps our

country. So I would like to work with you on those issues. Also, if

there is anything we should or could be doing to help streamline

the process, I know we have talked about maybe expanding your

role within some of your suggestions, if there are certain areas. But

also we would like to streamline, there are some processes that you

29

think that we could do to help you do your job better. I think now

is a good time for that also. Are there a few things that you would

suggest?

Ms. GLYNN. We issued a report March 2005 with a long laundry

list of recommendations for streamlining financial disclosure. It is

a difficult issue because the financial disclosure law, of course, applies to all three branches of government, and then the question

naturally comes up, should these streamlining measures apply to

all three branches or only to the executive branch. The administration’s position is that they should apply to all three branches, but

our recommendations would significantly, we think, improve the information required to be reported by fewer categories and so on.

That would be something we would be very focused on.

We are also trying to work with the Department of the Army on

developing an electronic financial disclosure system, both for our

public forums and our confidential forums. They’re the ones with

the money, so they’re the ones that can develop the system for the

executive branch, and we are moving along quite well with them.

They’ve got it as a pilot project right now within the Army, and

they are expanding it to other parts of DOD. Those are the two

areas that we have identified as needing, particularly in need of

streamlining. The actual information required to be disclosed on financial disclosure, as well as the method of reporting it, electronic

versus paper.

Mr. PORTER. I understand we have spent some time on the financial reporting, and I would like to spend a moment on the training

the trainer and the ethics training. Is there consistency throughout

the government, or does everyone do something a little bit different?

Ms. GLYNN. Everybody does something a little bit differently as

far as format. Some people use on-line training have computers essentially. Some people like to use the video because it’s cute and

it’s entertaining. Some people like only the stand-up presentation

where you can answer questions directly from the audience at that

time. So each agency does their training a little bit differently and

actually, within agencies they vary it.

But the content, of course, hopefully is going to all be the same

because the rules are essentially all the same for all agencies. We

feel that we can assist agencies by providing some sort of templates

in training that they can use. Typically agencies though want to

add on with examples of situations that might come up at that

agency to make it seem more real to the employees hearing the

training. So we focus more of our efforts on training the trainers

and trying to get the right information to them so that when they

develop their own training, they’re delivering the right information.

Mr. PORTER. Your ethics training is not limited to just financial

training, correct?

Ms. GLYNN. Oh, no, no, no, no. Gifts, misuse of position, financial

interest post employment, any one of the areas that our laws and

rules cover.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Glynn, I know it pretty much hurts you to even think this way,

but if you had an additional million dollars, I mean, you have a

30

budget of $11 million, if you had an additional $1 million, how

would you use it? What would you do with it?

Ms. GLYNN. If it were up to me, I don’t think the additional million would be enough to work out this electronic filing issue. And

as I say, we are using, partnering with the Army to do that. So I

would put it into training. I would use more money to get sort of

higher quality training, more interesting on-line stuff. You know,

today’s employee population grew up on TV and video games and

things of that type. And it’s an ever increasing problem to keep

people’s attention. And so we need expert help in developing training that’s cute and glitzy to get people’s attention. That’s where I

would use the million dollars.

Mr. DAVIS. You know, I was thinking pretty much along the

same lines as I tried to think of what one could actually do with

that amount of resources, so I would certainly be in agreement

with you.

The things that we mostly see, are many of them criminal in nature? Or are they really oversight kinds of things or sometimes the

lack of understanding or a lack of recognition? I mean, is there

much criminality, have you seen?

Ms. GLYNN. No. I would say the kinds of missteps that we see

are overwhelmingly technical, first of all, and certainly not criminal, but more in that grayer ethics area. The vast majority of government employees are folks who want to do the best job that they

can do and are devoted to upholding high ethical standards. And

I am talking about people in the highest level to the lowest level

in government. I am talking about political appointees, career appointees.

Most people, the vast majority of people want to do the right

thing, but some of our rules and laws are complicated and not all

of them are entirely intuitive and they need a little help to understand what to do. So the mistakes we see are often merely technical mistakes, no venality at all.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. You know, I am so pleased to actually

hear that, because I think there is becoming such a high level of

cynicism on the part of many people in the general public who continue to lose confidence in government overall, and just don’t believe that government is moving in the direction of honesty of integrity, of fairness, of fair play, and there is this mythical feeling

that underneath it all, there is the wheeling and the dealing and

the manipulation, and so it really warms my heart to hear you say

that it is not criminality or criminal intent that we often see, but

it is, in fact, technical oversight, it is mistakes that people make

or it is not knowing, and training certainly could go a long ways

toward that. So I thank you very much for your appearance. And

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. I think that Mr. Davis would do a good job with

some of your training.

Ms. GLYNN. He would.

Mr. PORTER. Adding some glitz.

Ms. GLYNN. I think he’s very dynamic.

Mr. PORTER. Actually, the words he said, I’d like to reiterate. We

are very fortunate in the Federal Government to have some of the

31

best, the brightest, most honest work force in the country, and it’s

really refreshing to hear what you’ve had to say. Congresswoman.

Ms. NORTON. No questions.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Just to followup a little bit on the legislation

we were talking about earlier. I just want to make it clear that the

provisions that are in the bill with respect to providing OGE with

the oversight responsibility on negotiations relates to the area

where we’re talking about, which is people negotiating outside employment. It does not apply to the other areas, which I agree that

would be a huge workload. And we’ve already talked about the fact

that you have fairly limited resources and we need to work on that.

Let me ask you a question with regard to the disclosure of lobbying activities. We talked very briefly, referred to the provision in

the bill on that. But under current law, as I understand it, if someone’s lobbying, at least certain individuals in the executive branch

on a certain level, they do file disclosure requirements, but they do

that, I believe, with the House and the Senate; is that right?

Ms. GLYNN. That’s right. Although I don’t even want to talk

about it because I am not an expert in that. I’m afraid I’ll make

a misstatement. We don’t really get involved in lobbying disclosure

at all, so I’m not even sure how often the reports have to be filed.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. OK. Well one question that’s been raised is No.

1, whether lobbyists really understand that, they have that responsibility, No. 1. No. 2, whether it makes better sense with respect

to people who are lobbying the executive branch that they file that

kind of information with your office. And I understand the resource

limitations. I’m not asking you to accept a lot of work without, on

the existing budget. But it just seems to me in terms of coordinating this information and making, you know, available to the public

and encouraging more disclosure and more sunshine on activities,

it might make sense to have that low lobbying disclosure requirement be filed in the executive branch instead of with Members of

Congress.

You said that you were, or I guess the OGE had made certain

recommendations with respect to the legislation that was introduced. I thought you did. I wasn’t clear. What group was it that

made—you said you looked at these recommendations.

Ms. GLYNN. We looked at them, but we have not made—the administration has not made official recommendations, no.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. OK. That’s what I was going to ask you. I

mean, the administration, for example, is not, let me just make

sure I understand correctly, I don’t want to mischaracterize your

testimony. They are not opposed to a 2-year ban on people’s future,

people who are within the administration, on their ability to leave

the administration and come back and lobby.

Ms. GLYNN. I cannot speak for the administration on that. As I

say, our own view in OGE has been in the past that we don’t particularly favor that, although personally, it doesn’t, you know, it

doesn’t trouble me personally, Marilyn Glynn. But I can’t speak for

the administration on that. We have not submitted an official comment yet on that bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. OK. OGE, is one of its responsibilities to review legislation and provide comment on it?

32

Ms. GLYNN. That’s right.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. In other words, will the Congress be receiving

official comment from OGE?

Ms. GLYNN. That’s up to OMB.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. OK. That’s their decision. All right. Well, I encourage you to look, I think it’s an important piece of legislation,

obviously, as with every piece of legislation, you know, changes can

be made, and it’s important for us to get your input on that. But

I do think that, especially in the current climate, which I think we

have seen the results of, I think a lobbying sort of culture that’s

gotten out of control, and the failure of Members of Congress and

Congress to hold itself accountable, that your organization is critical.

I think its independence is critical. And I think it needs to be

strengthened in a number of ways, as do I think the oversight of

Congress and its own oversight with respect to these also. I thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PORTER. Again, I appreciate your being here today Ms.

Glynn. You have done a very good job answering our questions.

Ms. GLYNN. Thank you for asking me.

Mr. PORTER. Just in summary, we would like to work with you

very soon on the reauthorization portion regarding the contractors,

what you think we should do, maybe some streamlining to help you

process and maybe additional technology, if necessary. And the

training portion, if there’s things that we can do, first, we will get

Mr. Davis as part of your training film.

Ms. GLYNN. Yeah. To be on our team.

Mr. PORTER. But again, I think my colleague has said it well.

You have a very important role, a critical role, and I believe that

the independence is important. I would like to take a look at GAO

perspective, any additional suggestions, but I would like to compliment you on work you have done and we are counting on you,

because it is a very important part of the process.

Ms. GLYNN. Thank you. I appreciate your kind comments. Thank

you very much.

Mr. PORTER. The meeting’s adjourned. Thank you all.

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jean Schmidt and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

Æ