U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–499 PDF 2017

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR FOSTERING 

TRANSPARENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Serial No. 115–20 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matthew Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

JONATHAN SKLADANY, Majority Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

MARY DOOCY, Counsel 

SARAH VANCE, Professional Staff Member 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 23, 2017 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Hudson Hollister, Founder and Executive Director, The Data Coalition 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Mr. Norman Kirk Singleton, President, Campaign for Liberty 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Mr. John Berlau, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Mr. Thomas Fitton, President, Judicial Watch 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

Mr. Richard Painter, S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law, University 

of Minnesota Twin Cities 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

APPENDIX 

Letter of March 13, 2017, to Chairman Chaffetz, submitted by Mr. 

Cummings ............................................................................................................. 76 

Letter of March 22, 2017, from Public Citizen, Every Voice, Democracy 21, 

Center for American Progress, Supporting Presidential Tax Transparency 

Act, Submitted by Mr. Connolly ......................................................................... 78 

Letter of March 22, 2017, from Americans for TaxFairness Supporting Presidential Tax Transparency Act, Submitted by Mr. Connolly ............................. 90 

Hearing Follow-up Response Submitted by Mr. Hudson Hollister, Executive 

Director, Data Coalition ...................................................................................... 92 

Response from Mr. Hudson Hollister, Executive Director, Data Coalition, 

to Questions for the Record ................................................................................. 97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR FOSTERING 

TRANSPARENCY 

Thursday, March 23, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:29 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Duncan, Farenthold, Foxx, 

Massie, Ross, Walker, Blum, Grothman, Comer, Cummings, 

Maloney, Connolly, Kelly, Watson Coleman, Plaskett, Demings, 

Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, DeSaulnier, and Sarbanes. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. And without objection, the chair 

is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Thank you all for being here. We are talking about some legislative proposals for fostering transparency. I appreciate the witnesses 

and your flexibility. I think we have had to reschedule this hearing 

and then, based on the schedule of the day, we bumped this back 

to 10:30 this morning. So I appreciate your patience and understanding as there are some big legislative things that are happening on the Floor. And again, we appreciate the expertise that 

you bring here. 

We are here because this committee, probably as much as anybody, wants to do everything it can to foster transparency, and it 

is critical to carrying out our committee’s mission. As those of us 

that have the privilege of serving in Congress, we have an obligation to ensure the American people know how their money is spent 

and how their government functions. In all the undertakings, we 

seek to shed light on issues, share information that matters to the 

taxpayer and advance legislative solutions where necessary. 

We are not only the Oversight Committee, but we are also the 

Committee on Government Reform, and so with the reform in 

mind, we will examine three legislative proposals and shine light, 

illuminate the light in here as well, three legislative proposals 

which strive to improve the way taxpayers access information. 

One bill is called the Audit the Fed, referring to the Federal Reserve; a bill that I have championed, the Fanny and Freddie Open 

Records Act of 2017. Fanny and Freddie have obligations that the 

American taxpayers have that are literally a staggering amount of 

number in the hundreds of billions of dollars; and the Open the 

Government Data Act. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Last Congress, we passed bipartisan Freedom of Information Act 

or FOIA legislation. It was signed into law and marked a big step 

forward in reforming the process. We didn’t solve all the problems. 

There are still some that face us moving forward. And I hope we 

can advance more bipartisan transparency legislation in this Congress. 

Audit the Fed, sponsored by Mr. Massie of Kentucky, provides insight into the practices of the Federal Reserve while continuing to 

support its independence as an instrument of monetary policy. 

The Open Government Data Act, sponsored by Mr. Farenthold of 

Texas, requires Federal agencies to publish data in an open machine-readable format on Data.gov. And the Freddie—I am sorry, 

the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017 applies the Freedom of Information Act to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so taxpayers have critical information they need while these two entities 

are in conservatorship. 

Members of the committee may raise additional pieces of transparency legislation in the hearing today, but I think all these three 

pieces of transparency legislation exemplify the fundamental right 

of the American people to know what their government is doing 

and what sort of obligations are in place. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And with that, I would like to actually 

yield time to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, who is the 

chief sponsor of one of these pieces of legislation. Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for persevering with this hearing in the face of many weapons of mass distraction today on the Hill. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MASSIE. You have assembled a wonderful panel of witnesses, 

and I just want to say something about the bill that I have sponsored here. 

Over the past century the value of the dollar has declined by 

over 95 percent, and during those hundred years the Federal Reserve, the organization established by Congress to manage Congress’ article 1, section 8, authority to coin money and regulate the 

value thereof, has operated under a shroud of secrecy. 

My bill H.R. 24, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, would 

put an end to that reign of secrecy. And it is not a controversial 

bill. In fact, Americans demand transparency, and the House of 

Representatives has responded by passing this legislation twice in 

previous Congresses by huge bipartisan majorities. 

But I think it is time for a hearing because a lot of the reasons 

have been forgotten about why we need this transparency. When 

the original author of this bill, Representative Ron Paul, first carried Audit the Fed to the Floor in the 112th Congress, it passed 

by a comfortable veto-proof majority. Then, Representative Paul 

Broun brought it to the Floor in the 113th Congress, and it passed 

by an even larger majority, 333 to 92. In fact, members of this very 

committee who were here in those Congresses, all Republicans and 

several Democrats, voted for this bill on the Floor. Yet some have 

still asked and will continue to ask why do we need this legislation. 

And that is the reason this is such a good hearing. 

They ask isn’t the Federal Reserve already audited? Well, that 

question deserves an answer. It is true that the GAO performs a 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

limited financial audit of parts of the Federal Reserve, but this 

audit is perfunctory. Due to the limits placed on the GAO by Congress, the U.S. Code makes several critical exceptions to the Fed’s 

audit protocol of its most crucial activities. 

Number one, GAO is prohibited from examining Fed transactions 

or agreements with foreign governments and foreign banks. Number two, GAO is prohibited from examining all Fed actions on monetary policy matters. Number three, GAO is prohibited from auditing transactions made at the discretion of the Federal Open Market 

Committee. And four, GAO cannot examine any discussion or communication among or between anyone who works at the Fed about 

any of the activities in the first three areas. 

When these restrictions were originally added in the 1970s, GAO 

themselves testified that they, quote, ‘‘could not see how they could 

satisfactorily audit the Federal Reserve system without the authority to examine the largest single category of financial transactions 

and the assets that it has.’’ So you see, even though a cursory audit 

is done, a programmatic audit needs to be completed in order for 

Congress to understand what the Fed does and why the Fed does 

it. Without a complete audit, Congress can’t provide oversight of an 

entity that it created. 

Let me say that again. Congress created the Federal Reserve. 

Congress and Congress alone has the constitutional responsibility 

to coin money and regulate the value thereof. We can outsource the 

activity, but we can’t outsource the responsibility. 

This brings me to the other question I frequently hear, which is 

won’t a full audit of the Federal Reserve compromise the Fed’s 

independence? Well, the answer is without a full audit, how can we 

know it is independent? For instance, how is it independent of the 

executive branch? The Fed’s charter is not to be a second Treasury 

Department. How can we know that the Fed is operating independently of big bank CEOs and Wall Street? 

Given the revolving door of managers between the Fed, the 

Treasury, and Wall Street, the opportunity for outside pressure 

and conflicts of interest abound at the Fed. Only a full audit, a full 

audit can demonstrate that the Fed makes decisions independently 

of the political whims of the President and independently of the 

profit goals of commercial banks. 

An organization entrusted with daily decisions that affect the 

value of Americans’ paychecks and the value of their retirement 

savings, an organization whose mission has morphed into facilitating the bailout of foreign banks, folks, this is an organization 

that requires a full audit and full oversight from the elected body 

that created it. 

I want to thank Chairman Chaffetz for his leadership on this 

issue throughout many years and for including this bill as part of 

today’s hearing. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan 

Federal Reserve Transparency Act so the people of America can receive the transparency they deserve. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. And I thank you for 

the tenacious leadership that you have had in bringing this bill forward, and I look forward to having a good, vibrant discussion about 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

that bill today. I yield back and now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine legislation to improve 

transparency in government. Mr. Chairman selected several bills to 

focus on today, and we agree on some of those bills. I like the Open 

Government Data Act, and we disagree on one of them, the Federal 

Reserve Transparency Act. I appreciate the opportunity for a 

healthy debate on these measures. 

However, I believe that there is one transparency bill the committee should prioritize over all others. The Presidential Tax 

Transparency Act would require President Donald Trump and all 

future Presidents and presidential candidates regardless of party to 

disclose their tax returns to the American people. 

This bill was introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo, and it 

has 73 bipartisan cosponsors. Every Democratic member of this 

committee is a cosponsor, as well as our Republican colleague, fellow Oversight Committee member Mark Sanford. 

Chairman Chaffetz has said what many of us believe, that President Trump should disclose his taxes. Last August, he said this, 

and I quote, ‘‘If you are going to run and try to become the President of the United States, you are going to have to open up your 

kimono and show everything, your tax returns and your medical 

records,’’ end of quote. 

Other Republican Members agree. Representative Will Hurd, another member of our committee, said, and I quote, ‘‘It would be a 

good move for the President to release his tax returns.’’ But we 

don’t have to just sit around and wring our hands and wait and 

complain. We are not potted plants. We are lawmakers, and we can 

pass a law. Just like Congress passed the Ethics in Government 

Act in 1978 after Watergate to require the President to submit a 

public financial disclosure, we can pass a law today to require the 

President to release his tax returns. And that is exactly what this 

bill does. 

There is widespread public support for this. A petition on the 

White House website that received more than a million signatures 

titled ‘‘Immediately release Donald Trump’s full tax returns of all 

information needed to verify Emoluments Clause compliance,’’ end 

of quote, every other modern President has done this voluntarily. 

But President Trump broke with this precedent claiming that he 

did not release his tax returns, which he said was being audited. 

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has already debunked this argument. When he testified before the Judiciary Committee last 

September, he was asked whether taxpayers are prohibited from 

releasing their tax returns while they are being audited. He responded and simply said this, and I quote, ‘‘They are not prohibited,’’ end of quote. We need to see the President’s tax returns to 

confirm that he is acting in what he believes is the best interest 

of the American people rather than his own financial interests. 

President Trump’s conflicts of interest are very, very real. They 

are extensive, and they are deeply troubling. He has refused to divest his business interests and place them in a blind trust in direct 

violation of the advice of the director of the Office of Government 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

Ethics, as well as Republican and Democratic ethics experts, one 

of whom is testifying here today. 

The President continues to hold an interest in the Trump International Hotel in direct violation of the lease, which explicitly prohibits any elected official from being party or to taking any financial benefit from a contract. 

We also need to understand President Trump’s entanglements 

with foreign business interests and foreign governments. Just this 

week, FBI director James Comey confirmed that the FBI is investigating connections between President Trump’s campaign and 

Russian interference with our election. The American people have 

a right to know what if any financial connections the President has 

to the Russian Government or to Russian business interests. 

So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to place in the 

record a March 13, 2017, letter that every Democratic member of 

this committee is asking that the Presidential Tax Transparency 

Act be considered at a business meeting before the committee that 

was supposed to be held on March 16, 2017. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. We did not take up the bill at that time. We 

have another business meeting, by the way, scheduled for next 

Tuesday, but it is not on the agenda for that markup either. I know 

there is serious interest in this bill on the Republican side, and I 

have talked to many Members personally about this. I sincerely 

hope that we can take it up as soon as possible and pass it out of 

the committee unanimously. The integrity of our government depends on it. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

We will hold the record open for five legislative days for any 

member who would like to submit a written statement. 

I will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased to welcome Mr. Hudson Hollister, founder and executive director of The 

Data Coalition; Mr. Norman Singleton, president of the Campaign 

for Liberty; Mr. John Berlau, a senior fellow at the Competitive 

Enterprise Institute; Mr. Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial 

Watch; Mr. Richard Painter, S. Walter Richey professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities; and also 

with the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, also 

known as CREW. We welcome you all here today. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before 

they testify. If you will please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Many of you have testified before us previously. We would appreciate it if you would limit your verbal comments to no more than 

five minutes. Your entire testimony will be made part of the record, 

as well as any attachments or other things that you may have to 

go along with that testimony. But it will all be made part of the 

record. 

Mr. Hollister, you are now recognized for five minutes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HUDSON HOLLISTER 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, members of 

the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. 

In 2012, after serving on this committee’s staff, I founded The 

Data Coalition. We represent 36 technology companies, employing 

over 200,000 Americans. Fourteen of our members are startup companies founded within the last decade. Ten are public companies 

with a combined market capitalization exceeding $1.5 trillion. 

To open up Federal information as a public resource to deliver 

transparency and fuel economic growth, we enthusiastically support the Open Government Data Act. 

This committee’s mission is to investigate and exercise effective 

oversight over the Federal Government to expose waste and fraud 

and abuse. To support that mission, Chairman Chaffetz, under the 

rules of this House and this committee, you wield the authority to 

issue congressional subpoenas. This committee and its staff work 

hard every day to review the information that you receive in response to those requests and subpoenas to uncover hidden waste, 

fraud, and abuse, to expose those things through hearings like this 

one, and to craft reforms that safeguard Americans and their 

money from government malfeasance in the future. 

However, even considering the awesome power of the subpoena 

and the professionalism of the staff, this committee needs Americans’ help. In 2016, the Federal Government took in over $3 trillion 

and spent roughly $3.5 trillion, accounting for over 1/5 of the gross 

domestic product. By revenue, that’s bigger than the 10 biggest 

companies in the world combined. 

Our Federal Government is not just the largest organization in 

human history, it’s also the most complex. When I was an Oversight Committee staffer, I asked OMB, the GAO, and the Congressional Research Service how many agencies there are in the Federal Government. I received three different answers. To conduct 

oversight across such a scale and complexity is a daunting challenge. 

Fortunately, that is where transparency comes in. By giving 

Americans direct access to their government’s information, we can 

deputize millions of citizen inspectors general to help this committee fulfill its mission. 

This committee pioneered and passed and has championed the 

Freedom of Information Act for over 50 years, but FOIA’s basic 

model of request and response, although it’s still an essential avenue for transparency, is no longer the most efficient one. Because 

most of the government’s operations and decisions are electronic, 

information technologies now make it possible for the government 

to operate in the open online without waiting to receive a FOIA request. 

The Data Act of 2014, which Ranking Member Cummings, thenChairman Issa, and this committee championed, makes open data 

the default for Federal spending information. The major deadline 

of the Data Act is 47 days from now. By May 9, 2017, every FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26499.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

eral agency must begin publishing all of its spending as standardized open data. 

But the Data Act is limited to spending. Representatives 

Farenthold and Kilmer are introducing the Open Government Data 

Act to take the next step. The Open Government Data Act provides 

that all government information, unless it is legally restricted, 

should be published online using machine-readable data formats. 

The Open Government Data Act won’t just help Americans conduct citizen oversight; it will also help agencies cut costs. Most of 

the expense of big data projects comes from extracting information 

from different sources, transforming those data sets into the same 

format, and then loading them into new systems to be analyzed. If 

Federal data sets were consistently available using machine-readable formats to begin with, those expensive one-off projects would 

not be necessary. 

Finally, the Open Government Data Act specifies that when the 

government publishes its information, it needs to use nonproprietary data formats, formats that nobody owns. I’m going to close 

by explaining why that technical detail is so important. 

Currently, the Federal Government uses an electronic identification code called the D–U-N–S Number to identify every grantee 

and contractor receiving Federal funds. The D–U-N–S Number is 

proprietary. It is owned by Dun & Bradstreet, Incorporated, which 

is itself a contractor. This means nobody can download Federal procurement or grant information without purchasing a license from 

Dun & Bradstreet. Taxpayers paid for that information to be compiled, and they paid for the grant and contract awards that this information describes, and yet they can’t download or analyze this information without paying again for it every time. The Open Government Data Act challenges Dun & Bradstreet’s protected and 

profitable monopoly by requiring the government to use nonproprietary data formats. 

I look forward to the committee’s questions. Thank you very 

much. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hollister follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26499.001

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

United States House of Representatives 

March 23, 2017 

Testimony of Hudson Hollister 

Executive Director, Data Coalition 

Empowering Transparency through the OPEN Government Data Act 

Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, members of the Committee: thank 

you for inviting me to testify. 

This Committee's mission is to exercise effective oversight over the federal government 

and to investigate and expose waste, fraud, and abuse. To support that mission, 

Chairman Chaffetz, under the rules of this House and this Committee, you wield the 

authority to issue Congressional subpoenas. 1 

This Committee and its staff work hard every day to review the information received in 

response to requests and subpoenas; to uncover hidden waste, fraud, and abuse; to 

expose those things through Committee hearings and reports, and to craft reforms 

safeguarding Americans and their money from government malfeasance in the future. 

However, even considering the awesome power of the subpoena and the 

professionalism of the staff, this Committee needs Americans' help. 

1 In addition, federal law requires executive agencies to respond to requests for information issued by the 

Chairman or by any seven members of this Committee 5 U.S.C. sec. 2954 (2015), available at 

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2954 (accessed March 12, 2017). 2 1 was proud to serve on the staff myself from 2009 to 2012. It is an honor to be on the other side of the 

dais this morning, and, because I know firsthand the power and the professionalism of the people 1 am 

addressing, perhaps a little frightening. 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26499.002

In 2016 the federal government took in $3 trillion and spent roughly $3.5 trillion, 

accounting for over one-fifth of the gross domestic product. 3 By revenue, that's bigger 

than the ten biggest companies in the world - combined. 

Our federal government is not just the largest organization in human history. It is also 

the most complex. When I was an Oversight Committee staffer, I asked OMB, GAO, 

and the Congressional Research Service how many agencies there are in the federal 

government. I received three different answers. 

To conduct oversight across such scale and complexity is a daunting challenge. 

Fortunately, that is where transparency comes in. By giving Americans direct access to 

their government's information, we can deputize millions of citizen inspectors general to 

help this Committee fulfill its mission. 

This Committee pioneered, passed, and has championed the Freedom of Information 

Act for over fifty years. But FOIA's basic model of request and response, while still an 

essential avenue for transparency, is no longer the most efficient one. Because most of 

the government's operations and decisions are electronic, information technologies now 

make it possible for the government to operate in the open, online -without waiting to 

receive a FOIA request. 4 

The OAT A Act of 2014, which Ranking Member Cummings, then-Chairman lssa, and 

this Committee championed, makes open data the default for federal spending 

information. But the DATA Act is limited to spending. It is time for Congress to affirm 

that not just spending, but all federal information, everything that is legally public, should 

be freely available and electronically searchable. 

Representatives Farenthold and Kilmer are introducing the OPEN Government Data Act 

to take that next step. The OPEN Government Data Act provides that all government 

3 An interactive breakdown of federal revenues and expenditures - and a prime example of an open data 

business model that delivers transparency to Americans- can be found on Graphiq's lnsideGov platform 

at federal-budqet.insideqov.com/ (accessed March 12, 2017). 4 For example, consider how Utah, Maryland, and most other states treat their spending information. They 

publish every transaction, using a machine-readable data format, sourced directly from their internal 

financial systems. Last week I used Transparent.Utah.gov to discover that Governor Gary Herbert spent 

$460 on office supplies on July 9, 2015, from a vendor called One Moment in Time. And I used the 

Marvland Fundin9 Accountability website to discover that Governor Larry Hogan spent $2,412.99 on 

FedEx last fiscal year. Increasingly, these states' financial managers are finding that their transparency 

websites are easier to use than the internal systems. This means citizens and government are sharing the 

same view of the same information. 

2 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26499.003

information, unless it is legally restricted, should be published online, using 

machine-readable data formats. 

The OPEN Government Data Act won't just help Americans conduct citizen oversight. It 

will also help agencies cut costs. Most of the expense of big data projects comes from 

extracting data sets from different sources, transforming them into the same format, and 

loading them into new systems to be analyzed. If federal data sets were publically 

available in consistent, machine-readable formats to begin with, these expensive 

one-off projects would be unnecessary. 

Even in an era of polarized government, the OPEN Government Data Act shows that 

transparency is bipartisan. It is based on good work by President Obama's 

administration, is supported by strong leaders on both sides of the aisle, and was 

unanimously approved by the Senate in the last Congress. 

In 2012, I founded the Data Coalition. We represent thirty-six tech and consulting 

companies, employing over two hundred thousand Americans. Fourteen of our 

members are startups founded within the last decade. Ten are public companies, with a 

combined market capitalization exceeding $1.5 trillion. 

Open data creates three business models. First, some of our member companies 

republish federal information on their platforms to inform citizens, investors, and 

journalists; second, some perform data analytics to illuminate waste, fraud, and abuse; 

and a third category offer automated reporting to reduce the cost of compliance. All 

three business models work best when government information is freely available, using 

machine-readable data formats, instead of trapped in documents and inaccessible 

databases. That is why we enthusiastically support the OPEN Government Data Act. 

Finally, the OPEN Government Data Act specifies that when the federal government 

publishes its information, it needs to use nonproprietary data formats. I would like to 

close by explaining why this is important. 

Currently the federal government uses an electronic identification code called the DUNS 

Number to identify every grantee and contractor across all of its systems. The DUNS 

Number is proprietary. It is owned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., which is itself a contractor. 

This means nobody can download federal procurement or grant information without 

purchasing a license from Dun & Bradstreet. Taxpayers paid for this information to be 

compiled, and they paid for the grant and contract awards that this information 

3 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26499.004

describes, and yet they cannot download or analyze this information without paying 

again, every time. 

The federal government's use of the DUNS Number effectively gives Dun & Bradstreet 

a protected and profitable monopoly on public information - at the double expense of the 

taxpayers. 

The OPEN Government Data Act challenges this monopoly by requiring the government 

to use nonproprietary formats. Data Coalition members welcome this challenge. Our 

member companies want to compete fairly to deliver the best value from public 

information - not to own it and charge the taxpayers for access, the way Dun & 

Bradstreet does. 

I look forward to the Committee's questions. 

4 
12 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Singleton, you are now recognized for five minutes. Please 

make sure you bring that microphone up close and personal and 

push that button and we are off to the races. There you go. Push 

that talk button there. 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN SINGLETON 

Mr. SINGLETON. Thank you. On behalf of Campaign for Liberty’s 

almost half-a-million members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, more popularly known as Audit the Fed. 

Campaign for Liberty is a public policy organization founded in 

2008 by Dr. Ron Paul to advance the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. Audit the Fed has 

been our signature issue since we were founded. 

Audit the Fed has been introduced by Representative Massie this 

year in the House. In the Senate it’s introduced by Senator Rand 

Paul also of Kentucky. It currently has 93 cosponsors in the House 

and 14 cosponsors in the Senate. As Mr. Massie mentioned, it has 

twice passed the House in 2012 and 2014, both by overwhelming 

majorities. In 2016, it received 54 votes in the Senate, just six shy 

of achieving cloture. It was also supported by every Senator running for President last year, including—and it also has the—had 

the public support of then-candidate and now President Donald 

Trump. 

Audit the Fed is a simple one-page bill that removes the provisions in law that prevent the General Accounting Office from doing 

a full audit of the Federal Reserve’s conduct of monetary policy. 

Specifically, the bill allows the GAO to Audit the Fed’s dealings 

with foreign central banks, governments of foreign country, or private international financing organizations. It also allows the GAO 

to look into deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy 

measures, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credits, interest on deposit, and open market 

operations. 

Finally, it allows the GAO to look at transactions made under 

the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee or as part of 

discussion or communications among or between members of the 

board and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve system. 

Passage of this bill will remove congressionally imposed limits 

that prevent the GAO from doing its job and thus allow Congress 

and, more importantly, the American people to finally know the 

truth about the Federal Reserve’s conduct of monetary policy, 

which is something that directly affects the economic well-being of 

every American. 

The case for this bill is strengthened when one considers that the 

Federal Reserve’s conduct of monetary policy can charitably be described as disastrous. As Mr. Massie pointed out, since the Fed was 

created in 1913, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its purchasing 

power. According to some, you would need $24 today to purchase 

what you could buy with $1 in 1913 when the Fed was created. 

The Federal Reserve is also responsible for the boom-and-bust 

cycle that has plagued the American economy over the past hundred years. Every economic downturn from the Great Depression to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

the 2008 market meltdown can be laid at the feet of the Federal 

Reserve. 

The Federal Reserve—one reason why the Federal Reserve might 

oppose the audit is revealed by a limited audit that was authorized 

by the 2000 and—was it ’10—Dodd-Frank legislation, which was 

limited to examining the Fed’s response to the 2008 market crash. 

That audit found that between 2007 and 2010 the Fed committed 

over $16 trillion, which is more than four times the annual budget 

of the United States, to foreign central banks and politically influential private companies. 

The Federal Reserve also has a history of lobbying to oppose 

transparency. In fact, according to Dr. Robert Auerbach, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, the Fed actively 

coordinated efforts by financial institutions, which are under the 

Fed’s regulatory jurisdiction, to lobby against an attempt to allow 

the GAO to fully audit its conduct of monetary policy during—in 

the ’70s. The result of that effort was the restrictions that the current audit bill would lift. 

I ask the Members of Congress to consider how you would react 

if it came out that any other congressionally created agency was 

working with private industries that were under its jurisdiction to 

hide the full truth about it its operations from the American people. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

Congress has allowed the Federal Reserve to conduct monetary policy in secret for over 100 years. The result has been a steady decline in the dollar’s purchasing power, a series of financial crises, 

the growth of a major government fueled in large part by the Federal Reserve monetization of the national debt, and an increase in 

income inequality and crony capitalism. 

Therefore, on behalf of Campaign for Liberty and, more importantly, the nearly 75 percent of Americans who support auditing 

the Fed, I urge Congress to take up and pass this bill as soon as 

possible. 

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Singleton follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26499.005

Testimony of Norman Kirk Singleton 

President, Campaign for Liberty 

Hearing on Legislative Proposals for Increasing Transparency 

Before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Wednesday March 15,2015 

Chairman Chavez, Ranking Member Cummings, and all members of the Committee, on behalf 

of Campaign for Liberty's almost half-a-million members, thank you for allowing me to testify 

in support of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R.24/S. 216), popularly known as Audit 

the Fed. 

Audit the Fed was introduced in the House by Representative Thomas Massie and in the Senate 

by Senator Rand Paul on the first day of the 115 TH Congress. It currently has 91 cosponsors in 

the House and 14 cosponsors in the Senate. 

Audit the Fed has twice passed the House of Representatives. In 2012 it passed by a vote of 

327-98 and in 2014 it passed by a vote of333-92. In 2016, the bill received 54 votes in the 

Senate, and was supported by every Senator running for President, as well as then candidate 

Donald Trump. 

Audit the Fed is a simple one-page bill that removes the restrictions preventing the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) from conducting a full audit of the Federal Reserve's conduct of 

monetary policy. Specifically the bill allows the GAO to audit: 

I. Transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or a private 

international financing organization; 

2. Deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window 

operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market 

operations; 

3. Transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or as part of a 

discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and 

employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (I )-(3) of this subsection. 

These Congressionally-imposed limits on GAO's ability to do its job prevent Congress and, 

more importantly, the American people from learning the full truth about the Federal Reserve's 

conduct of monetary policy, something which affects every American's economic well-being. 

The case for an audit is strengthened when one considers that the Federal Reserve's management 

of monetary policy can only be described as disastrous. Today, it takes $24 to purchase what 

one dollar would have bought when the Fed was created. The Fed is also responsible for the 

boom-and-bust business cycle that has plagued the Americans economy for the past century. 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26499.006

Every economic downturn of the past l 00 hundred years from the Great Depression to the 2008 

market meltdown can be laid at the feet ofthe Federal Reserve. 

Federal Reserve' monetization of debt also facilities the growth of government as deficit 

spending that threatens our prosperity and our liberty. 

One of the few worthwhile provisions of Dodd-Frank authorized a limited, one-time audit of the 

Fed's response to the financial crises of2007-2008. This audit found that between 2007 and 

2010 the Federal Reserve committed over $16 trillion- more than four times the annual budget 

of the United States- to foreign central banks and politically influential private companies. 

According to Roger AuerBach, University of Texas Professor of Public Affairs, financial 

institutions under the Federal Reserve's regulatory control participated a Federal Reserveorganized lobbying campaigned to stop a prior attempt to allow the GAO to contact a full audit 

of the Federal Reserve's conduct of monetary policy. 

Members ofthe Committee, can you think of any other Congressionally-created agency that 

would get away with working with private industries to keep its operations shielded from 

Congress and the public? How do you think Congress would react if it was revealed that the 

FDA was organizing's lobbying effort by drug companies to defeat efforts to make its drug 

approval process more transparent? 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, Congress has allowed the Federal Reserve to 

conduct monetary policy in secret for over I 00 years. The result has been a steady decline in the 

dollar's purchasing power, a series of continuing series of financial crisis, the growth of a 

welfare-warfare state, and an increase in economy inequality and crony capitalism. 

Therefore, on behalf of Campaign for Liberty, and the nearly 75% of American who support this 

bill. I urge Congress to take up and pass Audit the Fed as soon as possible, I thank the 

Committee for giving the opportune to testy and I look forward to answering your questions. 

• Federal Reserve Officials Impair GAO Audits By Destroying Their Source Records, Roger 

Abacha, Huffington Post May 12, 2015 
16 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Berlau, you are now recognized for five minutes. Again, 

bring that microphone nice and close. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BERLAU 

Mr. BERLAU. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and honorable 

members of this committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

present testimony on behalf of my organization, the Competitive 

Enterprise Institute. 

CEI is a Washington-based free-market think tank that studies 

the effects of all types of regulation on job growth and economic 

well-being. We propose ideas to regulate the regulators and hold 

them accountable so that innovation and job growth can flourish in 

all sectors. 

A first step towards such accountability is for government agencies that exercise power over American entrepreneurs, investors, 

and consumers to be as transparent as possible. How can citizens 

hold these agencies accountable if we cannot see what they are 

doing? That is why my colleagues at CEI and I have long sought 

to bring sunshine to regulatory agencies through Freedom of Information Act requests and insistence on public meetings. 

I am pleased that the bills and legislative proposals being discussed at the hearing today, including the bipartisan Open Government Data Act and Federal Reserve Transparency Act, as well as 

the chairman’s own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Open Records 

Act and Congresswoman Norton’s Open and Transparent Smithsonian Act, take significant steps to move transparency laws into the 

21st century by ensuring that new technologies are used to enhance government transparency rather than to evade it. These bills 

should begin to correct the major problem of excessive secrecy we 

have seen at Federal financial regulatory and housing agencies 

over the last decade. 

For instance, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2010 promised to bring accountability to the financial sector. However, it created new bureaucracies that are unaccountable to the President and Congress and have been able to 

skirt some of Congress’ basic laws for openness. Dodd-Frank, for instance, exempts the Financial Stability Oversight Council which it 

created from the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s open meetings 

laws and gives the council vast leeway to hold meetings closed to 

the public and shield details of those meetings from the public. 

The council is tasked with designating firms as systemically important, essentially too big to fail. It keeps only minimal records of 

its meetings and provides virtually no information as to how it designates financial firms as systemically important even though such 

decisions can dramatically affect financial markets in the wider 

economy. 

Legislation requiring openness and policy deliberations about the 

government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

such as that proposed by Chairman Chaffetz is especially important. These are corporations chartered by Congress that are now 

under the conservatorship of the Federal Government. Taxpayers 

have propped them up after the housing collapse to the tune of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

$185 billion. As long as they remain under a government conservatorship or receivership, taxpayers deserve some sunshine in 

return for the money they have spent on these two entities. 

Government officials’ deliberations on the fate of the GSEs must 

also be made public. The Obama administration incredibly claimed 

executive privilege when private-sector shareholders of Fannie and 

Freddie asked for information regarding the Treasury Department’s third amendment of 2012 in which the government began 

to confiscate and asserted the right to confiscate all of the GSE 

profits even after the GSEs paid the government back for bailing 

them out. 

We have urged the Trump administration to reverse its predecessor’s unprecedented use of executive privilege, which should be 

reserved only for rare information requests that may compromise 

national security. We also urge this committee to investigate the 

Obama administration’s secretive practices in this regard. 

Finally, we urge passage of transparency legislation. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Berlau follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26499.007

~~COMPETITIVE 

~b ENTERPRISE 

~~ , INSTITUTE 

Testimony before the Honse Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

John Berlau 

Senior Fellow 

Competitive Enterprise Institute 

Prepared for the hearing: 

Legislative Proposals for Fostering Transparency 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2154 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Thursday, March 23,2017 

9:00AM 

Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and honorable members of the Committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of my organization, the 

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI is a Washington-based free-market think tank that 

studies the effects of all types of regulation on job growth and economic well-being. We propose 

ideas to "regulate the regulators" and hold them accountable so that innovation and job growth 

can flourish in all sectors. 

A first step toward such accountability is for government agencies that exercise power over 

American entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers to be as transparent as possible. How can 

citizens hold these agencies accountable if we cannot see what they are doing? That is why my 

colleagues at CEI and I have long sought to bring sunshine to regulatory agencies through 

Freedom ofinformationAct (FOIA) requests and insistence on public meetings. 1 

I am pleased that the bills and legislative proposals being discussed at the hearing todayincluding the bipartisan Open Government Data Act and Federal Reserve Transparency Act as 

well as the chairman's own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Transparency Act-take significant 

steps to move transparency laws into the 21" century by ensuring that new technologies are used 

to enhance government transparency rather than to evade it. These bills should begin to correct 

1 Christopher C. Horner, "FOIA Productions: An Incomplete Story," Competitive Enterprise Institute, March 2, 2017, 

https://cei.org/blog/foia-productions-incomplete-story 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26499.008

the major problem of the excessive secrecy we have seen at federal financial regulatory and 

housing agencies over the last decade. 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of2010 promised to bring 

accountability to the financial sector. However, it created new bureaucracies that are 

unaccountable to the President and Congress2

-and have been able to skirt some of Congress' 

basic laws for openness. 

The powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was created by DoddFrank, claimed exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which mandates 

that task forces convened by the government with participants from the private sector must open 

their meetings to the public and produce thorough public records ofthose meetings. The CFPB 

has held meetings in various cities throughout the country, but has closed them to the public, 

casting doubt on its stated mission to produce a more transparent marketplace for consumers. 3 

Fortunately, in late 2015, President Obama signed a bill formally subjecting the CFPB to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act.4 We will continue to monitor to ensure the CFPB complies 

with this law and has open meetings with diligent records kept. 

Unfortunately, other affronts to transparency in Dodd-Frank still stand uncorrected. Dodd-Frank 

still exempts the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which it also created, from FACA and 

gives the Council vast leeway to hold meetings closed to the public and shield details of those 

meetings from the public. The Council is tasked with designating firms as "systemically 

important" -essentially "too big to fail." It keeps only minimal records of its meetings and 

provides virtually no information as to how it designates financial firms as "systemically 

important," even though such decisions can dramatically affect financial markets and the wider 

economy.5 

2 

Legislation requiring openness in policy deliberations about the government-sponsored 

enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, such as that proposed by Chairman Chaffetz, is 

especially important. These are corporations chartered by Congress that are now under the 

conservatorship ofthe federal government. Taxpayers have propped them up after the housing 

collapse to the tune of$185 billion. As long as they remain under a government conservatorship 

or receivership, taxpayers deserve some sunshine in return for the money they have spent on 

these two entities. 

2 Hester Peirce and Robert Greene, "A New Year for Unaccountable Financial Regulators," ReaiCiear Markets, 

January 17, 2013, 

http://www. realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/01/17/ a _new _year_ for_ unaccountable_ financial_regulators _100 

094.html 

3 Matthew Orso and Joshua Davey, "Chipping Away At the CFPB's Clandestine Activities, law360, May 4, 2015 

https://www.law360.com/articles/648299/chipping-away-at-the-cfpb-s-clandestine-activities 

'The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (H.R. 2029, Pub.l.114-113), Section 704 5 Aaron Klein and Justin Schardin, "UK Regulator's Transparency Should Be a Model for U.S. FSOC," Bipartisan 

Policy Center, July 10, 2015, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/uk-regulators-transparency-should-be-a-model-foru-s-fsoc/ 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26499.009

Government officials' deliberations on the fate of the GSEs must also be made public. The 

Obama administration claimed executive privilege when private sector shareholders of Fannie 

and Freddie asked for information regarding the Treasury Department's Third Amendment of 

2012, in which the government began to confiscate all the GSE profits even after the GSEs paid 

the government back for bailing them out.6 

We have urged the Trump administration to reverse its predecessor's unprecedented use of 

executive privilege, which should be reserved only for rare information requests that 

compromise national security. We also urge the committee to investigate the Obama 

administration's secretive practices in this regard. Finally, we urge passage of transparency 

legislation. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

Appendix: 

3 

John Berlau, "Mnuchin Must Bring Transparency to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Competitive 

Enterprise Institute, February 20,2017, https://cei.org/blog/mnuchin-must-bring-transparencyfannie-mae-and-freddie-mac 

6 See Appendix. 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26499.010

Appendix 

Mnuchin Must Bring Transparency to 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

John Berlau • February 20, 2017 

4 

Now that he has been confirmed, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has a lot on 

his plate. He needs to do what he can administratively to reduce the crushing 

burden of the Dodd-Frank Act on small banks and credit unions. He also needs to 

work with Congress on major legislative fixes such as the forthcoming Financial 

Choice Act from House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (RTX), a restructuring of the convoluted housing finance system, and comprehensive 

tax reform. 

But first, Mnuchin must do everything he can to reverse the extreme secrecy 

practiced by the Obama Treasury Department. The Obama administration has been 

judged by a major news service as the least transparent of modern presidencies, 

and much of the source of this secrecy -for whatever reason -was in housing and 

finance policy. 

A 2015 analysis by the Associated Press found that "the Obama administration set a 

record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last 

year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act." The AP added that the 

administration "also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26499.011

withhold or censor records were improper under the law-but only when it was 

challenged." 

But Freedom of Information Act requests were just the tip of the iceberg for the 

Obama administration's secrecy, much of which had nothing to do with the 

legitimate exception of national security. Under Dodd-Frank, the administration set 

up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Financial Stability 

Oversight Council (FSOC) to be exempt from many open meetings and (especially 

with FSOC) open records requests. 

In 2015, thanks to constant pushing by CEI and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), Congress 

finally made the CFPB subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act that requires 

open meetings. Congress should now do the same for FSOC. And since Mnuchin is 

chairman of FSOC as Treasury Secretary, he should move immediately to open up 

its meetings and-with minor exceptions such as discussions of trade secrets of 

private firms-make its records available to the public. 

5 

But probably the most egregious example of Obama-era secrecy concerns the 

management of the government-sponsored housing enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac. As important as the role Fannie and Freddie play in the housing 

market, it is hard for anyone to argue that their actions somehow affect national 

security. 

Yet when asked to produce documents in litigation by Fannie and Freddie's 

shareholders, the Obama administration made the unbelievable claim of "executive 

privilege." According to New York Times financial columnist Gretchen Morgenson, 

"the government has invoked presidential privilege on 45 documents created either 

by officials at the Treasury or the FHFA, the regulator charged with conserving 

Fannie and Freddie's assets." 

Fannie and Freddie were chartered by Congress around forty-five years ago as 

companies with private shareholders but lines of credit with the government. In 

September 2008, the Bush administration found that Fannie and Freddie were on 

the brink of failing. Under new powers from the Housing and Economic Recovery 

Act (HERA) passed two months earlier, it took them into a "conservatorship" in 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26499.012

6 

which the government took 79.9 percent of the entities' stock in exchange for bailing 

them out, a "conservatorship" that continued into the Obama administration and to 

this day. 

The series of actions now being called "Fanniegate" began in August 2012, when 

then-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner issued the "Third Amendment" to the GSE 

conservatorship. The Third Amendment, with no authorization from the HERA law, 

required all of the GSEs' profits to be siphoned off to the U.S. Treasury Department 

in perpetuity - even after the GSEs paid back what they owed to taxpayers. 

This arbitrary action has spawned more than 20 lawsuits from Fannie and Freddie's 

private shareholders. The suits charge the government with everything from violating 

the Administrative Procedures Act to unconstitutionally taking property without just 

compensation. 

The Third Amendment has also raised concerns that the profit sweep is leaving 

Fannie and Freddie with very little capital reserves, furthering the chance for more 

taxpayer bailouts should something go awry with the housing market again. See, on 

this point, this excellent paper coauthored by then- Cato Institute Director of 

Financial Regulation Studies Mark Calabria, who just became chief economist for 

Vice President Mike Pence. 

But the really amazing thing is that we know very little about what prompted Obama 

and Geithner to pursue this highly controversial policy, because according to 

the Times' Morgenson, the Obama administration "fought every discovery request 

made by the Fannie and Freddie shareholders." 

Recently, one of these shareholder lawsuits-Fairho/me v. United States-prompted 

Judge Margaret Sweeney to compel the government to produce some of these 

documents in order to satisfy a discovery request from the mutual fund plaintiff. Last 

month, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit panel largely 

upheld Sweeney's decision. 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26499.013

Mnuchin should immediately reverse the Obama administration's secrecy and 

release these papers not only to the plaintiffs, but to the American public. Then, the 

Justice Department and Congress must conduct a full investigation of Fanniegate. 

7 
25 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Fitton, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS FITTON 

Mr. FITTON. Thank you, Chairman Chaffetz, and thank you, Congressman Cummings, for allowing me to testify today on this important topic. 

Judicial Watch is a conservative nonpartisan educational foundation dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in government, politics, and the law. We were founded in 1994, so we 

have a lot of experience using and litigating under the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

Without a doubt, we’re the most active FOIA requester and litigator operating today under that law. Unfortunately, during the 

Obama administration, Judicial Watch had to work overtime making FOIA requests obviously, but when the administration ignored 

those requests and obstructed access to public records, we had to 

file lawsuits to force executive agencies to comply with this vital 

open-records law. 

Our nation faces a transparency crisis. To be frank, the Obama 

administration was an enemy of open government and transparency. The administration’s casual lawbreaking, especially its defend-everything-approach with the Clinton email scandal, is President Obama’s real legacy on transparency. 

Judicial Watch filed nearly 3,000 Freedom of Information Act requests with the Obama administration. We’ve had to file I think 

over 200 FOIA lawsuits oftentimes just to get a yes or no answer 

from the agencies as opposed to just fighting over what documents 

they were or weren’t giving us. There is a way forward out of this 

transparency crisis, and part of that is using a committed Congress 

to pave the way for outside watchdog groups like Judicial Watch 

and citizen activists to investigate and expose corruption and malfeasance within the government. 

Judicial Watch shows that even in a hostile political environment, one citizen group using the Freedom of Information Act independent oversight can help the American people bring their government back down to earth and under control how much more effective we’d be only if Congress were to enact further transparency reform. 

And Judicial—I would note that despite this culture of secrecy 

we’ve had with the last two administrations, Judicial Watch has 

frequently succeeded in prying loose documents that have been denied even to Congress. We saw that with Benghazi, we saw that 

with the IRS. As a result of Judicial Watch’s disclosures on 

Benghazi, we had a Select Committee, and even the Select Committee couldn’t—still couldn’t get documents that Judicial Watch 

was continuing to receive in terms of breaking open news on how 

that Benghazi attack occurred and the circumstances of the cover 

of behind it. 

We have of course one of the most egregious violations of Federal 

transparency law since FOIA was passed nearly 50 years ago, 

which was the Clinton email scandals. And obviously our work on 

that is history, but there would be no knowledge about her emails 

if it weren’t for our FOIA litigation. It really wasn’t the Benghazi 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

Select Committee that developed that information or forced the disclosure of her email practices. It was our FOIA litigation that 

forced the agency to finally admit to the courts that they had these 

emails that hadn’t been reviewed as required according to law. 

You know, before suggesting ideas for greater transparency, let 

me reflect on some of the problems we’re currently having. Many 

people ask, including members here, how does Judicial Watch get 

documents when they’re not able to? And the easy answer is that 

FOIA is straightforward, and it gives access to citizens and groups 

like Judicial Watch to documents under court order oftentimes. 

Congressional investigations even with subpoenas are political by 

nature and require, under the current practice, effective enforcement in court with the cooperation of a conflicted Justice Department. 

We had an example of that with the Fast and Furious matter 

where Eric Holder was held in contempt over documents that were 

not turned over to Congress. Congress sued in court, couldn’t get 

anywhere with that litigation until Judicial Watch had a separate 

FOIA victory that essentially broke open the dam on that. So it 

wasn’t—Congress couldn’t even get the information once it even 

went to court. 

Judicial Watch has urged President Trump to commit to a transparency revolution, and today, we asked Congress to join in that 

transparency revolution by reforming FOIA and giving private citizens and groups like us stronger and better tools to hold the government to account. 

And speaking of FOIA reform, Congress should apply the freedom-of-information concept to itself and to the Federal courts, the 

two branches of the Federal Government which many of your voters will be surprised to hear are exempt from transparency laws 

that the President and his executive agencies must follow. Certainly in the least, the administrative functions of Congress and 

the courts should be subject to the same transparency rules as the 

executive branch. 

Now, in the meantime, we’re interested in at least two of the proposals for increased transparency, the Fannie and Freddie Mac 

transparency effort and the Smithsonian Institution transparency 

effort. We filed a Freedom of Information Act request back in 2009 

for Fannie and Freddie documents about their political giving, and 

we were told in one of the first major decisions by the Obama administration on transparency issues, despite the FHFA taking custody and control of all those records, they were not subject to FOIA. 

Unfortunately, the courts in the end concluded the agency could 

withhold that information from us because even though they had 

custody and control of these records of agencies that were now controlling pretty much all the mortgage market and have $5 trillion 

in taxpayer liabilities attended to that, because the agency supposedly, quote, ‘‘did not use these documents,’’ we couldn’t get access to any of that information. That is a remarkable standard. We 

can get documents from the CIA, the NSA, but not FHFA. And that 

has got to change. And obviously this legislation can help change 

that. 

And then we have the issue of the Smithsonian Institution, another taxpayer-funded entity that is not subject to FOIA. The 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

Smithsonian, which operates as a government instrumentality or a 

trust, received $840 million of taxpayer funds in fiscal year 2016. 

Most of their employees are Federal employees, but the Freedom 

of Information Act doesn’t apply to the Smithsonian. At least the 

courts have interpreted the law. And as a result, Americans must 

rely on voluntary disclosures by the government—by this government institution. 

Judicial Watch, for instance, is trying without success to obtain 

documents from the Smithsonian about its decision-making regarding this inclusion of Justice Clarence Thomas in its African American Museum. And rather than relying on the kindness of strangers 

to find out how billions of dollars are being spent, we ask that 

the—this committee strongly consider Delegate Holmes Norton’s 

bill to apply FOIA explicitly to the Smithsonian Institution. 

Thank you for your time. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Fitton follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26499.014

Written Statement 

Tom Fitton, President 

Judicial Watch 

Public Hearing 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Concerning 

"Legislative Proposals for Fostering Transparency" 

Wednesday, March 15,2017 

10:00AM 

2154 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 

Good morning, my name is Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch. Thank you, 

Chairman Chaffetz and Congressman Cummings for allowing me to testify on the very 

important topic of this hearing: "Legislative Proposals for Fostering Transparency." 

Judicial Watch is a conservative, non-partisan, educational foundation dedicated to 

promoting transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. 

Our motto is, "Because no one is above the law!" We are the nation's largest and most 

effective government watchdog group. 

Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch has almost a quarter-century's worth of experience 

using the Freedom ofinformation Act (FOIA) to advance the public interest, and we 

come before you today supporting congressional action to augment its strengths and 

mitigate its weaknesses. 

Judicial Watch is, without a doubt, the most active FOIA requestor and litigator operating 

today. During the Obama administration, Judicial Watch worked overtime, making 

FOIA requests and-when the administration ignored the requests and obstructed access 

to public records-filing FOIA lawsuits to force executive agencies to comply with this 

vital open-records law. 

Our nation faces a transparency crisis. The United States government is bigger than ever 

and also the most secretive in recent memory. To be frank, the Obama administration 

was an enemy of transparency. President Obama promised the most transparent 

administration in history, but federal agencies turned into black holes in terms of 

disclosure. 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26499.015

The Obama administration's casual law breaking, especially its "defend everything" 

approach to the Clinton email scandal, is President Obama's real legacy on transparency. 

Judicial Watch filed nearly 3,000 FOIA requests with the Obama administration. And, 

our staff attorneys were forced to file nearly 200 FOIA lawsuits in federal court against 

that administration. Most of these lawsuits were filed just to get a "yes or no" answer 

from the administration. 

There is a way forward out of the D.C. transparency and corruption crisis but it requires 

action on the part of a committed Congress to pave the way for outside watchdogs like 

Judicial Watch and activist citizens to investigate and expose corruption and malfeasance 

within the government. Judicial Watch shows that even in a hostile political 

environment, one citizen group, using the Freedom of Information Act and independent 

oversight can help the American people bring their government back down to earth and 

under control. How much more effective we would be if only Congress were to enact 

further transparency reform. 

Despite the culture of secrecy of the modem administrative state, Judicial Watch has 

frequently succeeded in prying loose documents that had been denied even to Congress. 

For example, right after the Benghazi terrorist attack occurred, Judicial Watch uncovered 

a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications 

Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials-not 

"intelligence officials"-putting out the lie that the Benghazi attack was "rooted in an 

Internet video, and not a failure of policy." These documents had been withheld from 

Congress and half-a-dozen or so congressional committees had been made to look very 

foolish indeed. As a direct result of this disclosure, then-Speaker Boehner reversed his 

opposition to convening a Select Committee on Benghazi. 

Even with a Select Committee investigation, Judicial Watch became the go-to source on 

Benghazi facts as we continued through the courts to uncover revelation after revelation 

about the Benghazi terrorist attack and the Obama administration's efforts to cover up the 

details. 

Revelations such as those we managed to uncover on Benghazi did not come easy; they 

came about through multiple federal lawsuits and court orders requiring the 

administration to comply with FOIA. But, our efforts did bear fruit. 

Judicial Watch document disclosures over the years have led to questions about criminal 

violations, obstruction of justice, and perjury by top officials of the last administration. 

For example, with respect to the Obama IRS scandal, Judicial Watch litigation forced the 

agency to admit that Lois Lerner emails were supposedly lost. And it was Judicial Watch 

FOIA litigation that forced the IRS to admit that her emails were not necessarily lost. 

And, only Judicial Watch uncovered the troubling revelation that the Obama IRS and 

Justice Department were collaborating on prosecuting the same groups that the IRS had 

lawlessly suppressed. While Congress seems to have lost interest in the IRS scandal, 

Judicial Watch continues to do the job of oversight and investigation, and we remain the 

2 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26499.016

key vehicle for revelations about the continuing law breaking and abuse of power by the 

IRS. 

Just two weeks ago, for instance, after stonewalling and slow walking FOIA requests and 

lawsuits for years, the IRS finally admitted to the court that the tax agency needs to 

search 6,924 previously unreported documents--documents they sat on for an entire year, 

an election year, I might add-in response to a 2015 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit over 

IRS targeting of conservative groups. Again, apparently, Judicial Watch has to pry loose 

documents not provided to Congress-these newly identified records are presumably not 

records that were contained in the "Congressional Database," which the IRS created in 

2013 to house records responsive to congressional inquiries into the IRS scandal. The 

IRS finally agreed to begin producing documents by March I 0 but refused to provide a 

timetable for completion of the review. 

And then we have perhaps one of the most egregious violations of federal transparency 

law since FOIA was passed nearly 50 years ago: the Hillary Clinton email scandals. 

Before the revelation by The New York Times on March 2, 2015 that then-Secretary 

Clinton used at least one non- "state.gov" email account to conduct official government 

business during her entire tenure as the Secretary of State, Judicial Watch had filed six 

FOIA lawsuits seeking Clinton's email on ethics matters and the Benghazi terrorist 

attack. After the revelation, JW filed some 15 lawsuits having to do directly or indirectly 

with Clinton's emails. Today, there are at least 20 lawsuits, 19 of which are active in 

federal court, and upwards of200 Judicial Watch FOIA requests that could be affected by 

Mrs. Clinton and her staff's use of secret email accounts to conduct official government 

business. Judicial Watch's litigation against the State Department exposed key 

documents about both Benghazi and the Clinton pay-to-play cash scandals. 

I also must tell you that we dismissed several lawsuits based on lies by the State 

Department that it had searched all of Hillary Clinton's em ails and couldn't find 

anything. In two cases, federal judges actually reopened closed FOIA lawsuitspractically unheard of-after it came to light that information had been unlawfully 

withheld from Judicial Watch and the court. In two instances, federal judges also granted 

Judicial Watch discovery in cases concerning Clinton emails because it appeared there 

had been government misconduct in the handling of the FOIA requests. 

Indeed, as with Lois Lerner's emails, our litigation forced the State Department to 

publicly disclose Hillary Clinton's secret email accounts. The rest is history. 

Before suggesting ideas for fostering greater transparency in government, let me reflect 

for just a couple of minutes about what we know works and doesn't work. 

Many people ask, including members of both parties in Congress, how is it Judicial 

Watch gets documents and forces action that Congress can't get even under subpoena? 

The easy answer is that FOIA is a straightforward tool, for all its flaws, that quickly gives 

3 
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26499.017

Judicial Watch, other media, and citizens access to the federal courts in order to ensure 

compliance with lawful records requests. 

Congressional investigations, even with subpoenas, are political by nature and require, 

under the current practice, effective enforcement in court with the cooperation of a 

conflicted Justice Department. 

The Fast and Furious scandal is a perfect example of this issue. Obama Attorney General 

Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, and in response, President Obama made a 

remarkable assertion of executive privilege to protect his attorney general and thwart 

Congress. Rather than enforcing the contempt citation, the Justice Department ignored it. 

Only after Judicial Watch secured key court victories separately against the Justice 

Department did Congress, after two years of getting nowhere, obtain many of the 

documents it had been seeking. 

It is time to put an end to the obsessive and destructive secrecy in government. But, to be 

successful, a commitment to transparency and openness must cut across partisan lines. 

Judicial Watch has urged President Trump to commit to a transparency revolution, and 

today we ask the Congress to join in that transparency revolution by reforming FOIA and 

giving private citizens and groups like us stronger and better tools to hold our 

government to account. 

We are pleased to see renewed congressional interest in reforming FOIA. We ask only 

that such reforms be real, be significant, and provide greater access to information for the 

American people. And speaking of FOIA reform, Congress should apply the freedom of 

information concept to itself and the courts, the two branches of the federal government 

exempt from the transparency laws that presidents and executive agencies must follow. 

Certainly, in the least, the administrative activities of Congress and the federal courts 

should be subject to the same transparency rules as the Executive Branch. 

In the meantime, Judicial Watch is interested in two proposals for increased transparency 

with respect to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and the Smithsonian institution. 

Judicial Watch has tried to investigate scandals behind the collapse of Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac and their role in helping trigger the global financial and related housing 

crises. A key component of this investigation involved the role political corruption 

played in the failure of adequate congressional oversight and the catastrophic collapse 

of these "government-sponsored enterprises" in 2008. 

That is why we filed a Freedom ofinformation Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch, 

Inc. v. U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, USDC Case No. 9-1537; 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-v-u-s-federal-housing-finance-agency) 

against the Obama administration to get a hold of documents related to Fannie's and 

Freddie's campaign contributions. 

4 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26499.018

Since American taxpayers are on the hook for trill ions of dollars, potentially 

including already $187 billion alone for Fannie and Freddie, we deserve to know how 

and why this financial collapse occurred and who in Washington, D.C., is 

responsible. 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration disagreed. 

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the agency responsible for Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac, responded to our FOIA lawsuit by telling us that all of the 

documents we seek are not subject to FOIA. 

Here is the exact language the Obarna agency used in its court filing 

(http://www .judicialwatch.org/files/documents/20 1 0/jw-v-fhfadefmem4sj- 01292010.pd!): 

... Any records created by or held in the custody of the Enterprises (Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac) reflecting their political campaign contributions or policies, 

stipulations and requirements concerning campaign contributions necessarily 

are private corporate documents. They are not "agency records" subject to 

disclosure under FOIA. 

And here is why the Obama administration's reasoning is flat-out wrong, as detailed 

in a court motion (http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/20 1 O/jw-fhfaopp2sj-cm4si-030520 I O.pd!) our lawyers filed in response (on March 5, 2010): 

At issue in this Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA") lawsuit is whether FHFA, 

the federal agency that has custody and control of the records of Federal 

National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and Federal Home Loan 

Mortgage Company ("Freddie Mac"), must comply with a FOIA request for 

records relating to those previously independent entities. Until they were seized 

by FHFA in September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private 

corporations with independent directors, officers, and shareholders. Since that 

time, FHFA, a federal agency subject to FOIA, has assumed full legal custody 

and control of the records of these previously independent entities. Hence, these 

records are subject to FOIA like any other agency records. 

Unfortunately, the courts have ruled (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FHFA, 646 F.3d 924 (D.C. 

Cir. 2011)) that as long as these records are not "used," the records are not subject to 

FOIA. 

The decision to keep these Fannie/Freddie records secret is the most significant antitransparency decision of the Obama administration. You can obtain documents from the 

Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other "secretive" 

government agencies that deal with life-and-death matters. But not one document from 

the government Fannie and Freddie mortgage monsters would ever be disclosed under the 

freedom of information law that governs most every other executive branch agency. 

5 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26499.019

Legislation that would address this Fannie/Freddie transparency gap is long overdue. 

(Along with FOIA, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) was passed by 

Congress to shed light on federal advisory committees. Among other topics, it has a 

special emphasis on open meetings, chartering, public involvement, and 

reporting. Because the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) was established in 

the Federal Reserve System, the CFPB is exempt from F ACA even though it regularly 

uses and relies on four advisory boards and councils. Bills have been introduced in 

previous sessions, and we believe such legislation should be reintroduced. Even though 

the CFPB claims it complies with the spirit ofFACA, without a statutory fix, there is no 

available mechanism for Judicial Watch, other good government groups, and the public 

to insure compliance.) 

Then there's the issue of the Smithsonian Institution, another taxpayer-funded entity that 

is not subject to FOIA. The Smithsonian, which operates as a trust, received $840 million 

in taxpayer funds in FY20 16. The Institution, established in 1846, is governed by a board 

of regents which, by law, is composed of the vice president of the United States, the chief 

justice of the United States, three members of the Senate, three members of the House of 

Representatives and nine citizen members (who are approved by Congress and the 

President). The chief justice of the United States has traditionally served as chancellor of 

the Smithsonian. 

Most of the Smithsonian's permanent staff are federal employees and its Secretary is 

appointed by public officials and other government appointees. 

Courts have ruled that the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to the Smithsonian. 

As a result, Americans must rely on voluntary disclosures by this government institution. 

Judicial Watch, for instance, is trying without success to obtain documents from the 

Smithsonian about its decision-making regarding the inclusion of Justice Clarence 

Thomas in its African American Museum. 

Rather than relying on the "kindness of strangers" to find out how billions oftax dollars 

are spent, Congress would do well to consider Delegate Holmes Norton's bill to apply 

FOIA explicitly to the Smithsonian Institution. 

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have. 

### 

6 
34 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Painter, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD PAINTER 

Mr. PAINTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cummings, other members of the committee. 

I strongly support the Open Government Data Act and with some 

qualifications support the other two bills. Open government data is 

absolutely critical, and it needs—we need a regime where government data is accessible to ordinary Americans, and that’s not what 

we have right now. 

I would strongly urge, however, that this bill be expanded to include a mandate that the White House visitor logs be disclosed to 

the public, and that should include Jackson Place where a lot of 

those meetings are taking place outside the gates, and we know 

what’s been going on there for a while, and also the government 

agencies and Congress. I have the right to know when campaign 

contributors, lobbyists, and others are visiting my Congressman to 

try and get him to waste my taxpayer money on something. I have 

the right to know who’s coming in and out of the government agencies and the halls of Congress. So I support this bill but would expand it significantly. 

With respect to the Fannie and Freddie open records or applying 

the Freedom of Information Act to Fannie and Freddie, I approve 

of that or a similar measure, but it should expand beyond the period that these entities are in conservatorship. The idea is to prevent another financial crisis. And similar disclosure requirements 

should apply to other banks that are securitizing mortgages. This 

wasn’t just by Fannie and Freddie. It was by Lehman Brothers, 

Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and the rest of them. 

If shareholders of those banks had had access to records to find 

out what was going on instead of the nonsense that was shoveled 

at them in the 10–K forms by those banks, which quite frankly I 

think were fraudulently prepared, it’s quite clear that those private 

entities that were securitizing mortgages were lying to their shareholders. We wouldn’t have been in the situation that we were in 

in 2008 if there had been more transparency from all of the financial institutions, including but not limited to Fannie and Freddie, 

which were securitizing mortgages. So I think that’s a good bill, but 

once again, that concept of exposure—of disclosure needs to be expanded to the rest of the mortgage securitization industry, which 

has such a dramatic impact on our economy. 

With respect to the Federal Reserve, I support this bill in principle. The question is whether the Comptroller General should conduct the audit or someone else. And it’s critical that we understand 

the transparency at the Fed and good management is crucial to 

public confidence in the Federal Reserve Bank. We—I’ve written on 

the history of the Federal Reserve. We tried twice to establish a 

Bank of the United States under Alexander Hamilton and Nicholas 

Biddle, and one of the reasons those efforts did not survive is corruption and lack of public confidence. We need to have public confidence in the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Reserve 

Board. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

But I also am strongly opposed to the attacks on the Federal Reserve, the populist rhetoric that we’ve had going all the way back 

to William Jennings Bryan, who was attacking sound money in the 

years before we had a Federal Reserve. This is not the way to manage economy through ill-informed attacks on our Federal Reserve 

system and on sound money. And I know that there are always 

going to be politicians who want to push the Fed to have easy 

money, particularly in election years, and if we politicize the Fed 

and we destroy the independence, we undermine the independence 

of the Fed, we are in serious trouble. 

Now, turning to the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, I strongly support this bill. We have a right to know about money that is 

coming into our President’s business interests, particularly from 

outside the United States. While this committee was spending 

hours and hours fussing around with Hillary Clinton’s emails, we 

had espionage conducted inside the United States by Russia and 

apparently with the assistance of Americans. We don’t know who 

they were, but whoever they are, those people committed treason. 

And I do not mean to suggest that the President of the United 

States was involved, but we have the right to the information on 

the following forms: Return of U.S. persons with respect to certain 

foreign partnerships, statement of specified foreign financial assets, 

annual return to report transactions with foreign trusts in receipt 

of certain foreign gifts, information returned by a shareholder of a 

passive foreign investment company or qualified electing fund, information return of U.S. persons with respect to certain foreign corporations. 

These are among the many forms that need to be filled out by 

a U.S. taxpayer who is receiving money from abroad. We have the 

right to that information from our President. He has failed to disclose his tax returns. Every other President has disclosed his tax 

returns. In an environment where espionage has been conducted 

against the United States and some Americans may have engaged 

in acts of treason, we have the right to that information from our 

President. I urge this Congress to pass that bill as soon as possible. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Painter follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26499.020

Testimony ofRichard W. Painter 

Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

United States House ofRepresentatives 

Hearing entitled 

Legislative Proposals for Fostering Transparency 

March 23, 2017 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee: 

I am here to testify in support of the OPEN Government Data Act, 

and with some qualifications the Fannie and Freddie Open Records 

Act and the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. I will address the 

latter two bills in more detail in this testimony. 

I have spent most of my career in law practice and law teaching in 

the field of financial services regulation. As I discuss in my 2015 

coauthored book on bankers' ethics 1

, I believe strongly that 

transparency and accountability are critical to the health of the 

financial services industry and the American economy which 

depends upon safe and sound financial services. 

For this reason I support, in concept at least, both the Fannie and 

Freddie Open Records Act and the Federal Reserve Transparency 

Act. 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

These two mortgage giants, through mismanagement and 

concealment, contributed substantially to the financial collapse of 

2008. That story has already been told, including in my own 

book2

, and I will not retell it here. 

1 Bettter Bankers, Better Banks: Promoting Good Business Through Contractual Commitment (U 

Chicago Press 2015) (with Claire Hill) 2 Id. 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26499.021

Increased transparency at both institutions will go a long way 

toward avoiding a repeat of past mistakes. Public access to records 

-whether through the Freedom ofinforrnation Act or other similar 

means -will help assure sound management and safe practices in 

their business of securitizing horne mortgages. 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, were not alone in causing 

the financial crisis. Many other institutions, most of them publicly 

held corporations traded on the New York Stock Exchange, 

participated in the securitization of bad mortgage loans and 

foisting them off on unsuspecting investors. Some of the most 

prominent institutions -Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear 

Stearns -were managed so badly that they became insolvent and 

either declared bankruptcy or were bailed out by the federal 

government and merged into other institutions. Public financial 

disclosure by these companies on Forms 10-K and other filings 

with the Securities Exchange Commission was very inadequate 

and arguably fraudulent. 

It would make little sense - and indeed be very hypocritical- for 

Congress to impose greater transparency measures on Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac without imposing similar measures on other 

financial institutions that securitize billions of dollars of mortgages 

and other debt and that, through their business practices, have a 

similar impact on our economy. 

I am not suggesting that these large financial institutions be subject 

to the Freedom of Information Act or similar laws focused on 

governmental entities, but a very good argument can be made for 

giving shareholders in these companies similar access to 

information that would be available from Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac under this bill. If this bill or other legislation does not give 

shareholders such a right to specific information going beyond the 

general statements made - and sometimes misrepresented -- in 

annual disclosure Form 10-K and other securities filings, the 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26499.022

sloppy business practices that characterized the entire industry for 

so long will simply migrate from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 

where there will be more disclosure on account of this new law, 

over to other parts of the financial services industry where there 

will be less disclosure. This will not only create an uneven playing 

field disadvantaging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but could have 

potentially disastrous consequences for investors, for the economy 

and American workers. 

In sum I am in favor of more transparency and open records, but 

across the entire industry of mortgage securitization, not just at 

Fannie and Freddie. 

The Federal Reserve 

The Federal Reserve also is an institution in need of greater 

transparency. Markets are more stable if investors are not taken 

by surprise by decisions made by the Fed. Transparency reduces 

the risk of scandal because information that is withheld by the Fed 

is prone to leaks and potential abuse in insider trading. Finally, 

economists, investors and the public should be aware of factors 

considered by the Fed in setting interest rate policy as well as the 

Fed's stance on regulatory matters. There are legitimate and 

important differences of opinion on these matters, and sound 

policy is most likely to emerge from robust public debate. 

On the other hand, protection of the Fed's independence from the 

elected branches of government is critical. The Fed's mission is to 

promote sound long term economic growth and minimize inflation. 

The Fed's role is not to time growth cycles to correspond with 

election cycles for the President or Members of Congress. Neither 

is the Fed charged with being a propaganda ministry for the 

executive branch, telling people that the economy is doing better 

than it is. The political branches of government can live in an 

"alternative facts" universe if they so choose and voters tolerate it. 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26499.023

The Fed's job is to tell the truth about economic facts because 

investors need this information. Indeed, it is a crime for anyone, 

including a person associated with the Fed to knowingly or 

recklessly make a false statement that affects the price of a 

publicly traded security. 3 

By sharp contrast to the level of care in stewardship of the 

economy and candor expected of the Fed, we see hyperbole at best, 

as well as extremely short time horizons in the elected branches of 

government. The President - not yet two months in office - has 

Tweeted about jobs statistics linked to policies in place long before 

he took office. We regularly see August and September job 

statistics given disproportionate weight in economic policy debates 

in November elections, with one candidate claiming the economy 

is going gangbusters and the other insisting that we are veering 

into a recession. The Fed should have no role in such political 

theatre. In order to assure that the Fed stays well clear of such 

politicized economics, it is critical that the Fed continue to be as 

independent as possible from the Executive and Legislative 

branches of government. 

A balance thus must be struck between accountability and 

transparency of the Fed on the one hand, and independence of the 

Fed on the other. I believe this bill strikes the right balance, but I 

strongly urge that this Committee solicit the opinions of present 

and past members of the Federal Reserve Board to make sure that 

this bill does not undermine the independence of the Fed or 

otherwise interfere with Fed policy. It should be possible to 

achieve accountability and transparency at the Fed while 

preserving the Fed's independence, and if this Committee is 

careful in its deliberations over this bill, and with the details 

embedded therein, that balance can be achieved. 

3 See Section lOb of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule l Ob-5 thereunder. 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26499.024

Transparency and Accountability Expectations of Federal Officials 

In addition to the transparency and accountability expectations of 

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve that are set forth 

in these bills, Congress needs to consider amending federal 

financial disclosure laws for executive branch officials to require 

more transparency in their own financial dealings, particularly 

dealings with large lending institutions. 

Unfortunately, the public financial disclosure form 278 filed by 

senior executive branch officials does not require disclosure of 

borrowing and other infusions of capital at the corporate level for 

entities owned in whole or in part by the public official. The 

entity itself is listed on Schedule A of Form 278 but its debt 

obligations and other capital infusions are not listed on Schedule B 

(liabilities) unless the office holder himself or herself is liable on 

the debt which is rarely the case. This means that office holders 

through undisclosed corporate level debt or other capital infusions 

could be financially dependent upon persons and entities unknown 

anywhere in the world. This raises serious questions under the 

Emoluments Clause ofthe Constitution if foreign sovereign wealth 

funds or state owned banks are involved, and in any event is a 

serious deficiency in the transparency we ordinarily expect of 

public officials. 

This issue is most pronounced in the public financial disclosure 

form 278 of President Trump, particularly when coupled with his 

refusal to disclose his tax returns. But this is an issue likely to 

affect other high net worth public officials as well. Such a 

disclosure lapse with respect to large scale corporate level 

transactions in entities controlled by public officials is 

unacceptable in a government where transparency is critical for 

there to be accountability. 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26499.025

Congress should amend the disclosure statute to require disclosure 

of debt and other capital infusions into privately held entities that 

are majority owned by public officials filing Form 278, including 

but not limited to the President of the United States. I would be 

pleased to discuss specifics of such an amendment in answer to 

your questions. 

Because much of this information can be obtained from the tax 

returns of a person controlling such entities, I would also strongly 

support legislation requiring senior public officials, including the 

President, to disclose their tax returns. 

Thank you 
42 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank you all for your testimony. 

I will now recognize Mr. Massie of Kentucky for five minutes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My first question is for Mr. Singleton. Can you talk about the 

role the Fed played in the housing bubble in 2008? Was there any 

role there? Press your microphone, please. 

Mr. SINGLETON. Sorry. Yes, sir. There was a tremendous role. 

The Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan following the collapse 

of the .com bubble in a Federal—which is a Federal Reserve-created bubble, consciously began to pump money into the economy, 

as it does. That money flowed this time into the housing market 

because the Bush administration was making a decision to emphasize housing through working with vehicles like Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac, and the Federal Reserve was also very cognizant and 

supportive of this policy. 

Without the Federal Reserve pumping money into the economy, 

you would not see that money flowing into specific sectors, whether 

it’s .com in the ’90s, whether it’s housing in the aughts, which 

sends distorted signals of pricing and supply and demand to investors and businesses and workers, who then go and overheat those 

markets. At some point it becomes clear that they misread the underlying fundamentals of the economy and the whole thing collapses. And that’s what we saw in ’07 and ’08. 

If you actually go back and read what my former boss Dr. Ron 

Paul was saying when he was a member of the House Financial 

Services Committee in 2003, 2004, he predicted exactly what would 

happen. And exactly what he said would happen in ’03 and ’04 happened in ’07 and ’08. And it’s not that Dr. Paul has some great 

soothsaying ability. It’s that he understands the fundamentals of 

the economy. He understands why the Federal Reserve is dangerous. 

And that is why—one of the reasons why he founded Campaign 

for Liberty was to try to continue his efforts to shape and make 

Congress take a more aggressive role in promoting sound economics by doing things like auditing the Federal Reserve so that we— 

so that more people could understand what exactly this organization is doing and how its policies affect the American economy and 

the American people. 

Mr. MASSIE. So you mentioned there were a lot of people that— 

Dr. Paul among them but he wasn’t unique in this regard—that 

were warning that it might have been superheated, yet the Federal 

Reserve, the board proceeded with this monetary policy. Are you in 

any way saying that Congress should be responsible for setting interest rates? 

Mr. SINGLETON. Oh, no. No. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SINGLETON. God forbid. No offense —— 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, who would—how would interest rates be set 

or how should the Fed do it differently? 

Mr. SINGLETON. Interest rates, like everything else, should be set 

by the market. Money is fundamentally a unit of exchange. The 

value of that should be set by the market as it reflects individuals’ 

preferences. The interest rate is a time preferences of how individuals view having money for current consumption versus their willVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26499.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

ingness to forgo current consumption in order to save it, in order 

to invest it in the future. That needs to be set free of government 

interference in order for it to accurately reflect the preferences of 

the individuals. 

That does not happen when you have a Federal Reserve which 

artificially distorts the interest rates. And that is the root of the 

boom-bust cycle and things like the ’08 market meltdown, the .com 

implosion of the—of 2000 and 2001, and even of the Great Depression. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, this is not the subject of this legislation but 

it is the subject of another piece of legislation very similar to the 

bill come to be known as Audit the Fed, which is some have proposed rule-based monetary policy as a way of making sure that 

Congress doesn’t set the monetary policy and that the Fed is actually less perhaps political or inclined to try to manage the economy. 

Would rule-based monetary policy provide the transparency or 

some check on the Fed? 

Mr. SINGLETON. Campaign for Liberty does not take a position on 

whether or not the rules-based monetary—on the legislation proposing rules-based monetary policy. I think there are some concerns that have been raised by our chairman and others that it 

would still allow the Federal Reserve to influence and set the interest rates, and so it would not totally clear out the distortionary 

problems caused by having a central bank that has this—the power 

to set monetary—to determine the value of the dollar unhinged 

from any other outside influence such as being tied to a precious 

metals standard, for example. 

Mr. MASSIE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired. 

Mr. DUNCAN. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Massie. Mr. 

Cummings? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Painter, on Monday you published an op-ed in USA Today 

together with Ambassador Norm Eisen, the ethics lawyer for President Obama entitled, quote, ‘‘Trump’s Unprecedented War on Ethics,’’ end of quote. You and Mr. Eisen wrote, and I quote, ‘‘The 

problem starts with the tone-deafness at the top. Trump’s hotels, 

golf courses, and other enterprises continue to do business with foreign and domestic entities that have interests before the government he heads,’’ end of quote. 

You also wrote, and I quote, ‘‘This unprecedented situation is exacerbated by the fact that we do not yet know the full extent of 

Trump’s conflicts. That is because he has failed to disclose his tax 

returns, as we were just reminded, when two pages of his 2005 returns turned up,’’ end of quote. 

Why is it important that President Trump disclose his tax return? We need your mic. We have got to hear this. We want the 

President to hear you. 

Mr. PAINTER. First and foremost, as I mentioned, we need to 

know about any financial relationships between the President of 

the United States and foreign powers, whether it is a foreign power 

that spied on Americans, conducted espionage here in the United 

States, apparently with the assistance of Americans who may have 

been working for the Trump campaign. Whoever it is, as I say, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

committed treason. But we have the right to know our President’s 

relationship with all foreign countries, not just Russia, including 

these forms which I just mentioned. I’m happy to have a member 

submit to the record if you so please. That is of critical importance. 

The President is also conducting trade negotiations with foreign 

countries, including China, where he has many trademarks that he 

has just received. We have a right to know how much money is 

coming under the table to the President while he’s conducting trade 

negotiations that affect American jobs. So this is important to our 

national security. It’s important to our stance on trade. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. When you were the ethics counselor for President George W. Bush, did President Bush release his tax returns 

to the public? 

Mr. PAINTER. Absolutely, as did President Obama, President 

Clinton did. Every other President has released his tax returns because if Americans are going to be expected to pay taxes, we have 

the right also to know that our President is paying his or her fair 

share. We have the right to know what is going on with respect to 

our President’s financial relationships inside and outside the 

United States. 

Last, we have the right to know whether our President is in debt 

to people inside or outside the United States. How much is he in 

debt? How much does he depend on the banks who may very well 

be deregulated when the administration proposes the repeal of 

Dodd-Frank? All of this is information the American people have 

a right to. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did President Bush require the individuals being 

considered for Cabinet positions in his administration disclose their 

tax returns as part of the nominations process? 

Mr. PAINTER. I told everybody that came into my office when I 

talked to them that the Senate committee that was considering 

them for confirmation might very well demand their tax returns, 

and many of those committees did, particularly in areas that were 

relative to the national defense or the economy. I specifically remember Senator Grassley of Iowa being very meticulous about the 

tax returns of anybody we sent over for the Treasury Department. 

So everybody had to be prepared to publicly disclose their tax returns just like the President did. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. On January 5, Representative Anna Eshoo introduced the Presidential Tax Transparency Act. This bill would 

amend the Ethics in Government Act to require the current President, as well as future Presidents and candidates for the Office of 

President to disclose tax returns for the most recent three years to 

the Office of Government Ethics with their financial disclosures. 

Since President Trump has refused to release his tax returns on 

his own, do you believe that Congress should actually require him 

to release the tax returns? 

Mr. PAINTER. I believe that Congress should pass the bill, but I 

would make that five or eight years. I’d like to know how much 

money was coming in from foreign powers to someone I was going 

to vote for for President of the United States, and I’d like that information a little bit further back than just three years. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would requiring President Trump and future 

Presidents and presidential candidates to release their tax returns 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

be out of line with what past Presidents have required of their 

nominees for Cabinet positions? 

Mr. PAINTER. This is unprecedented, a President refusing to release his tax returns and indeed the White House made it very 

clear that the tax returns, people need to sign a tax return waiver 

with the IRS so they could be considered for positions because the 

White House may very well want to take a look at it and the Senate committees that are confirming may want to see it. And most 

of those committees indeed do for some of the most important positions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman —— 

Mr. PAINTER. Tax returns must be —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, as I close, all Democratic members of the committee have cosponsored Representative Eshoo’s legislation. Congressman Mark Sanford, our colleague on the committee from across the aisle, has also cosponsored the bill, and all 

Democratic members of this committee have sent a letter to our 

chairman urging H.R. 305 be considered at the next markup. And 

I want to thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, for five minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing and for the work that you are doing on these 

bills. 

Mr. Singleton, I am fascinated by or I guess astounded by this $16 trillion figure. Would you go into a little more detail about 

where that came from and how they have the authority to do that? 

I mean, that just—I know nobody can humanly comprehend of a 

trillion-dollar figure, but tell us more about that, about where that 

money went and so forth. 

Mr. SINGLETON. That is from the Dodd Fed audit that was authorized in—like I said in the bill—Dodd Fed Bill, and that money 

basically comes from the Federal Reserve’s open-market operations 

when they buy treasury securities, which is how also they managed 

to support a lot of the spending that goes on across the street in 

the capital. 

And one of the problems is that the Fed has—if you look at the 

Federal Reserve statutes, there are parts of it—the specific sections 

escape me now—but that actually do give the Fed very open-ended 

authority to intervene and buy assets, private-sector assets of both 

domestic and international companies, foreign banks, foreign reserves. 

And we don’t really have a good handle on what they’re doing 

with this. We don’t have a good handle on their future plans. We 

don’t have a good handle on how they’re going to—on how they 

have intervened in a situation like Greece or how they’re going to 

intervene in future situations. What we do have is this limited 

amount of knowledge that they did make dealings to the amount 

of $16 trillion. I believe it was buying reserves, buying other assets 

during this period. 

And their excuse was they needed to prop up the economy. That 

was also their excuse for the unprecedented intervention in the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

economy by the Federal Reserve under the name of quantitative 

easing, which was supposed to—when they saw that their recordlow interest rates—which, by the way, I believe interest rates are 

still at a near or record low amount despite the Fed’s recent actions 

in raising them—that that has failed to generate an economic 

growth, even a phony economic growth that it has in the past. 

And these are all reasons why, unfortunately, the fact that you 

won’t get a clear answer, Mr. Duncan, to your question until Congress passes the Audit the Fed bill. Fortunately, whatever else you 

think of his other policies, President Trump is on record as wanting 

to sign an Audit the Fed bill as supporting the Audit the Fed bill. 

And also, as I mentioned before, this bill does have broad bipartisan support. It was supported by every Senator running for President. And when I said that, I don’t just mean the Republican Senators. Senator Sanders voted for the bill last year, and he has been 

a longtime champion of Federal Reserve transparency. I—I’m not 

100 percent about this but I’m pretty sure that you won’t find 

many issues that can unite Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio 

with Senator Bernie Sanders. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well —— 

Mr. SINGLETON. And so I would suggest that—so I would again 

suggest that it’s very—that this is very important. If Congress —— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well —— 

Mr. SINGLETON.—really is serious about changing the economic 

direction of this country, that you start with great transparency 

and start by considering Audit the Fed, along with the Fannie and 

Freddie transparency bills. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Well, I’m running out of time so let me just 

say very quickly I appreciate the work that all of the witnesses, all 

of you are doing in these areas. 

Mr. Hollister, I hope you can end this Dun & Bradstreet monopoly. 

And, Mr. Fitton, I appreciate your work that you have done. You 

have been before this committee before, but Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac, we have a report here, government-sponsored luxury 

paying $3.9 million to the chief financial officer, $4.5 million to the 

general counsel, $4.6 million to the chief financial officer of Fannie 

Mae, $5.1 million to general counsel for Freddie Mac, $7.8 million 

to the chief executive officer, $9.3 million to the chief executive officer for Fannie Mae. 

I mean, it is ridiculous that these entities have been losing this 

money during years that they were losing money they were spending all this money to pay these excessive salaries and then golden 

parachute packages to leave. And now recent reports say Fannie 

Mae is spending $56 million to relocate its headquarters in downtown D.C. They are out of control, and we need more specifics both 

on this $16 trillion and also on what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

are doing, Mr. Fitton. And I applaud you for your work there, and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. 

Maloney, for five minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of the 

panelists for their hard work and their testimony today. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

I support the Open Data Act and H.R. 305, the Presidential Tax 

Transparency Act, which Ranking Member Cummings and Mr. 

Painter so eloquently spoke about the need to know about the influence of foreign money in our elections. 

But I want to say that I am strongly opposed to what I believe 

is a dangerous bill, H.R. 24, which would seriously undermine the 

independence of the Federal Reserve. First of all, we are still reeling from the financial crisis where some people say it was $16 trillion, others say it was $18 trillion. But we do know it was trillions 

of dollars of loss to our economy, millions lost their homes, millions 

lost their jobs, and it was the first economic crisis that Dr. Hall, 

a Bush appointment to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said 

was totally a result of mismanagement, corruption, greed in the 

private sector. It was preventable. 

Christina Romer testified before this Congress that the economic 

impacts of that crisis was five times greater than the Great Depression, yet we survived. I can remember constituents calling and 

screaming at me we are going down, we are going under, our banks 

are going under, money markets are going under, and many people 

are given credit for helping us survive, Congress, the President, 

and certainly the Federal Reserve that moved in many ways quickly and effectively to respond to the financial crisis. 

Even though it began in our country—by all accounts, we came 

back stronger and faster than any other country in the world. We 

had 38 months of economic growth, the longest span in history out 

of the biggest depth of depression we have ever had. Would we 

have liked to have been more? Yes. But when President Obama 

went into office, this country was shedding 700,000 jobs a month. 

It was a huge financial crisis. 

And I want to be clear that the Federal Reserve is already audited. The Fed’s financial statements are audited by an independent accounting firm every year, and those audits are publicly 

available. GAO has also conducted extensive audits of the Federal 

Reserve. The only thing that GAO is prohibited from auditing is 

the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decision-making. Everything 

else that the Fed does the GAO can already audit. 

But this bill would change that longstanding rule and would 

allow the GAO to audit the Fed’s monetary policy decisions. This 

would have a number of harmful effects. It would seriously undermine the Fed’s independence, would cause the markets to lose confidence in the Fed’s ability to conduct sound monetary policy, and 

would lead to a rise in inflation fears and general interest rates. 

This would ultimately be harmful for the economy, for economic 

growth, for jobs in this country. 

And the Federal Reserve did not cause the economic crisis. They 

were part of the solution in helping us bound back. In 2010, the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act expanded the types of audits GAO may conduct, as well as the data 

that must be disclosed to the public. The Dodd-Frank act opened 

to GAO audit discount window operations authorized under section 

11(s) of the Federal Reserve Act, and the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions were crafted to expand transparency surrounding the Federal 

Reserve’s operations without undermining its independence. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

Further exposing the Federal Reserve’s deliberations could influence the deliberations that are conducted and the policies that are 

chosen, degrading the independence of the Federal Reserve and its 

monetary policy decisions. Members of Congress could actively seek 

to influence the Federal Reserve’s deliberations by the types and 

subjects of audits they request from GAO. They could also seek to 

obtain the matter materials GAO assesses in performing audits, including documents related to the Federal Reserve’s deliberations. 

Now, I would like unanimous consent to place in the record a list 

of questions relating to this issue with the Federal Reserve and 

also the very important bill that the chairman mentioned. 

Mrs. MALONEY. But this is a very, very serious matter, and I feel 

strongly about it. I feel that it would be dangerous to our economic 

policy, and I urge a no vote on H.R. 24. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentlewoman. 

And questions for the record may go to the panel if any member 

will have a couple of legislative days in which to submit those. And 

we appreciate the panel getting us a timely response. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes. And, Mr. Fitton, I 

would like to start with you, and I really want to talk about the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency which in September of 2008, as 

you know, seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What is the financial liability? Do you know off the top of your head the liability taxpayers have for that? It is something like $5 trillion in mortgage 

liabilities. Is that about your —— 

Mr. FITTON. Between two agencies it’s about —— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Microphone, sir. 

Mr. FITTON. I’m sorry. Between two agencies they either directly own or insure about $5 trillion worth in mortgages. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I just want people to settle in on that, that 

taxpayers are on the hook for this amount of money. And it is true, 

right, that the Federal Housing Finance Agency is subject to a 

Freedom of Information Act request, correct? 

Mr. FITTON. Generally speaking, yes. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. In May of 2009, Judicial Watch put in a 

FOIA request for documents related to political contributions made 

by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How did the FHFA respond to 

that FOIA request? 

Mr. FITTON. They acknowledged the records were in their custody and control but they were not agency records subject to disclosure under FOIA. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And the FHFA denied the FOIA request 

sing the agency, quote, ‘‘did not control them.’’ So are Fannie and 

Freddie wholly operated by the Federal Government now? Who is 

actually running that agency—those entities? 

Mr. FITTON. It is—they’ve acknowledged repeatedly that they do 

run the two entities, Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Housing Finance Administration. 

Mr. PAINTER. They’re under a conservatorship. They’re under a 

conservatorship, were taken over in 2008 under the powers the 

government has under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 

—— Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Thank you. I understand. I understand. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

The statute granting the FHFA conservatorship over Fannie and 

Freddie states that the FHFA has, quote, ‘‘all rights, titles, powers, 

and privileges of Fannie and Freddie and of any stockholder, officer, or director,’’ end quote. Mr. Fitton, is that your understanding 

of it as well? 

Mr. FITTON. Yes, and it’s been acknowledged by the agency itself. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I believe that the statute also says that 

FHFA has, quote ‘‘title to the books, records, and assets of any 

other legal custodian of,’’ end quote, Fannie and Freddie. Is that 

your understanding, Mr. Fitton? 

Mr. FITTON. Yes. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Is it true that under FOIA an agency 

record is subject to disclosure unless a specific exemption applies, 

Mr. Fitton? 

Mr. FITTON. Yes. Generally speaking, yes. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So did FHFA suggest to Judicial Watch 

Fannie and Freddie records were somehow exempt from FOIA? 

Mr. FITTON. They did not subject—they did not say they were 

subject to FOIA but exempt from disclosure. They said they were 

not subject to FOIA at all. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So how does one conclude that Fannie and 

Freddie are not subject to FOIA? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, that’s for the—you know, judges figured that 

out for us, and they said that an agency, even though they had the 

records, unless they, quote ‘‘used them,’’ they weren’t subject to 

FOIA, which just struck me as wrong and still strikes me as 

wrong, but that’s the court decision. And so it’s going to be up to 

Congress to fix that. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So that’s why I introduced this bill. And to 

members on both sides, what are we afraid of in terms of exposing 

the liabilities that Fannie and Freddie are creating for us? And 

there are exorbitant sums of money going out the door, again, that 

the American taxpayers are liable for. 

I have got to shift gears here to Mr. Hollister just a little bit. I 

want to talk about the data collection. If you can kind of explain 

in layman’s terms how the D–U-N–S Number works because things 

were given a code and Dun & Bradstreet, a contractor, that system 

is owned by Dun & Bradstreet. Could you kind of explain that to 

us and how that works and what it costs the taxpayers to do? 

Mr. SINGLETON. Yes, sir. In the 1990s the General Services Administration contracted with Dun & Bradstreet to track Federal 

contractors governmentwide. Dun & Bradstreet operates the system that does this. Now, that’s pretty normal as far as Federal 

practice goes. What’s unique is that the contract doesn’t just give 

Dun & Bradstreet the ownership of the system that’s used to track 

the contractors; it also gives Dun & Bradstreet an interest in the 

identification code itself. This means that nobody can use the information that’s encoded using that number unless they purchase a 

license from Dun & Bradstreet. 

Now, the Federal Government has a governmentwide license, applies to most agencies. It doesn’t apply to special-purpose entities 

like the Recovery Board, which is why Recovery Act spending had 

to go dark because they didn’t have a license. But it doesn’t apply 

to citizens. Citizens, researchers, journalists, they can’t download 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

and analyze information about Federal spending unless they purchase a license from Dun & Bradstreet. That means they pay for 

the information twice. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So the American taxpayers, they pay for 

the government, right, and the government has a contract, but you 

are saying that the taxpayers who have already paid once have to 

go back and get another license? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. That’s right, sir. They have to pay again because 

there is a—Dun & Bradstreet, which itself a private-sector contractor, has an ownership interest in the information about contractors. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And they get to see it first then I would assume? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. They do get to see it first and they use it for 

their other business. For example, in order to maintain all of this 

information and its Federal transparency, you might need a few 

data fields. You need to know the name of the company, you need 

to know the address. You might need to know what kind of business they’re operating. Dun & Bradstreet uses its monopoly. It requires every contractor to register with that company. And they 

don’t just collect that—those few pieces of information. They collect 

1,500 additional pieces of information and then they sell that. 

They use their monopoly on this identification code not just to 

make money off the taxpayers who want to download the information but also to coerce the—those who must register with them to 

provide additional information that they then sell as a vendor. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And it is something we need to spend some 

more time on because it is quite a monopoly and given to them by 

the American people, paid for by the American people, and they 

want to charge it again. And we do have a bill, a good bill here 

I think in order to tackle that. 

My time is far expired. I will now recognize the gentlewoman 

from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, for five minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Hollister, in 2014 Congress enacted the Data Act. That law 

requires agencies by May of this year to report spending data in 

accordance with governmentwide data standards. If it is implemented properly, the Data Act will result in a major improvement 

in the transparency of government spending data. Do you agree 

with that? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, Ms. Kelly, I do, and we appreciate your vigorous oversight as the ranking member of the subcommittee on the 

implementation of the Data Act. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. The Open Government Data Act will 

take another step toward expanding the availability of government 

data. It would in part codify an Executive order President Obama 

issued in 2013 that set as the official policy of the Federal Government that government information be open and machine-readable 

whenever possible, even though that is not what we have heard 

here today. Is that right? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, that’s right, and in fact that’s why the Congressional Budget Office has scored the Open Government Data 

Act at zero. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Ms. KELLY. In a January 7, 2017, blog post you said that President Obama’s Executive order, and I quote, ‘‘succeeded brilliantly 

in changing the culture of open data.’’ Why should Congress codify 

that Executive order? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Well, Ms. Kelly, I think that we’ve seen today 

that it’s very difficult to pass transparency reforms when there is 

a current political controversy. For example, this idea of presidential tax returns, there is certainly a political controversy about 

that right now, and so there’s a division. 

However, with the Data Act, as you might remember, it passed 

unanimously. Everyone agreed that we ought to have consistent access to Federal spending data. If it’s fully implemented, it’s going 

to reveal things that nobody anticipated. It might reveal those GSA 

lease payments, for instance, and yet it was supported by everybody in Congress. That’s why it’s important to now, when there’s 

not a political controversy, for Congress to affirm as a permanent 

matter we’re going to publish and we’re going to standardize Federal data. 

Ms. KELLY. Okay. The Open Government Data Act would also require agencies to use open licenses for government data when possible. There’s no doubt that open data supports jobs, innovation, 

and entrepreneurs. Can you speak to the potential for our economy 

and in particular the startup economy that open government data 

could have or create? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, I can, Ms. Kelly. There are 14 startup companies in The Data Coalition, and all of them want to do things 

with government data. Some of them want to apply analytics and 

find insights. Some of them want to republish it on platforms. And 

some of our companies want to automate compliance, reducing the 

need for lawyers and accountants. All that becomes possible when 

the government adopts consistent data formats. 

I can give you one example. Bernie Madoff could have been 

caught if we had consistent data formats. The—Mr. Madoff’s firm 

was reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission two different offices, but because they didn’t identify themselves electronically the same way, those different SEC offices never knew about 

each other’s investigations. If we had consistent data formats, it 

would be possible for data analytics, including maybe the products 

that are offered by the tech industry, to find connections like that. 

It’s great for the tech business. It’s also good for oversight. 

Ms. KELLY. Much of the potential depends on proper implementation of these policies. That’s why the Obama administration created an eight-step plan for implementing the Data Act. One of the 

steps of that plan encouraged agencies to inventory their data. 

Would the inventory requirement under the Open Government 

Data Act be duplicative or do you think there is a benefit in including it in the new law? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Good question, Ms. Kelly. The inventory requirement in the Open Government Data Act was modeled on the one 

that’s in the Executive order. 

Ms. KELLY. Right. 

Mr. HOLLISTER. And I think agencies therefore could comply with 

it simultaneously. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Ms. KELLY. And are these lessons learned from the implementation of the Data Act that could improve implementation of the inventory requirements in the Open Government Data Act? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes. We’ve learned from the implementation of 

the Data Act, which we’ll have the first results of that on—in May 

2017. We’ll see if agencies are able to report a consistent data set 

covering all their spending. 

The most important lesson there I think is that standards matter. There needs to be somebody insisting that the information has 

got to be structured the same way across all the agency stovepipes, 

and that insight is going to carry us after the Open Government 

Data Act becomes law. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you so much. It is critical that we make government data as accessible as possible, and the Open Government 

Data Act would improve the accountability of agencies by making 

government data more transparent and usable. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. KELLY. And I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. [Presiding] Thank you very much. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for five 

minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay, Mr. Fitton, I want to talk a little bit more 

about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. One thing, you know, they 

have been very active politically giving almost $5 million in in political contributions the last 10 years. The biggest recipient of those 

was Senator Dodd, former chairman of the U.S. Senate committee 

on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which is kind of disturbing. One of the biggest recipients was then-Senator Obama. 

Despite being a new Senator they took, you know, apparently a big 

interest in him, you know, developing apparently a very close personal relationship with him. Do you think information about the 

amount of money that a powerful important Senator Dodd was getting or then-Senator Obama was getting—do you think that is easily accessible enough to the public? 

Mr. FITTON. Thank you. Certainly, it’s not accessible in terms of 

what the Fannie and Freddie decision-making were related to their 

political contributions. They took care of politicians on both sides 

of the aisle, and certainly there was a particular focus on those 

that were friendly to them in terms of oversight. 

Secondly, they put both Republicans and Democrats on their 

boards as well. So if we’re looking to find out the failures of Fannie 

and Freddie and why they were allowed to take on so much problematic debt or encouraged problematic housing activities with— 

and put the taxpayer potentially on the hook for billions of losses, 

one of those reasons we’d want to find out, well, did they manipulate the system or benefit from political giving and their relationships with Members of Congress in terms of Congress providing 

protection from significant oversight and reform? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

Mr. FITTON. None of that’s available under law right now, although the documents arguably might be there and should be 

looked at, but they —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Why are the documents shrouded in secrecy? 

How did we wind up that way with such an important—I guess 

you’d say the governmental or quasigovernmental agency? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, it was a decision made early on by the Obama 

administration not to make these documents available to the public. I recognize initially when the government took over all these 

government agencies—when the government took over these two 

agencies that, my gosh, well, FOIA has to apply here. I also kind 

of think the same about GM at the time. But, you know, we didn’t 

get into that as much. 

But the administration took the position that we’re not going to 

release any of these records, they’re not subject to FOIA, and —— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Can the administration release them to this 

day? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, this administration can change that policy in 

a heartbeat. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Now, we will go to Mr. Singleton. In your 

testimony you cited a provision of Dodd -rank which authorized a 

one-time audit in 2007, 2008. What did this audit reveal about the 

Federal Reserve? 

Mr. SINGLETON. Basically, as I said in my testimony and in response to Mr. Duncan’s questions that during the market meltdown 

of—or following the market meltdown between ’07 and 2010, the 

Fed, as part of their policies in an attempt to re-inflate the economy, they committed over $16 trillion to foreign central banks and 

private companies. That’s just a—actually, a fraction of—I believe 

of their total activities. If you look at since that time they’ve had 

the quantitative easing program, which involved more intervention 

into the private economy in an attempt to re-inflate the economic 

bubble that had burst in ’07. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. We don’t get a lot of time here. We had somebody from I think the Fed—I think it was on this committee; I am 

not sure. Could you explain quantitative easing to me and the degree to which it benefitted private companies? 

Mr. SINGLETON. Quantitative easing was the Federal Reserve 

went in and they bought private assets in order to put more money 

into the economy. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Did they pay fair value for those assets? 

Mr. SINGLETON. You know, off the top of my head I’m not sure. 

They would probably say that they did. This is—might be one reason—another reason why we need an audit, to find out more about 

what they do. I know their financial statements are audited, but 

I think we do need more details about their transactions in order 

to fully answer some of these questions. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. I will ask you again. Okay. When they 

funded $16 trillion into foreign entities, could you elaborate on that 

a little bit more? 

Mr. SINGLETON. I can try and find the details. Off the top of my 

head, I’m not familiar with every—with all of the details for that. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And which countries would have benefited? You 

can’t? 

Mr. SINGLETON. I’m sorry. I’m—I can get you that information. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Well, we’ll wait to get that information. 

Thank you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize the gentlewoman from New Jersey for five 

minutes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony and being here 

today. 

I certainly support transparency in Federal Government. I think 

taxpayers need to know how government is functioning and whether or not we are functioning effectively, efficiently, and without corruption. 

Mr. Filfitton? 

Mr. FITTON. Fitton, yes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Fitton. Hi. My question is to you first. 

Do you have a FOIA request in to see the current President’s tax 

returns? 

Mr. FITTON. No, we don’t. They’re not subject to FOIA. The 

White House is not subject to FOIA specifically. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Do you think that they should be? 

Mr. FITTON. Tax returns? Well, typically tax returns would not 

be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Sometimes disclosure 

records related to—that may have information from the tax returns 

do but —— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. But we do have very consistent legacy 

of past Presidents releasing their tax returns. 

Mr. FITTON. We have an inconsistent legacy I would say 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Do you believe that the tax returns 

could reveal more information regarding obligations, debts, spending, earnings, and sources of earnings than is available on disclosure statements? 

Mr. FITTON. Yes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Painter, in an interview with the ABC news in September 

2016, then candidate Donald Trump said, and I quote, ‘‘I released 

the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics. It is either 100 or maybe more pages of names of companies, 

locations of companies, et cetera, et cetera, and it is a very impressive list and everybody says that, but I released a massive list, far 

more than you—you don’t learn much in a tax return.’’ 

Just to be clear, was Mr. Trump required by law to file a financial disclosure form as a presidential candidate, or was this something he was doing voluntarily? 

Mr. PAINTER. He was required to file form 278 —— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. PAINTER.—as a candidate. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. To your knowledge, has any 

modern President had business entanglements that are as large 

and complex as those of President Trump that we can understand 

given the limited information that he shared with us? 

Mr. PAINTER. Nowhere close. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Painter, last year, you published an 

editorial, together with Norman Eisen, the ethics lawyer to former 

President Barack Obama entitled, quote, ‘‘What Trump’s Tax Returns Could Tell Us about His Dealings with Russia,’’ close quote. 

You and Mr. Eisen wrote, and I quote, ‘‘Trump says his tax returns 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

reveal nothing that is not already disclosed on his official candidate 

financial disclosure called form 278e. As ethics counsels to the past 

two Presidents, we dealt with both their tax filings and their form 

278s. And so we know that Trump is wrong,’’ close quote. What 

would we learn from a tax return that would not be contained in 

the financial disclosure? 

Mr. PAINTER. I will assume that the tax return is truthfully filled 

out and not loaded up with alternative facts. But if it is truthfully 

filled out, it will disclose in detail information about payments received by pass-through entities, LLCs, and corporations. Where 

there is pass-through taxation, the entity doesn’t pay a separate 

corporate tax, but the taxpayer, if you’re the President, pays and 

I read into the record a number of the tax forms that would disclose information about dealings with foreign entities that to me is 

of utmost concern to our national security. But there is much, 

much more information as well. 

The key difference between the tax forms and form 278 is that 

the 278 financial disclosure form he filled out lists these entities 

that he has a controlling interest in, sometimes a 100 percent controlling interest in, but schedule 278 does not list the liabilities of 

those entities and the income streams of those entities. None of 

that is listed. Schedule B, which has liabilities, only has to list the 

liabilities that he is personally liable for or that he has personally 

guaranteed. 

So the entity on schedule A could owe hundreds of millions of 

dollars to the Chinese Government, the Russian Government. We 

don’t know who and we’re never going to find out. A lot of that you 

find out through the tax returns. We’re entitled to that information 

from our President. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. And tax returns are auditable, but these 

other financial disclosure forms are not auditable per se. Is that so? 

Mr. PAINTER. That is true. We are on an honor system within the 

financial disclosure forms. Of course, if you make a false statement 

—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. PAINTER.—that’s a criminal offense. But there is an audit, 

the IRS, of the tax returns. The President apparently has an awful 

lot of returns with an awful lot of audits if that’s his excuse for not 

releasing them. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Well, we are certainly finding out each 

and every day that there’s greater concern as to this President’s entanglements and the impact on his ability to govern this country 

in a safe and secure manner. It is simply not the case that what 

he has given to us is sufficient thus far, and we need to continue 

to require that he gives us a full disclosure. 

And with that, I believe that this committee should consider and 

pass the Presidential Tax Transparency Act to require that President Trump discloses taxes so that we can have a more complete 

view of his finances and so we can find a degree of confidence in 

his governance. 

And with that, I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The gentlewoman’s times expire. 

We will now go to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

panel today for being here. 

Time and time again, John Koskinen, the head of the IRS, has 

asserted, quote, ‘‘We produced all the emails,’’ end quote. He also 

has asserted numerous times, quote, ‘‘We spent a significant 

amount of time trying to provide all of the information we had,’’ 

end quote. Mr. Fitton, do you know approximately when John 

Koskinen made these claims? 

Mr. FITTON. He made them repeatedly over the last few years, 

and the IRS generally has been making similar claims in court saying they’ve looked everywhere they needed to look and there’s nothing else to be found. And just recently, the IRS acknowledged there 

was a category of a least—a group of at least 7,000 or so documents 

that they needed to search in response to one of our Freedom of 

Information Act lawsuits about improper auditing that they hadn’t 

searched. And these were records not only responses to Judicial 

Watch’s FOIAs but my understanding is would have been responsive to congressional investigations on those subject matters. 

Mr. BLUM. How long does it take them to receive these? When 

did he make these claims that we’ve turned over all the emails? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, the IRS told us that they didn’t need it—that 

they were done searching and there was nothing else to be found 

reasonably a year-and-a-half ago. We’ve been fighting on this very 

issue about where they were—needed to search for many years 

though since the scandal was first uncovered in 2013, and we’ve 

been faced with nothing but obstruction and —— 

Mr. BLUM. Seven thousand emails —— 

Mr. FITTON. There was another group —— 

Mr. BLUM.—18 months later, is that correct? 

Mr. FITTON. We don’t know when we’re going to get all those responsive records yet either. 

Mr. BLUM. Why in your opinion, Mr. Fitton, is this significant? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, we need to know that our tax agency is being 

used for lawful purposes. And we need to have the laws protect us 

in that regard in terms of assuring that’s occurring, and that—one 

of the key laws, one of the few ones that the citizens can use is 

the Freedom of Information Act. It doesn’t allow us to get access 

to anyone’s individual tax returns, but we can get access to decision-making about their policies and such, and to get that information out has been—required extraordinary legal efforts. 

Mr. BLUM. Do you think the IRS Commissioner was lying when 

he said we produced all the emails, we’ve spent a significant 

amount of time to pry out all the information we have? Do you 

think he was lying? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, I’m sure they spent a lot of time, but they 

didn’t produce all the emails. And the IRS Commissioner specifically made a decision not to inform Congress for several months 

about a major issue they had with email production specifically 

with relation to Lois Lerner and the fact that emails from her were 

not backed up or were backed up but, depending on what time of 

day it was, they got a different story out of the IRS. But the Commissioner was not forthcoming with Congress for months on that 

issue. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

Mr. BLUM. Not forthcoming. We call that something different in 

Iowa, but I will accept that. 

So, Mr. Fitton, nearly five years after Lois Lerner preempted the 

inspector general with a planted question that the IRS was in fact 

targeting people for their political beliefs, still, still 18 months later 

no one has been held accountable and documents are apparently 

still outstanding, correct? 

Mr. FITTON. It’s longer than 18 months. It’s 2013 and we’re now 

going into 2017. So it’s four years and we’re still waiting for documents on that issue. 

Mr. BLUM. This is exactly why transparency is so important. It’s 

exactly why this hearing is important. It should not take years of 

FOIA requests, congressional investigations, and court battles for 

Americans to get answers. The folks in my district applaud—when 

I say no one, including no one in Washington, D.C., is above the 

law. 

Thank you for your testimony. I yield back my time. 

Mr. FITTON. Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields 

back. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panel. 

Mr. Painter, I am glad you are here, and I want to thank you 

for your work and your focus on these issues of conflicts of interest. 

You said, and I certainly agree, that the example, the standard 

of transparency disclosure, accountability has to be set from the 

very top, that the President of the United States has to demonstrate a clear commitment to those principles. And obviously, 

when you served when your colleague Norm Eisen served, that was 

the kind of standard that was adhered to. I don’t think we are seeing that from the current administration, and I think that the examples set or lack of examples set is kind of trickling down, finding 

its way into the various Cabinet appointments into the way those 

agencies are operating, which puts an extra responsibility on Congress and on committees like this one, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to press for that kind of transparency and 

accountability. 

I think this committee could be doing a lot more in that regard 

frankly and some other standing committees in the House and the 

Senate to press on the administration for the accountability and 

transparency that we would like to see. 

We have pulled together a task force, Democracy Reform Task 

Force, which I chair and is vice-chaired by a number of my colleagues to try to push on this issue of conflicts of interest. And we 

have been cataloguing all of the efforts that have been undertaken 

by Members of Congress on our side of the aisle over the last six, 

seven weeks to try to elicit some decent information about what is 

happening with the Trump White House and with the various 

agencies. 

Legislation has been introduced, and I will turn in a moment to 

the Tax Transparency Act to speak to that, but there are many 

other bills that have been introduced by members of Congress to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

try to get more information and accountability. We have been introducing amendments in various committees to insist upon that disclosure. Democrats have brought privileged resolutions to the Floor 

of the House seeking disclosure of the President’s tax returns for 

all of the reasons that you have enumerated. 

In committees we have been filing resolutions of inquiry, which 

are one of the few tools we have available to us when the leadership of those committees doesn’t, on its own initiative, seek to get 

the kinds of answers that we need. And we have sent, through 

standing committees and Members on their own initiative have 

sent nearly 120 letters to representatives of the Trump administration on a whole variety of topics where we are seeking good information. 

Those have gone unanswered. So it has been very frustrating, 

but I come back to the notion that transparency, disclosure, those 

standards begin at the top. And of course the President has refused 

to disclose his tax returns, which I think has kind of set the tone. 

And, you know, when I talk to people across the country on this 

issue, and 70 to 80 percent of Americans would like to see those 

tax returns, and they want to see them because they just want 

their anxieties to be addressed. I think people are worrying that 

there may be some divided loyalty here, that the President isn’t 

putting his responsibility and the public trust that goes in the Office of the Presidency ahead of these other business concerns. 

Maybe he is, but without getting the information, there is no way 

we can know that. 

And I think that is why the public is expressing this degree of 

anxiety and saying, look, just come clean. Let us just see, as all 

other Presidents have done, what is in your tax returns. 

I am running out of time but I want you to address again the 

fact that, you know, the average person, when they file a tax return, they don’t have all of these assets and foreign entanglements 

and business interests so they may not realize what kind of information you can actually get from an extended tax return. Can you 

just touch on one more time the various schedules and what they 

provide in terms of information and how important that is for us 

to get some assurance with respect to our concerns about conflicts 

of interest? 

Mr. PAINTER.—President we already have substantial reason to 

believe that he may owe his job to Vladimir Putin. We ought to at 

least know whether he has financial dealings with the Russians, 

with the Chinese, any other foreign governments with oligarchs in 

those countries. 

The schedules I read into the record are very relevant here. Most 

of them focus on that flow-through taxation. If you own an entity, 

a corporation, or an LLC and it does not separately file a tax return and pay taxes, the profits and losses, the debt payments, all 

of those flow through to your taxes, the taxpayer. And so you would 

fill out these forms that would disclose those payments, income and 

debt payments to those entities such as the form on information return of U.S. persons with respect to certain foreign corporations or 

information return of a shareholder of a passive foreign investment 

company of qualified electing fund, annual return to report transactions with foreign trusts in receipt of certain foreign gifts, stateVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26499.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

ment of specified foreign financial assets, return of U.S. persons 

with respect to certain foreign partnerships. 

Those are only a few of the many return forms that would divulge this information. None of it is on schedule A of a form 278. 

This is information that particularly in this context, given what 

foreign governments have done to conduct espionage inside the 

United States, given the apparent cooperation of Americans with 

that, we have the right to this information about our President. He 

should be disclosing it voluntarily, immediately without having to 

have a bill passed by Congress. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. The gentleman’s time is expire. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield my five minutes to my fellow Kentuckian, Congressman 

Massie. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Singleton—I didn’t get a chance to ask this 

before—what has happened to the Fed’s balance sheet since 2008? 

Mr. SINGLETON. It’s exploded. The Federal Reserve has a lot of— 

more assets again in its attempt to reignite the economy from the 

highs of the ’04, ’05 when the housing market was really exploding 

to the crash of ’07 and ’08. And there’s a lot of concern expressed 

by a lot of people that the Fed needs to start unwinding these— 

the balance sheet. 

Mr. MASSIE. Can they unwind the balance sheet without having 

any economic ramifications? 

Mr. SINGLETON. And that’s the other problem. If they just—if 

they start dumping these assets onto the market, it’s going to cause 

major turmoil, and it’s also going to negatively impact the Fed’s position because if you have a lot of things that you want to get rid 

of, if you put them all out at once, it’s going to decrease the value 

of any given—any individual asset. So the Fed is really kind of 

stuck between a rock and a hard place right now in terms of the 

need to unwind the balance sheet. 

Mr. MASSIE. So, you know, and going back to 1977 I think it was 

there was a Reform Act where Congress imposed a mandate on the 

Federal Reserve that is called a dual mandate —— 

Mr. SINGLETON. Right. 

Mr. MASSIE.—but there are actually three mandates in their 

which are price stability, moderate long-term rates, and maximum 

sustainable employment. Are those always complementary goals? 

Mr. SINGLETON. I think in the free market they actually are. 

With the Federal Reserve monetary policy and the way that it’s 

traditionally been looked at, no, there is the argument that you can 

have inflation or unemployment, that there’s a choice between 

them. I think that the experience in the ’70s—and hopefully, we’re 

not coming to that but it could happen again with stagflation, show 

that you can actually have high unemployment and high inflation 

at the same time. 

I think that, you know, saying that we’re going to trust the secretive central bank in 1977 was six years after Richard Nixon severed the last link between the Federal Reserve and gold, which 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

really kind of cemented our fate in terms of the problems that we 

would have from a fiat monetary system, is that the idea that the 

Fed can just somehow pinpoint the exact right interest rates, the 

exact right level of inflation that will lead to the exact right level 

of unemployment where you won’t have long-term unemployment, 

you’ll just have the regular unemployment you have as people 

change jobs, retire, et cetera, is wrong. 

I mean, we hear a lot about Russia today at this hearing from 

critics of the current administration, but one thing I think we need 

to consider looking at Russia is didn’t their experience in the last 

century teach us that Soviet—that central planning doesn’t work, 

and if central planning didn’t work for Soviet Union agriculture, 

what makes you think that it’s going to work for America and the 

world monetary policy system? 

Mr. MASSIE. It doesn’t seem like it is working for us, at least not 

in the last several decades. 

Mr. Painter, in the time I have remaining, you expressed some 

reservations about this particular bill, but you were somewhat supportive of auditing the Federal Reserve more fully. Can you expand 

on that? 

Mr. PAINTER. I believe there needs to be full disclosure of what’s 

going on at the Federal Reserve. I think transparency is critical for 

public confidence. But I think the statements made today about the 

Federal Reserve by Mr. Singleton and the statements that I have 

heard repeated by the far left and the far right about the Federal 

Reserve are dangerous. It is dangerous for this Congress to take 

any steps with respect to the Federal Reserve without bringing in 

professional economists, perhaps former governors of the Federal 

Reserve and others, to explain to you how it works. 

This is a situation where if we equate the Federal Reserve with 

Soviet Russia and we proceed to make policy in that way, we are 

exposing our economy to financial collapse —— 

Mr. MASSIE. So what —— 

Mr. PAINTER.—and that’s a very dangerous situation. 

Mr. MASSIE. What areas of transparency do they not now have 

that you would support providing? 

Mr. PAINTER. I believe that the audit that is suggested here, 

whether it be the—by the Comptroller General or by somebody 

else, that would be very helpful to know more about what is going 

on with respect to monetary policy, to have more transparency, to 

make sure that nothing leaks out of the Fed so that there’s insider 

trading based on projections about what might happen by people 

who have inside information. 

It’s absolutely critical to have public confidence in the Fed, and 

if more transparency will give that to us, that is wonderful, but 

what I am very scared about is these conspiracy theories that are 

being pushed, equating the Federal Reserve with Soviet Russia. 

That is just false. And if you take that testimony and enact legislation based on that type of testimony without consulting economists, 

without consulting experts who know what the Federal Reserve 

does —— 

Mr. MASSIE. Let me ask you, are you concerned about their balance sheet tripling in the last —— 

Mr. PAINTER. I am concerned —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

Mr. MASSIE.—decade? 

Mr. PAINTER.—but I want you to hear from people —— 

Mr. MASSIE. So I don’t think that is a conspiracy theory or the 

fact that they played an adverse role in the housing bubble. 

Mr. PAINTER. They did, but Wall Street did, too. Privately-owned 

banks, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch —— 

Mr. MASSIE. A lot of those folks work at the Fed. All right. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland for five minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. Painter, I have admired you since I knew you slightly in college as a high-ranking official in the Bush administration. As chief 

ethics officer, you have always been a little conservative for me but 

most people are, so I am not going to hold that against you. 

You are one of the Nation’s leading ethics authorities if not the 

leading ethics authority in the United States of America today, and 

the questioning from my friend from Kentucky puts me in mind of 

a letter that was written by James Madison to a Kentucky farmer 

where he said that, ‘‘popular government without popular information is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy. The people who mean 

to be their own governors must arm themselves with the information and the power that knowledge brings.’’ 

So I want to ask you about the Emoluments Clause which prevents the President and all of us from collecting payments from foreign governments, princes, kings, and foreign offices and states. In 

your experience as an ethics official for President Bush, if a President were to receive a trinket, a painting, a statue, or something 

from a foreign government, what would you do if you wanted to 

keep it according to the terms of the Constitution? 

Mr. PAINTER. Well, you would have to have consent of Congress. 

Mr. RASKIN. So how do you go about getting the consent of Congress? 

Mr. PAINTER. Through a bill —— 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So —— 

Mr. PAINTER.—or through a resolution of Congress —— 

Mr. RASKIN. so just tell me technically if you are working with 

the President and the President says I am concerned I am getting 

all this money from abroad, I am getting presents and gifts, I want 

to make sure I am clean with the people of the United States and 

the Constitution, what do I do? 

Mr. PAINTER. Step one, disclose it. If it’s over the amount already 

authorized under the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, sit down 

with Congress. Here President Trump could sit down with a Republican-controlled Congress and say this is what I’ve got. How 

much can I keep? 

Mr. RASKIN. So who would you ask, your White House counsel, 

your ethics officer to go to, who, the Speaker of the House? 

Mr. PAINTER. I would go—I’d have the White House counsel work 

with the lawyers in both chambers and discuss and discuss what 

the President has and disclose what the President has. 

Mr. RASKIN. Did you ever do that as the White House ethics officer? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

Mr. PAINTER. Oh, no, because the President wasn’t receiving payments from foreign countries. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Mr. PAINTER. We didn’t have that kind of thing going on in the 

Bush administration. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. And do you know of other cases in the past 

where Presidents have received a painting or a gift that they want 

to keep and they go to Congress to receive it. Are you aware of 

that? 

Mr. PAINTER. Not recent—not in recent memory. They —— 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Mr. PAINTER. The gifts would be declined or turned over to the 

United States Government. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Mr. PAINTER. If someone tried—a Saudi prince tried to give a 

Rolex watch to someone in the security—in the White House in the 

national security area, and I think we said no, that’s not going to 

work. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. And without going to Congress you just refused it? 

Mr. PAINTER. No, we don’t take Rolex watches from the Saudis. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So let me ask you this question then. We 

have never had a President at least in our lifetimes who has the 

kind of extensive foreign business empire that this President has 

with the Trump hotels and the Trump golf courses and the business contracts, the trademarks, the deals all over the world, entanglements directly with foreign governments, as well as corporations 

controlled by foreign governments. And there are lots of allegations 

that he has been collecting emoluments from day one. There has 

been no attempt to come to Congress to ask us for our consent. 

Now, the question is if he had to disclose his tax returns and 

they divulged a relationship with a foreign government that suggested emoluments were taking place, we would be able to act affirmatively. But this President, the first President in modern memory not to disclose his tax returns, hasn’t given us that information 

so we don’t know. Do you think that we need to legislate as the 

U.S. Congress to compel the President of the United States to turn 

over his tax returns? 

Mr. PAINTER. I think you may have to because this President will 

not turn them over. But what this committee should also do is use 

its subpoena power with respect to the Trump organization and 

every one of those entities listed on schedule A of his 278 to find 

out what money is going to those entities from foreign governments 

with a focus first and foremost on the foreign government that has 

conducted known espionage inside the United States. And that 

could be done by using the subpoena power with the support —— 

Mr. RASKIN. What are some of the entities you are talking about? 

Mr. PAINTER. Any of the corporate entities that are owned by the 

President. There are hundreds—they’re right—they’re listed on 

form 278 schedule A. They own everything from trademarks to licensing arrangements to buildings. With the buildings we don’t 

know where the debt is coming from. 

Mr. RASKIN. Got you. Let me pause you just there because I am 

running out of time. All of the Democrats on this panel have said 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

that we should have a legal obligation for the President to turn 

over the tax returns. Most of the Republicans said there is a moral 

obligation, he should do it. Do you think it is a moral obligation 

or do you think it should be a legal obligation, too? 

Mr. PAINTER. I think it’s a moral obligation right now. You 

should make it a legal obligation by passing this bill. And, as I say, 

this committee should subpoena all the relevant information. The 

Intelligence Committee should be subpoenaing the relevant information from the Trump business entities even before that bill 

passes. This is absolutely critical that we get this information, and 

I think it’s unfortunate this is a Democrat/Republican issue. 

You opened up by saying that I was more conservative. You 

are—I guess I am. I still believe in sound money. I guess the Republicans are walking away from that stance. And I believe in open 

government and disclosure, and that includes the President’s tax 

returns, and I think those are conservative principles and everybody needs to stand up for open government from the very top on 

down. That’s what these bills—that’s what they’re about, and that 

includes the President. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. And I 

would yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your indulgence. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes. 

And we are going to shift gears a little bit. And in the spirit of 

this hearing and full disclosure, the Open Data Act that I am going 

to ask some questions about is actually legislation Representative 

Derek Kilmer and I are authoring and will be reintroducing later 

on in this Congress. 

And as I am sure you have heard, it is the legislation that basically by default makes government information public. We want it 

out in open-source, easily accessible, machine-readable format. You 

know, Americans’ tax dollars went to create this data, and the 

American people ought to have easy access to this data. 

And with the state of innovation going on in the tech community 

and actually all throughout the world today, we have no idea what 

information we will be able to glean out of this, how the government might be able to save money, what new inventions might be 

coming, what scientific advances may happen. 

But I do want to be open-minded on this and ask an open question to the entire panel. Do you guys see any problems with this 

bill or anything that needs to be added to it to make it better? And, 

I tell you what, since I am sure Mr. Hollister has the longest answer, this will go in the other direction and start with Mr. Painter. 

Mr. PAINTER. It is a very sound bill, yes. There are things I 

would like to add to it. I would like the White House visitors log, 

including, as I say, Jackson Place, what is going on over there, the 

Federal agencies. We ought to know who is going in and out of the 

Federal agencies and lobbying. When the campaign contributors 

are making their pitch, there ought to be a lot more information 

about those types of contacts and also Members of Congress. 

There’s a healthcare bill that’s going to be voted on later today. 

There are a lot of people in my district, the second, in Minnesota 

who feel strongly that that bill isn’t going to give them anything 

other than take away their health insurance. We’d at least like to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

know who is talking to our Congressman Jason Lewis about that 

bill. So I’m sure that members of your districts would like to know 

who’s coming in and out and talking about that healthcare bill 

that’s going to have such a dramatic impact on their lives. 

So I think there ought to be more disclosure about what’s going 

on in government that I’d send over to Congress as well as the executive branch, but this bill is an excellent start. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. Mr. Fitton? 

Mr. FITTON. Oh, I can come up with all sorts of amendments 

along the lines as Mr. Painter suggested, but I don’t have any comments specifically on the —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And if you all want to submit those 

in writing at some point, I certainly would be open to hearing what 

they are. 

Mr. FITTON. Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And, Mr. Berlau. I am sorry. I mispronounced 

your name. Could you —— 

Mr. BERLAU. Berlau. Everybody does. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Berlau. 

Mr. BERLAU. It’s an —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I am sorry. I —— 

Mr. BERLAU. It’s an excellent bill and I like that it makes the 

data user-friendly that, you know, data can be of no use when it’s 

just in a data dump and people—you can’t separate the wheat from 

the chaff to use the analogy, but that it makes a user-friendly and 

accessible to—so the taxpayers can focus in on what governments 

are doing. 

But again, I think there are more things Congress can do. The 

Financial Stability Oversight Council, which has almost as much 

power as the Fed in terms of deciding whether a financial firm is 

too big to fail which can, you know, both adversely affect the firm 

with more regulation and as well as give it, you know, advantage 

it by giving it—you know, saying the government would bail it out, 

and yet we don’t know anything about those deliberations so that 

that agency, like the Fed, needs to be made less secrecy, and we 

need to investigate why in the world there was executive privilege 

claimed with regard to going beyond FOIA, an actual lawsuit in the 

discovery process in Fannie Mae —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Now —— 

Mr. BERLAU.—so those other abuses as far secrecy need to be addressed. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I don’t want to run out of time; I want 

to give everybody a chance. Mr. Singleton? 

Mr. SINGLETON. From what I know of the bill, I don’t have any 

problems with it. As a former congressional staffer, I do think that 

there might be some concerns with making information about congressional schedules and particularly what constituents they meet 

with. Contrary to—I’m going to call it a conspiracy theory that Mr. 

Painter seemed to be painting here, not everyone that you meet 

with in Congress is some evil lobbyist that’s going to line your 

pockets. A lot of time it is average citizens exercising their First 

Amendment rights to petition their government, and I don’t know 

if we need to violate the confidentiality of their meetings in order 

to have a more transparent government. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hollister? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Mr. Farenthold, I think your bill is wise because 

it makes a distinction between operations and deliberations. If we 

were to mandate that the Jackson Place logs be made public, as 

Mr. Painter is recommending, wouldn’t everybody just move across 

the street to Pete’s Coffee? By making that distinction, which is 

what the FOIA makes, we focus on the decisions and the operations of the Federal Government, and that’s where you’ll find the 

really valuable transparency. 

Mr. Berlau talked about transparency of the Federal—the Financial Stability Oversight Council. While separately the Financial 

Transparency Act, which we thank you for cosponsoring, would require the agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, specifically by amending their statutes, to adopt standardized data formats for all the things that they do. Sometimes there’s a need to 

focus in on a particular area like financial regulation, which is 

what that bill does. 

But I have no changes to recommend for the Open Government 

Data Act because it sets that foundation. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. I see my time is expired. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all of the witnesses, but I really want to 

focus on Mr. Painter. You are in a very unique position both from 

your business background and your public service I think, and also 

obviously as other members have stated, your service in the Republican administration of George W. Bush. 

So my understanding the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 that 

was passed by bipartisan effort in 1998, significant amendments, 

those were done with bipartisan efforts. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. PAINTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And they came out of the consequences and the 

tribulation of Watergate, correct? 

Mr. PAINTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So to me this shouldn’t be a partisan issue, 

and I try to tell people who, when I bring this up in the district, 

that if Mr. Trump decided to be a liberal Democrat tomorrow, 

which I think is conceivable given his history, that I would feel the 

same way as you do, that this is much more important than Republican or Democrat. 

So getting to that point, as you have said, the history of the act 

in good faith going consistent with the act but not legally prescribed for the act, since President Ford, every President has submitted his tax returns and every President—well, President Carter, 

Reagan, H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama 

have all put their assets in a blind trust, correct? 

Mr. PAINTER. Yes. They put some of the assets in blind trust. 

Other assets have been conflict-free assets, mutual funds, bank accounts, treasury securities, and other conflict-free assets. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So from my understanding on that press conference President Trump did before he got inaugurated with his attorney who I think background is real estate attorney, they made 

the argument—and I am not a lawyer—that this was a unique situation, to put it in a blind trust would not be possible for him because of the nature of his international involvement. So would you 

respond to that? Is there anything in the law that you have discovered that allows for a President or an administration to say normal 

business practices should be different or handled differently? 

Mr. PAINTER. Well, the law applies to the President like it applies to everybody else, and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits him or any entity that he owns from receiving 

payments and benefits from foreign governments. So that had to be 

dealt with as of January 20. I do not believe it was dealt with, and 

that’s why Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 

has filed a lawsuit up in New York to seek discovery as to what’s 

going on with emoluments. 

There are other laws as well, bribery and gratuity statutes that 

could be triggered when the President owns businesses and his 

sons are running all over the world trying to cut deals with people 

with Secret Service in tow. 

There’s a lot of risk for the President, and that’s why I urge that 

he dispose of these businesses as soon as he was elected. He could 

have done that. And the notion that he can’t sell these businesses, 

that he can’t sell real estate and these companies—I mean, he is 

the author of the book The Art of the Deal. He’s got lawyers, New 

York lawyers working for him. I’ve never heard anybody up there 

in New York say, well, real estate isn’t liquid. They’re buying and 

selling it all the time and securitizing it, moving it out the door. 

So he could sell it, and that’s what he should have done to avoid 

these conflicts. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So following on my colleague from Maryland 

who has more expertise in the legal aspects of this, but it is my 

understanding that President Washington asked permission from 

Congress to accept a gift of a painting that was alluded to. President Jackson I think came to Congress to ask for a gift of a medal. 

So how do we get to the point first politically to get us to feel in 

a partisan—given the history of bipartisan way that this should be 

separate from Republican or Democrat? 

And then secondarily, you are involved in a lawsuit, without disclosing anything that you feel uncomfortable with disclosing, how 

would you force this discussion? Because every day this goes by my 

assumption is, given due process and the assumption of innocence, 

but it certainly circumstantially looks at whether you are here in 

Washington, D.C., at the Trump hotel, whether you are in Indonesia or whether you are in New York or Azerbaijan, it certainly 

appears that he is accepting gifts under the Emoluments Clause. 

So how do you get to a point in this environment, given the history both of the Ethics Act but the Constitution? What are the triggers, to follow up on my friend from Maryland, to get us to a conclusion here where we find out whether he is in violation or not, 

that he gives us his tax returns and we find out about these relationships? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
67 

Mr. PAINTER. This committee should be subpoenaing the relevant 

information from the Trump business organization. The way to 

make this bipartisan is to discuss this with the people in your districts. Republicans and Democrats feel the same way about transparency in government with respect to the President and everyone 

else, and that’s why Republicans and Democrats would support this 

bill with respect to transparency and making the records accessible. 

And I am fully supportive of that, but I think the American people also expect to see what’s going on with the President’s tax returns and his dealings particularly with foreign governments, particularly a year in which a foreign government has conducted espionage inside the United States. 

So the way to make this bipartisan is to go back to your districts. 

We are going to be discussing it in the Minnesota 2nd Congressional district where I live. We are going to be discussing it all 

through our State. I think it’s going to be time for every member 

of this committee, Democrat and Republican, ask the people who 

sent you here how they feel about a President who will not disclose 

his tax returns, and then come back to Congress and represent the 

people who elected you. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Painter. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I will now recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, gentlemen. 

It seems that every day there is a new revelation about the contacts between the President’s campaign or the President’s associates and Russian officials. And we are having a discussion today 

about transparency, so I thought this topic might be kind of relevant to what we are discussing. 

First, there have been reports that former foreign policy advisor 

Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July of 2016, gave a speech. He 

was critical of the United States. The campaign has admitted that 

it was aware of Mr. Page’s trip. Then, after initially denying it, Mr. 

Page admitted that he had another meeting with the Russian Ambassador last year. There are reports about Roger Stone’s connections to WikiLeaks after their reports have indicated that Paul 

Manafort, Rick Gates have connections to pro-Russian groups in 

the Ukraine. Mr. Manafort abruptly resigned at that point as 

chairman of the campaign. And just yesterday, the A.P. reported on 

a secret agreement between Paul Manafort and a Russian oligarch 

to receive millions of dollars to work for, quote ‘‘benefits of the 

Putin government.’’ 

President Trump fired General Michael Flynn from his role as 

national security advisor after it was revealed that he secretly communicated with a Russian Ambassador about U.S. sanctions and 

then lied about the communications to Vice President Pence and 

the public. And I tell you it is very difficult for me to say the words 

that the individual lied because that is a very strong characterization, but in this case there is nothing else that we can call it. 

Then, there were reports about connections to Russian interests 

involving the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, his son Donald 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 

Trump Junior, and J.B. Gordon, a foreign policy advisor. In fact, 

according to media reports, Donald Trump Junior stated at a 2008 

business conference that, quote, ‘‘Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,’’ end quote. 

It was revealed that Attorney General Sessions claimed under 

oath that, and I quote, ‘‘I did not have communications with the 

Russians’’ was demonstrably false and the Attorney General then 

recused himself from the investigation into Russian interference in 

the 2016 election. 

Never mind the nexus in terms of government and the Russians. 

We have been spending a lot of time talking about the President’s 

tax returns, but we do know what assets he has and the assets 

that are very—as Donald Junior said, a cross-section of assets with 

the Russian Government or with Russian assets on the ground. 

Mr. Felton—is it Fitton? 

Mr. FITTON. Fitton. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. FITTON. Fitton. 

Ms. PLASKETT. We know that it is not appropriate to have a 

FOIA request about transition activities and what happens in the 

President’s transition requests, but do you intend to have a FOIA 

request for the activities related to this Russian—the investigations 

that are going on in the same way that you had investigations and 

brought the Congress’ attention issues with Benghazi? I mean, you 

have stated how we rely on you for that —— 

Mr. FITTON. Right. 

Ms. PLASKETT.—and that is important. 

Mr. FITTON. Yes, we have well over a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests pending on the very issues you’re talking about. 

Also, we have filed at least two lawsuits that—over requests that 

have gone unanswered and, you know, I have a particular interpretation of what went on, but the documents are going to show what 

went on hopefully if we get full disclosure. 

And it’s an opportunity for the administration to clear the air on 

all of this and, you know, I think personally it would probably benefit the administration to release this material as quickly as possible. 

Ms. PLASKETT. It is interesting that you say you have a different 

interpretation. Will you allow the documents to speak for themselves or are you going to try and interpret them? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, we’ll get all the documents out. Our practice 

is to release the documents we get and, you know, we’ll highlight 

things we think are important, but all the documents are available 

to the public. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And will the importance of the things that you 

highlight be the things that you would like us to think about or the 

things that you think the American public are interested in —— 

Mr. FITTON. You mean —— 

Ms. PLASKETT.—because I see a line of—your testimony seems to 

be geared towards a specific administration that you find more 

fault for than necessarily this upcoming one as well. 

Mr. FITTON. Well, you know, I think of the information we have 

for sure we know that classified material was illegally leaked presumably by the prior administration, and that ought to be very 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
69 

concerning. It doesn’t mean that everything the Trump transition 

did either before or after the election was appropriate, and there 

may be documents there that show it wasn’t appropriate. And 

we’ve asked for the questions in a way that we’ll get it all —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Great. And what I am concerned with —— 

Mr. FITTON.—good or bad for President Trump. 

Ms. PLASKETT. What I am concerned with not so much as what 

happened before but what is going to be going on in the next three 

years with his relationship to the Russian Government, his assets, 

and the growth of his own interests and fortune and his placement 

as President of the United States with the Russians and those assets. Are you concerned with that? 

Mr. FITTON. I think it’s an area of oversight certainly. He’s a 

President who has a massive business wealth and business assets, 

and people are going to want to ask questions. I think—unlike Mr. 

Painter, I think he’s taken —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Because we don’t want him to grow his business 

on our backs. That is I think the concern. 

Mr. FITTON. We don’t—no one wants the President to abuse his 

office for personal gain, that’s for sure. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

Mr. PAINTER. Treason is an issue of oversight. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

We will now recognize the gentlewoman from Florida for five 

minutes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon to our witnesses. Thank you so much as well for 

being here. 

Mr. Painter, I will start with you. In 2009 President Obama 

began releasing the logs that disclosed who came to the White 

House for meetings, tours, or social events. This was widely viewed 

as an improvement to White House transparency. I believe you 

have already spoken about this one but I will ask you again. Do 

you agree that this widely improved White House transparency? 

Mr. PAINTER. I will concede that point. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. The Obama administration visitors logs revealed 

a significant amount of information. Just recently, it was revealed 

that Secretary of State and former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson 

lobbied the Obama administration against sanctions for Russia. 

Should President Trump—and this is to you again, Mr. Painter— 

continue the practice of the Obama administration and release his 

visitor logs? 

Mr. PAINTER. Absolutely. And that release should extend to the 

executive branch agencies as well. We need more transparency 

with respect to who is coming and going, whether it’s lobbyists, 

whether it’s foreign nationals, whether it’s people who are foreign 

agents. A lot of them apparently don’t feel like registering under 

the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We need that information 

about who’s coming and going from the top executive branch agencies, including the White House. The American people are entitled 

to that information. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you. Mr. Fitton, in August of 2009 Judicial 

Watch sued the Secret Service for access to White House visitors 

logs that had been withheld in previous disclosures. You said, and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
70 

I quote, ‘‘The courts have affirmed that these White House visitor 

records are subject to release under FOIA law. If the Obama administration is serious about transparency, they will agree to the 

release of these records under the Freedom of Information Act,’’ unquote. 

Do you believe, Mr. Fitton, that President Trump and his administration should release their White House visitors logs? 

Mr. FITTON. We believe they should at least follow the voluntary 

disclosure of the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the appellate court here in the District ruled they’re not FOIA records. We 

think that they—he—they should reinstitute the policy first 

changed by President Bush, continued by President Obama, to pretend they weren’t government records subject to FOIA, and President Trump should stop that. That’s fake law in my view to use 

a poor turn of phrase, and start following the law in FOIA. 

These are records maintained by the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Secret Service. Those are agencies under FOIA. And the 

idea that those records aren’t subject to FOIA is, you know, to me 

at odds with the law the way I would read it. The courts have read 

it differently, but the President can choose to follow the law here. 

We shouldn’t rely on voluntary disclosures of that type of information in this circumstance. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. That is correct. As you said, following the court’s 

decision that President Obama, and I quote, ‘‘doesn’t want people 

to know who is visiting him’’ and that he, quote, ‘‘took the ball from 

Bush and ran with it.’’ You also testified earlier that the administration could make a policy change in Freddie and Fannie Mae if 

they wanted to, so I am assuming you believe that the administration could make a change as it pertains to this as well. 

Mr. FITTON. I often jokingly say I’m waiting for the Trump administration to come to power and they should enforce FOIA the 

way they’re enforcing immigration law. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Hollister, President Trump has not said 

whether he plans to continue President Obama’s practice of disclosing visitor logs. The White House website for visitor access 

records currently includes no visitors log. The website says, and I 

quote, ‘‘This page is being updated. It will post records of White 

House visitors on an ongoing basis once they become available.’’ Do 

you agree that President Trump should disclose his visitor logs? 

Mr. HOLLISTER. Yes, ma’am, I do. I think the Trump White 

House should continue the practice that the Obama administration 

followed of releasing the visitor logs. 

As I mentioned in response to some earlier questions, though, I 

think we need to remember that these logs are going to be of limited usefulness. A lot of meetings take place in the coffee shops in 

the area, and you’re never going to get all the deliberations. 

What’s really important is to track what the government is 

doing, the decisions and the operations and particularly the money. 

That’s harder to hide, and you see the results there. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
71 

Mr. Fitton, I was just listening to you talk about your passion 

for FOIA. Was Judicial Watch equally passionate about wanting to 

see the names of the energy executives with whom then-Vice President Dick Cheney met with in the White House, which the White 

House refused to disclose you will recall? 

Mr. FITTON. Yes, we sued the Cheney Energy Task Force under 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We also had multiple lawsuits I think on the Freedom of Information Act on the Energy 

Task Force, and we took that issue all the way up to the Supreme 

Court. In fact, we sued the Bush administration twice as often as 

we did the Clinton administration under the Freedom of Information Act. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good for you. By the way, on FOIA, I was in 

local government in Virginia, unbelievably strict FOIA requirements. I had like five working days to respond to any FOIA request. 

Mr. FITTON. That’s right. There are a few State Legislatures subject to FOIA. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But that is what I was going to say. You have 

got some work to do in the General Assembly in Richmond. They 

have exempted themselves from their own FOIA laws, and I would 

love to see them subjected to the same laws they subjected us to. 

Mr. FITTON. One of the other rules Virginia has you have to be 

a Virginia resident to —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But, you know, the interesting thing was it 

worked. For 14 years I was subject to some of the strictest FOIA 

requirements in the country, and you know what, it did not disrupt 

the operations of government. It actually worked. Openness can be 

inconvenient for some politicians, but it certainly allowed the public and special groups within the public to know what was going 

on and to make sure we were accountable. And I would rather take 

my chances with that ethos than what we are dealing with right 

now. 

I assume you would agree that every President should release 

his or her tax returns in the spirit of this transparency. 

Mr. FITTON. Yes, the more transparency the better. I would —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Absent cooperation voluntarily, do you 

support statutory requirement for such? 

Mr. FITTON. Well, I just heard about the legislation yesterday, 

and I have a constitutional concern about requiring Presidents to 

release their tax returns and particularly targeting this President 

through legislation specifically, which seems to be the excuse for 

the legislation —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. 

Mr. FITTON. It’s not the broader issue; it’s about getting Trump’s 

tax returns, which may have some constitutional infirmities associated with that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Professor Painter, your view on the subject? 

Mr. PAINTER. I do not think there’s a constitutional problem 

here. On the other hand, I have urged in my testimony that we 

ought to require disclosure of the information that’s on tax returns 

with respect to everyone who is high up in the government with 

respect to national defense. We ought to have information about 

foreign government money coming in and out of closely held entiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:27 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26499.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
72 

ties owned by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of 

Defense, Secretaries of Army, Navy, Air Force. Matter of fact, we 

had some Secretaries—I think was Army and Navy nominees who 

pulled back because they didn’t want to go through the process. I 

have no idea why. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I respect the constitutional concerns, separation of powers, and so forth, but frankly, the public right-to-know 

it seems to me also has to be weighed here, and if you don’t get 

voluntary compliance, that we have to look at the statutory recourse. 

Mr. PAINTER. Absolutely right. And you can require it because 

278 can simply be amended to require a schedule of the tax returns. And you could apply it to people other than the President 

if that’s going to be a concern that he’s singled out. Fine, we’ll add 

those other people. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Professor Painter, because of my time because I know, Mr. Fitton, you want to comment, but I have very 

little time left unfortunately. 

Professor Painter, my set of concerns is what could go wrong 

with that. Absent knowing questions of debt obligation, relationships, taxes owed or earned, we look at situations like, you know, 

Trump investments in the Philippines, Trump investments in Turkey, Trump investments all over the world. And one asks oneself, 

well, what could go wrong with that, not knowing all of the details 

and not addressing the inherent conflict of interest through no 

fault of his own. He is a businessman, successful, that is now President, but you are President. What could go wrong with all that? 

Mr. PAINTER. We don’t know yet. But where would we have been 

in December 1941 if President Roosevelt had owned buildings in 

Frankfurt and Berlin and a $300 million revolving line of credit 

from Deutsche Bank? We don’t know what the next crisis is going 

to be, but our President is going to face dangerous situations 

around the world, and he needs to be loyal only to the United 

States. 

We have had a foreign government that has conducted espionage 

in the United States and has interfered in our elections, and now 

we have a President who will not disclose his dealings with foreign 

governments, with foreigners, and with others. We need those tax 

returns. We need them now. You can pass the bill, you can subpoena the information from the Trump business organization. We 

need that information now. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. And I would like to thank our witnesses for being here with us today and for their testimony. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that members may have 

five legislative days to submit questions for the record. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman? Reserving my right to object but 

I will not object, I forgot to enter into the record—may I ask unanimous consent while you are on it to enter into the record statements of support for the Presidential Tax Transparency Act from 

a number of groups, including Public Citizen, Every Voice, Democracy 21, Center for American Progress, and Americans for 

TaxFairness? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Without objection, they will be made part —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
73 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair and I withdraw my objection. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So let’s just do it again just to make 

sure. Unanimous consent that all members have five legislative 

days to submit questions for the record. 

All right, without objection, that is so ordered. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the committee 

will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(75) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26499.026

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

Cltongref)f) of tf)e Wnlteb ~tater) 

~ou~e of ll\eprt~tntattbe~ 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE 8U!LDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143 

March 13, 2017 

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz 

Chairman 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

As part of our Committee's annual commemoration of"Sunshine Week," during which 

Congress and open government organizations across the country focus on measures to enhance 

government transparency, we request that you place H.R. 305, the Presidential Tax Transparency 

Act, on the agenda for the Committee's business meeting on Thursday, March 16, 2017. This is 

a bipartisan bill to require the President disclose his tax returns for public release, and it was 

referred to the Oversight Committee on January 5, 2017. 

For more than 40 years, Presidents and presidential candidates have released their tax 

returns so the American people have information about their financial and business dealings. 

President Donald Trump broke with this precedent, stating that he could not release his tax 

returns while he was being audited. 

However, when asked during testimony before the Judiciary Committee on September 

21, 2016, whether taxpayers are prohibited from releasing their tax returns while they are being 

audited, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen responded: "They are not prohibited." 

As lawmakers, Members of Congress have the ability to pass legislation to ensure that 

this information is available to the American public. This is not a partisan issue. H.R. 305 is a 

common-sense bill that would apply to future presidents of both political parties. 

If it is not possible to schedule H.R. 305 for consideration on Thursday, then we 

respectfully request that the Committee consider the bill at our next regularly scheduled business 

meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26499.027

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz 

Page 2 

' VccJ2 ,g , .1.a...;'"'~....,~ ... 1~ 

tbHA- f/. /l~tbY'-

~~ 

~b-J.t_; 

A~~ttj c2~t<?f1--

(1...~ P> ifl&r ~ Wt.k.&.-

(J 

j/(, P 4'-.tZ____ ~w~.,.. ~~ 
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26499.028

March 22, 2017 

The Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman 

The Hon. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member 

House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee 

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: Support the Presidential Tax Transparency Act (H.R. 305) 

Dear Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings: 

Every president since Jimmy Carter has made their tax returns available for scrutiny by the 

American public. President Donald Trump is the first to refuse to do so over the last 40 years. 

Breaking this precedent of transparency of the president's financial holdings is a cause of great 

concern and deep suspicion. Public Citizen, Every Voice, Democracy 21 and Center for 

American Progress urge the committee to address this issue. 

The noble tradition began in the wake of the Watergate scandal as an important means for the 

White House to assure the American public that the actions of the administration are being done 

in the public's interest and not for self-dealing purposes. This tradition of transparency by the 

White House has never been more critical than today in the case of Donald Trump, whose vast 

business empire spills into hundreds of business interests. These business interests pose a wide 

array of financial conflicts of interest that could easily sway official actions by the White House 

for personal enrichment. 1 

Not only is the concern today just the possibility of self-dealing by the President and his family, 

but the concern now even extends into national security issues. Several recent foreign policy 

actions by the Trump administration have raised considerable suspicions that foreign interests, 

including foreign governments, may be attempting to manipulate American foreign policy by 

pandering to the global business interests of the Trump family. 2 

1 Sec attachment by Public Citizen and Every Voice, "Broken Promises," that discusses the problems posed by 

these conflicts of interests. 2 See, for example, Craig Holman, "The president's conflicts of interest are not in America's interest," The Hill 

(Mar. 22, 2017), available at: htto:flthehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/325036-the-presidentsbusiness-interests-are-not-in. See also Liz Kennedy and Danielle Root, "Top 10 risks and remedies for Trump's 

conflicts of interest," Report issued by the Center for American Progress (Feb. 24, 2017), available at: 

https:ijwww.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/02/24/426939/top-10-risks-and-remediesfor-trumps-conflicts-of-interest/ 
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26499.029

President Trump does not seem to recognize the importance of full transparency of his family 

business interests as a means both for the public to keep a check on White House actions that 

pose serious conflicts of interest, and as a means for the public to have reasonable confidence in 

the integrity of official actions. If President Trump fails to understand the importance of 

transparency of his business interests, then it is imperative that Congress step up to the plate and 

mandate that every president from now on disclose their tax returns in the same tradition 

America has seen for the last 40 years. 

Public Citizen, Every Voice, Democracy 21 and Center for American Progress strongly 

encourage the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to approve the Presidential 

Tax Transparency Act championed by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Cal.) and co-sponsored by 73 other 

members of Congress. 

Attachment. 

Sincerely, 

Craig Holman, Ph.D. 

Government affairs lobbyist, 

Public Citizen's Congress Watch division 

215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE 

Washington, D.C. 20003 

David Donnelly 

President and CEO 

Every Voice 

1211 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20036 

Fred Wertheimer 

President 

Democracy 21 

2000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Liz Kennedy 

Director, Democracy and Government Reform 

Center for American Progress 

1333 H Street, NW, IO'h Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26499.030

Broken Promises 

How Trump Is Profiting Off the Presidency and 

Empowering Lobbyists and Big Donors 

~:~{' EVERY VOICE 

L:t-:1 PUBLICCITIZEN 

By Every Voice and Public Citizen 

A large portion of President Donald Trump's claim to mass support 

was built on his rhetorical rejection of insider politics during his 

campaign. On the campaign trail, in debates and through campaign 

ads, he made ongoing piedges to "drain the swamp" in Washington, 

and said he'd fight the power of big donors and lobbyists. However, 

since the start of his presidency he has embraced the opposite, 

turning control of his policymaking over to the wealthy special 

interests and their ethically conflicted representatives, and refusing to 

change his own business practices. He has w::eived wide criticism for 

these chokes. 

rn January, in part, in response to this criticism, Trump released a 

plan to at least appear to be trying to address the glaring conflicts of 

interest he faces. As the owner of businesses that face regulation by 

the agencies he now oversees, have ties to foreign governments that 

America engages with diplomatically, or could otherwise be used by 

those trying to buy access and favor with the most powerful man in 

the world, he is obviously in a position to reap massive benefits from 

his office. 

At the press conference where he released his plan, Trump stated, 

"the President can't have a conflict of interest," while simultaneously 

offering a wholly insufficient plan to address his ethical issues. His 

plan did not address the many concerns of outside ethics expertsand even the head of the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics, 

remained very concerned. 

1\.vo months into his presidency, from what we can assess (though the 

lack of transparency makes certainty about ethical transgressions 

impossible), Trump has so far failed to keep even the weak promises 

contained in his plan, according to analysis by Every Voice and Public 

Citizen. 

"The President Can't Have a Conflict" 

Trump offered a plan to deal with his business empire that fell far 

shan of the standards set by other presidents and suggested by ethics 

experts. So far, he has not delivered on the promises offered by this 

already-weak plan. 

Promise 1: Trump will "isolate" himself from the management of 

the company. 

"We believe this structure and these steps wiU sen>e to accomplish the 

president~elect's desire to be isolated from his business interests and give 

the American people confidence that his sole business and interest is in 

making America great again."-'Irump attorney Sheri Dillon 
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26499.031

Instead of fully divesting from his businesses, as ethics experts, good 

government watchdogs, and the Offke of Government Ethics (OGE) 

all called for, Trump promised to simply "isolate" himself from the 

management of the Trump Organization, putting his sons in charge of 

the day~to~day operations of the company. This was always a 

meaningless promise. Trump can't un-know what his businesses do or 

where his investments are. And since Inauguration Day, dozens of 

stories have highlighted that it's impossible to tell where Trump the 

businessman ends and Trump the president starts. 

Trump's business partners were invited to his inauguration. 

Days after Trump promised that he would be walled off from t'IJs 

business interests, Mother Jones reported that "at least two of his 

wealthy foreign business partners attended his inauguration as 

YIPs, where they watched the Swearing-in from prime seats, 

parried with Trump inslders, and posed for pictures with Trump's 

children and grandchildren.'' 

Trump mentioned his Scottish golf course in a press 

conference. In a joint press conference with British Prime 

Minister Theresa May, his first such event as president with 

another world leader, Trump mentioned his Scottish golf course 

Trump Tumberry. "And I happened to be in Scotland at 

'furnbcrry cutting a ribbon when Brcxit happened and we had a 

vast amount of press there," he said. Back in November, he 

reportedly urged a prominent British politician to do something 

about the wind farms impacting the course. 

Trump's Muslim ban excluded countries where he has 

business interests. The night Trump announced his immoral 

seven-country Muslim ban, Bloomberg News noted something 

interesting: "His proposed list doesn't include Muslim-majority 

countries where his Trump Organization has done business or 

pursued potential deals." After courts ruled against his initial 

ban, the White House released a revised one that also omitted 

those countries. 

TrUmp's business managers schmooze with Senators at 

Supreme Court announcement. When Trump announced his 

choice for the Supreme Court, the Trump Organization's business 

managers-his sons-were in the audience at the White House 

talking with U.S. Senators, policymakers who could laws or roll 

back regulations that wuld directly benefit his companies.~ 

Talking Points Memo pointed out "Their appearance S('rved as a 

reminder that the dividing line between the Trumps' political and 

financial interests is far from dear." 

Trump used the National Prayer Breakfast to publicly pray 

for ratings for a show he has a financial stake in. At the 

National Prayer Breakfast, a solemn annual event in Washington, 

D.C., Trump used his speech to pray for better ratings for the 

Apprentice, a show for which he has an exe,utive producer 

credit, meaning he makes money off the show and may make 

mnre money if the show does better. "And I want to just pray for 

Arnold, if we can, for those ratings, OK," Trump said. 

Trump's Wall Street policies could benefit his company's 

bottom line. Trump announced his plans to roll back the DoddFrank reforms aimed at preventing a repeat of actions on Wall 

Street that Jed to the 2oo8 collapse. "I have so many people, 

friends of mine, that have nice businesses, they can't borrow 

money," he said when announcing the effort. But, it's not just his 

friends: deregulating Wall Street could also help him. Banks 

who'll benefit from deregulation hold a lot of Trump's debt and 

could look more kindly at him for repealing Dodd-Frank. But 

also, as George W. Bush's ethics czar Rkhard Painter points out, 

"Deregulation is likely to lead to a bubble in the real estate 

market, as it has in the past. That ups the value of his real estate 

holdings, which the Trump Organization could then sell at the 

top of the market." 

Melania Trump's lawyer said her husband's presidency is a 

good opportunity to build her brand and make money. fn a 

lawsuit filed against a news organization, an attorney for 

Trump's wife Melania argued that defamation by the news outlet 

would prevent her from cashing in on the presidency. 
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26499.032

Specifically, the lawsuit stated, ''Plaintiff had the unique, once-ina-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known 

perron ... to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple 

product categories, each of which could have garnered multimillion dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during 

which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the 

world." After this received attention, the lawsuit was updated to 

remove that line. 

Trump bullied an American company for dropping his 

daughter's clothing line. After retailer giant Nordstrom 

announced it would stop carrying Ivanka Trump merchandise 

due to poor sales, Trump tweeted an attack on the company; "My 

daughter Jvanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. 

She is a great person-always pushing me to do the right thing! 

Terrible!" By doing so., Trump demonstrated that if you hurt his 

family's businesses he won't shy away from using his position as 

president to attack you in retribution. And, in case that wasn't 

dear enough, he retweeted the message from the official account 

of the president--@ POTU$. Sales of lvanka's clothing line hit 

record heights since this incident. 

A top adviser to the President violated ethics rules by 

promoting Ivanka Trump's clothing line. White House 

employee Kellyanne Conway said during a Fox News interview in 

the White House Briefing room, "Go buy Ivanka's stuff, is what I 

would tell you" ... ~I'm going to give it a free commercial here, go 

buy it today." This led to letters of concern from both the Office 

of Government Ethics and the House Oversight Committee that 

Conway violated ethics rules by using her official position to 

promote the brand. After it was dear Conway would go 

unpunished, the OGE wrote another letter stating, "Not taking 

disciplinary action against a senior official under such 

circumstances risks undermining the ethics program." Jt harms 

the public's faith in elected officials and serves as a sign to other 

staff that violating the rules won't be cause for punishment. 

Jvanka Trump joins her husband, Jared Kushner, as White 

House advisers while maintaining stakes in their vast 

business enterprises. Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner have 

divested some of their financial conflicts of interest, but both 

have also decided to keep ownership of much of their business 

enterprises, and turn other business investments over to close 

family members to control rather than follow the model of 

placing these investments in a genuine blind trust run by 

independent executors. They claim as White House officials the 

conflicts of interest law,'> do not apply as they do to employees of 

government agencies. 

Kuwaiti Embassy event raises questions about foreign 

bribery clause violations. Late last year, the Kuwaiti Embassy 

announced it would move its annual National Day celebration to 

Trump's D.C. hotel-after canceling its reservation at another 

hotel in the city raising questions as to whether it was a way for 

the country to curry favor with Trump's administration. Whether 

the move was designed to buy influence is just one question 

raised by the event. As ethics expert Norm Eisen tells NPR, it 

could also violate the foreign bribery clause of the constitution 

that prohibits presidents from accepting gifts from foreign 

governments. 

Trump's rollback of environmental protections will benefit 

his golf courses. The same day Trump delivered a speech before 

a joint ses:sion of Congress in which he pledged to "promote 

clean air and dean water," he issued an executive order to 

rescind and re'Nfitc a dean water regul!ltion that would also 

benefit his many golf courses. ln fact, the golfing trade 

association that lobbied against the rule "includes more than 20 

Trump employees." 

Trump bas visited his properties every weekend of his 

presidency, offering invaluable free advertising to these 

businesses. Trump has spent five weekends at Mar~a-Lago, 

golfed at Trump International in Palm Beach, had dinner at the 

steakhouse at his hotel in D.C., and spent a Saturday at his 

Virginia golf course, holding a "cabinet meeting" in the club's 
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26499.033

dining room. One weekend at Mar-a-Lago, he rewarded longtime dub members with access to Japanese Prime Minister 

Shinzo Abe-. According to CNN, Trump made Abe talk with some 

newlyweds at the resort. He said, "They've been members of this 

dub for a long time. They've paid me a fortune." One weekend, 

he C!a~hed the wedding of a su~Ac_ donor's SOf!: and on 

another, his Attorney General greeted guests at a fundraiser 

being hosted there. This past weekend, Vice President Mike 

Pence was spotted on Instagram at Mar-a-Lago with Trump 

donor Nick Loeb. Though Mar-a-Lago raised its membership 

rates to Szoo,ooo this year, there's no disclosure of the lobbyists, 

corporate CEOs, or others who get access to the president and 

his team while at the resort. Trump's visit to his hotel in D.C. has 

already spurred ~~uit by lo<;al ~-~-~ar owners, a!leging his 

affiliation with the property puts other area restaurateurs at a 

disadvantage. 

Promise 2: The lfump Organization will not pursue "new" 

foreign deals. 

"The trust agreement as directed by President 'Trump imposes severe 

restrictions on new deals. No new foreign deals will be made whatsoever 

during the duration of President Trump's presidency. H-Trump attorney 

Sheri Dillon. 

By retaining an ovmership stake in the Trump Organization, which 

has investments around the world, the president opened his 

administration up to opportunities for bribery by foreign 

governments. To address these concerns, Trump said that during his 

time in office, the Trump Organization would not pursue "new deals" 

in foreign countries. 

This promise has already been broken. 

After a decade of inaction, the Trump Organization quietly 

~ a licensing project with a wealthy family in the 

Dominican Republic that could lead to new hotels or other 

Trump-branded projects in the country. While the Trump 

Organization's defense is this was just the continuation of an old 

project, it shows just how meaningless the "no new deals" pledge 

is. There were no Trump Hotels in the Dominican Republic 

before Trump's presidency, but there will be after. They will 

involve negotiations wlth local government zoning Dfficials, loans 

from banks, or investors who may have ties to the government. 

A fight over trademarks of Trump's name in China ~ 

suddenly settled weeks after his inauguration. The application 

to register Trump's name in China was finally approved just 

weeks after Trump took the oath of office, paving the way for the 

Trump Organization to develop branded businesses in the 

country. The news cam~~1st davs after Trump asserted the U$. 

government's support for the "One China polky,'' raising the 

question of whether the trademarks were approved as quid pro 

quo. As ~ne intellec~tl-'!I!_I?:r?PE!-:Y .. e~_eert in .!I_?.~~E_?_t~, 

"for all these marks to sail through so quickly and cleanly, with 

no similar marks, no identical marks, no issues with 

specifications-boy, it's weird.~ The approval of these trademarks 

eould also be seen as a violation of the emoluments clause of the 

constitution, whkh prohibits the president from receiving 

anything of value from foreign governments. 

As the Trump administration backs off promise to have 

Mexieo pay for the border wall, the countrv aPProves his 

trademarks. The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property 

granted the trademarks to the Trump Organization as his 

administration backs off a major promise of his campaign to have 

the country pay for the proposed wall along the border. The 

approval of these Trump trademarks and the business deals now 

available to the Trump Organization, which Trump maintains an 

ownership stake in, could also violate the emoluments clause. 

A businesswoman with ties to Chinese intelligence just 

bought a penthouse from Trump. The "no new foreign deals" 

pledge shouldn't be limited to licensing agreements or hotel 

expansions abroad, but any time he profits off new arrangements 
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26499.034

with people who aren't American-especially if those people 

have ties to foreign intelligence agencies. Mother Jones reported 

recently that the woman who just paid $15.8 million for a 

penthouse in one of Trump's buildings in New York City doesn't 

just work for a mnsulting firm with the goal of linking U.S. 

businesses wlth Chinese powerbrokers, she also has ties to a 

front group for Chinese intelligence, He has another penthouse 

for sale too. 

Promise 3: He will donate foreign profits from the Washington, 

D.C. hotel to the U.S. treasury. 

"So, President-elect n·ump has decided, and we are announcing today, 

that he is going to voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government 

payments made to his hotel to the United States Treasury. This way, it is 

the American people who will profit. "-Trump attorney Sheri Dillon 

The goal of this component of his conflicts plan was to address 

potential violations of the emoluments clause of the constitution, 

which was created to prevent bribery by foreign governments. 

We know Trump's D.C. hotel has hosted foreign governments-the 

previously mentioned Kuwaiti embassy event for example. So far, he 

has not donated these profits and the Trump Organization said last 

Friday that the donation would be made at the end of the year. 

Of course, it's not as simple as writing a check. As reported at the 

!iJ:w:;. of his conflicts announcement, this arrangement only further 

entangles his businesses \'\ith the U.S, government and still violates 

the emoluments clause. 

First, we don't know what they mean by "profit," which can be 

calculated in a variety of ways. Secondly, luxury hotels like Trump's 

D.C. property generally have a profit margin of around six to 15 

percent, meaning that his hotel could keep up to Ss percent of the 

money it receives from foreign governments for stays, conferences, or 

cocktails. And finally, he has properties around the world that could 

be hosring overnight stays or events by government officials. Members 

of Trump's clubs have reciprocity wlth others, offering any foreign 

members with ties to their country's government access to domestic 

properties like Mar-a-Lago, which Trump makes a profit from. 

While we now know the Trump Organization plans to donate these 

profits at the end of the year, we don't know what disclosure of that 

will look like and, as USA Today noted "how Trump hotels and 

similar businesses will separate profits from foreign governments' 

rentals of rooms and suites, conference rooms and banquet facilities, 

or payments for other services at its hotels." 

Promise 4: Appoint independent ethics officer for Trump 

Organization. 

"Because any new deal could-and I emphasize could-be percei'ved as 

cattsing a conflict or as ('xploitrng the office of the presidency, new deals 

must be vetted with the ethics adviser, whose role will be to analyze any 

potential transactions for conflicts and ethics issues. The ethics adviser 

will be a recognized expert in the field of government experts. "-'frump 

attorney Sheri Dillon 

Trump announced that he would appoint an ethics officer at the 

Trump Organization to be in charge of approving "deals, actions, and 

transactions that could potentially raise ethks or conflicts of interest 

concerns." However, instead of appointing a truly independent 

outside official known as a recognized expert in the field, h£_ 

appointed a loyal Republican election lawyer and a long-time attorney 

for the Trump Organization, men who have a vested interest in 

keeping the president happy and the company profitable. 

Early reports indicate that if they are vetting these deals, the process 

isn't very thorough. Selling- property to someone with ties to Chinese 

intelligence should have been a red flag, ethics experts agree, but 

that's just what happened in the first deal the Trump Organization 

completed after his inauguration, as mentioned above. The fQffiQ~.!!Y 

refuses to explain its vetting process. 
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26499.035

"The Trump Organization, in deals that f've seen so far, lhey either 

never do due diligence, or they do due diligence and they don't care," 

said Jessica Tillipman, a George Washington University law professor 

and expert on ethics and corruption. 

His sons don't seem too worried about it either. According to 2 

article in Forbes, in which they interviewed Eric Trump, ''The Trump 

fils took an informal approach to vetting potential partners, relying, 

like their dad, as much on gut as numbers and analyses'' 

In response to Trump's failure to divest and disclose his interests, 

several lawmakers have introduced resolutions and legislation 

encouraging or requiring such action. Sen. Ben Cardin (D·Md.) has 

introduced a resolution urging Trump to completely divest from his 

businesses. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Katherine 

Clark {D-Mass.) have introduced legislatlon requiring presidentS and 

vice presidents to divest and disclose their assets. Sen. Ron Wyden {D· 

Oregon) has a bill that vvould require Trump to disclose his interests 

in a foreign country before beginning new trade negotiations. Rep. 

Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.} introduced a resolution of inquiry-buried by a 

vote in the House Judiciary Committee-requiring the Attorney 

General to release all materials related to investigations into his 

conflicts of interest, especially those related to payments from foreign 

countries. 

Senate and House Democrats have also sent more than two·doz.en 

letters of oversight and concern on these issues to the White House, 

Office of Government Ethics, the General Services Administration, the 

FBI, and House and Senate committee chairs. 

"Draining the swamp of government corruption:• 

On the campaign trail, Trump presented himself as the candidate who 

would eliminate government corruption, claiming in spee<:hes and 

social media posts that he would make government "honest" again, 

dose loopholes that allow people to influence public policy without 

registering as a lobbyist, and "drain the swamp" of wealthy special 

interests. After Trump became president, his actions and personnel 

choices have disappointed government reform advocates and 

delighted the wealthy and corporate interests whose influence 

candidate Trump seemed determined to quash. 

In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, candidate Trump 

presented himself as a reformer by releasing a "five~point plan for 

ethics reform.~ 

The ethics executive order that Trump eventually signed is a half~ 

hearted attempt to fulfill some of the pledges made in the five-point 

plan. In a reference to the executive order during his speech to the 

joint session of Congress, Trump said ''We have begun to drain the 

swamp of government corruption." Nevertheless, the order scales 

back the ambitions of this plan and, rompared to the Obama 

administration's ethi~,~~ significantly weaken~ ethics 

oversight in the executive branch. And as for the points of the plan 

that require congressional movement, even less progress has been 

made on that front. Far from being drained, the swamp is rather, as a 

result of President Trump's actions, deeper than ever. 

The promise made in the five-point ethics plan and analyses of how 

the Trump administration followed through on it follows. 

Promise 1: Re-institute fiveRyear ban on executive branch officials 

lobbying the government and asking Congress to pass legislation 

that does the same. 

First: 1 am going to re-institute as-year ban on all executive branch 

officials 1obbymg the government for 5 years after they leave government 

service. I am going to ask Congress to pass this ban into law so that it 

cannot be lifted by executive order, 

In some ways, the revolving door restrictions on agency staff leaving 

the federal government to become lobbyists seem stronger than the 

Obama restrictions. Where Obama's executive order prohibited 
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26499.036

outgoing executive branch employees from lobbying for two years, 

Trump's extends the prohibition to five years. More importantly, 

Trump's five.year ban on lobbying includes "lobbying activities" rather 

than jm;t "lobbying contacts," which should include all the strategic 

planning and research behind a lobbying campaign. 

This provision of the executive order appears partially to fulfill the 

promise made in the first point of the five+point ethics plan Trump 

made on the campaign trail. However, this apparent effort 10 

strengthen lobbying restrictions comes with major caveats. 

Trump's ethics executive order includes a new definition of "lobbying 

activitieli" that~ "rulemaking, adjudication and licensing" 

from the five-year ban on any appointee who leaves an agency 

returning to iobby the agency where he or she served. TI;e exdusion 

of rulemaking is particularly concerning, as rulemaking is the main 

activity that executive branch agencies perform. It is possible that a 

narrow definition of the term rulemaking could avoid opening 

loopholes for lobbyists, and would simply refer to the process through 

which federal agencies receive comments from the general public, If, 

however, rulemaking is broadly defined to include agencies' entire 

process of promulgating rules, then Trump's executive order exempts 

nearly everything the executive branch does, and the lobbying ban is 

virtually meaningless. In effect, these former officials would not even 

have to become unregistered "shadow lobbyists" to skirt Trump's 

ethics executive order; they could do so as registered lobbyists and 

begin immediately lobbying the executive branch by focusing on 

rulemaking rather than legislation, 

Promise 2: Ask Congress to pass a five-year lobbying ban. 

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute ns owns-year ban on 

lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs. 

Trump has not yet asked Congress to pass legislation preventing 

members of Congress from becoming lobbyists after leaving 

government service. 

Promise 3: Expand the definition of lobbyist to strengthen 

lobbying regulations and limit shadow lobbying. 

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the 

loopholes that former government officials' use by labeling themselves 

consultants and advi.~ors when we all know they are lobbyi.~ts, 

Trump's ethics executive order makes it easier for lobbyists to work in 

the White House and executive branch agencies. Specifically, the 

Trump executive order loosens the Obama administration's 

restrictions on lobbyists being appointed to work for federal agencies 

they recently lobbied. While Obama's ethics executive order included 

a prohibition against lobbyists joining the staff of an agency they 

lobbied within the last two years (and was subsequently seen as 

mostly effective in diminishing lobbyist influence), Trump's executive 

order allows lobbyists to join the staff of an agency they lobbied 

immediately upon de-registering as a lobbyist. Llterally, a lobbyist 

may deregister on Monday and serve in the Trump administration on 

Tuesday-and many are doing precisely that. 

As a result of this loosening of restrictions, lobbyists arc taking the 

reins of federal agencies they once sought to influence from the 

outside. A lobbyist for for-profit colleges has joined the Department of 

Education. A lobbyist for the construction industry who lobbied 

against worker wage and safety regulations is helping lead the 

Department of Labor, Among the dozens of lobbyists Pro Publica 

identifieQ. as part of the administration's "beachhead teams"-

temporary political appointees deployed to agencies at the start of a 

new administration-are lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry 

and health insurance companies who joined the Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

However, Trump's ethics executive order preserved one element of 

Obama's lobbying restrictions, at least in words. Former lobbyists 

appointed to the administration will have to recuse themselves from 

"particular matters" they lobbied within the last two years, including 

any "specific issue area~ in which they lobbied. This language is 
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26499.037

borrowed straight from Obama's ethics executive order. The problem 

is that Trump's White House Counsel, charged with interpreting and 

enforcing the executive order, either has not defined "specific issue 

area'' or is not enforcing the order. Several new hires into the Trump 

administration are in fact working in the same specific issue areas that 

they previously lobbied._Sha~!~.<: _!<l:l.i?Q!f, for example, lobbied on tax 

and retirement issues for the finandal services giant Fidelity. She has 

now been appointed as Trump's special assistant on tax and 

retirement policy. 

like Obama's ethics executive order, Trump's also makes it possible 

for individuals to be granted waivers from these restrictions, thus 

allowing lobbyists to join the administration and work on the specific 

issue area in which they lobbied. Obama's ethics executive order 

stated that waivers would be granted by the director of the White 

liouse Office of Management and Budget in consultation with the 

White House Counsel in circumstances when "the literal application 

was inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction" or if it was 

determined to be "in the public interest.'' Trump's executive order, on 

the other hand, states that granting waivers is a responsibility of the 

president or his designee and provides no legal standard for granting 

waivers. 

For Trump, the standard for granting waivers is simply political. He 

can decide to let a former lobbyist work on issues they lobbied on 

whenever he wishes and whenever it's convenient for him. And while 

Obama's waivers were regularly disclosed via an annual public report, 

this transparency measure has been omitted from Trump's executive 

order, and the web page where such waivers should appear~ 

blank. Sen. Jon Tester (O..Mt.) has sent a letter to the administration 

asking if these disclosures will indeed cease, as seems likely. 

Additionally, there is a significant provision in Trump's ethics 

executive order that conceivably could be useful in managing the 

financial conflicts of interest rampant among his administration 

appointees. The Trump order borrows directly from Ot~ama's ethics 

executive order a key provision to manage conflicts: all appointees, 

whether or not a former lobbyist, pledge to recuse themselves from 

official actions that affect their former employers or clients of the last 

two years. Zealously enforced by Obama, this provision helped make 

the Obama administration virtually scandal free in terms of conflicts 

of interest But again there is no indication that any Trump 

administration appointees are being informed of this conflict of 

interest provision and no indication that the White House Counsel is 

enforcing this restriction. George David Banks a Trump appointee, 

reported that no one in the Whlte House Counsel's office hus ever 

talked to him about the ethics restrictions. And without any disclosure 

of waivers to the ethics rules, implementation and enforcement of this 

conflict of interest restriction is entirely at the whim of White House 

Counsel Don McGahn, who has a history of shunning such rules. 

Promise 4: Permanently ban executive branch officials from 

representing a foreign government as a lobbying client. 

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch 

officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. 

The lifetime ban for executive branch appointees from lobbying on 

behalf of foreign governments or foreign political parties in Trump's 

ethics executive order would seem to impose stronger restrictions 

than Obama's executive order. 

This provision of the executive order appears to fulfill the promise 

made in the fourth point of the five-point ethics plan Trump made on 

the campaign trail. However, this is another apparent reform that 

comes with major caveats. 

The lifetime ban on lobbying on behalf of foreign entities prevents a 

relatively unlikely scenario that was already tightly restricted, as 

demonstrated by Trump's former national security advisor, Michael 

Flynn, belatedly registering with the Justice Department for his 

lobbying activities on behalf of a 1\trklsh company. (Rep. Bill Pascrell, 

D-N.J., has asked the White House if the ban will in fact actually 

apply to Flynn.) At the same time, as a CREW analysis points out, the 
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26499.038

provision does nothing to prevent outgoing appointees from 

capitalizing on their White House experience via business dealings 

with foreign governments, a situation that is not unlikely considering 

Trump's cabinet of corporate CEOs. 

Promise s: Ask Congress to pass reform legislation to block 

lobbyists for foreign governments from spending in U.S. 

elections. 

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that 

prevents registered foreign /obbyht~ from raising money in American 

elections. 

Trump also has failed to press Congress to pass campaign finance 

reform legislation to place limits on the influence of registered foreign 

lobbyists. 

Until the provisions of Trump's ethics executive order are actually 

enforced, questions about the efficacy ofTrump's ethics pledge wiil 

remain. There arc signs, however, that the repeated pledge to "drain 

the swamp" and restore ethics to the executive branch are more 

rhetoric than substance. For starters, Don McGahn, Trump's appointee 

for White House Counsel, is the offictal who is primarily responsible 

for interpreting and enforcing the ethics executive order. As an 

enforcer of ethics rules, McGahn, a Republican Parry lawyer who has 

dedicated his career to undermining campaign ftnance laws and 

increasing the influence of big money in politics, inspires little 

confidence. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has sent a letter to the 

~requesting more information about how the order will 

be enforced. ProPublica, meanwhile, has already identified three 

b1stances where fonner lobbyists are working in the Trump 

administration on issues they lobbied on, in apparent contravention of 

Trump's already weakened ethics rules. And finally, the 

administration seems to be willfully turning a blind eye to precisely 

the kinds of conflicts of interest the ethics executive order is intended 

to prevent. Just look at the case of billionaire investor and Trump 

advisor Car! kahn, for example, who is pushing for the adoption of 

self-dealins policies that will bloat his business' profits by more than 

$100 million. 

So, in terms of executive actions that fulfill the five-point pledge, only 

the lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign governments appears to 

address the campaign promises made by candidate Trump, and even 

that may be misleading. For the items in the five-point pledge that 

require congressional action, even less can be said. Where he has 

changed the scope of the lobbyist revolving door restrictions, it has 

had the impact of weakening, rather than strengthening, these 

restrictions. 

Conclusion 

These broken promises on his businesses and the influence of 

lobbyists are part of the bigger picture of an administration clouded 

by corruption and conflicts. Trump has filled his administration with 

the same major donors, Wall Street executives, and spe<:ial interest 

"puppets" he said he'd fight if elected. 

In just the first couple months of the Trump administration, the 

number of conflicts of interest scandals separate from Trump's own 

business dealings has been exhausting. Trump's "special adviser" on 

regulations, Carl Jcahn, is in the middle of engineering~ 

changes that'll benefit his bottom line. The president's sons who 

manage the vast Trump Organization have announced plans to 

expand the business, perhaps doubling the number of markets in 

which Trump's hotels reach-putting local governments in fear of 

retribution for simple zoning decisions and possibly creating run-ins 

vvith federal agencies. 

The financial conflicts of interest petvasive in the Trump family and 

throughout the administration not only raise concerns of self-dealing, 

but also concerns about the opportunities for manipulation by others, 

including foreign governments. In addition to the Chinese trademarks 

issue mentioned above, the family of his top adviser, his son·in-law, i& 

negotiating a $400 million real estate deal with a Chinese company 

lied ro the country's leading Communist Party families. Similarly, 
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26499.039

Trump has about $300 million in business deals with Deutsche Bank, 

the German bank that has been under investigation by the 

Department of Justice for laundering money for very wealthy Russian 

clients. 

No the administration enters its third month, Trump and members of 

his administration have shown no interest in fulfilling his pledge to 

"drain the swamp" and instead have pursued policies that boost the 

financial interests of contributors, friends, and family at the expense 

of millions of people who voted for Trump. With the conflicts of 

interest unchecked, the Trump administration is well on its way to 

becoming the most scandal·ridden administration in history. 
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26499.040

AMERICANS FOR* TaxFa1rness 

March 22, 2017 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

241 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Eshoo: 

On behalf of Americans for Tax Fairness' 425 endorsing organizations, I write in support of your 

bill, H.R. 305, The Presidential Tax Transparency Act, to require the president and presidential 

nominees of major political parties to publicly release their three most recent federal income 

tax returns. 

During the campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump repeatedly said that he would release his 

tax returns, telling NBC's Today show in February 2016 that he would do so "probably over the 

next few months." Over the course of the campaign, Mr. Trump shifted to saying that his tax 

returns would be released once they were no longer under IRS audit. However, since then the 

president has abruptly changed course and said that he is never going to release his tax returns 

because the American people don't "care at all." 

Contrary to that assertion, a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in mid-January found 

that 74% of Americans thought Trump should release his tax returns, including 49% of his own 

supporters. And since January 20, more than 1 million people have signed a petition on the 

White House website calling on President Trump to immediately release his tax returns. 

Americans want transparency, not broken promises. 

The Presidential Tax Transparency Act simply codifies the practice that has been in place for the 

last 40 years-that every major presidential candidate and sitting president has released their 

tax returns. In fact, every sitting president since Jimmy Carter (and President Nixon too) has 

released their tax returns while in office. This is not an issue of partisanship, but instead one of 

precedent and transparency. 

President Trump and his senior advisors have repeatedly pointed to the fact that the president 

has filed the financial disclosures required by law. Candidate Trump even claimed that "I 

released the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics ... You don't 

learn much in a tax return." However, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact labeled this claim 

"false," pointing to the fact that financial disclosures are limited by large gaps in the 

information provided, and that they only list assets in broad ranges, as opposed to the much 

more detailed information tax returns provide-including earnings down to the dollar. 

1101 17'" Street NW • Suite 301 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • 202-506-3264 

www.AmericansForTaxFairness.org • @4TaxFaimess • www.Facebook.com/Americans4TaxFaimess 
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26499.041

The public deserves to know how presidential candidates and presidents conduct their financial 

affairs, whether they will have conflicts of interest while in office, what tax loopholes they are 

taking advantage of, and how their proposed tax policies-and those proposed by Congresswill benefit them personally. 

The Presidential Tax Transparency Act is needed since 40 years of accepted practice apparently 

isn't enough to compel President Trump to act. With no legislation requiring them to do so, and 

President Trump having inaugurated a new tradition of nondisclosure, why would future 

presidential candidates and presidents release their tax returns? 

Therefore, we strongly support H.R. 305, The Presidential Tax Transparency Act. to ensure that 

the longstanding practice of presidents and presidential candidates releasing their tax returns 

continues. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Clemente 

Executive Director 

1101 17'" Street NW • Suite 301 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • 202-506-3264 

www.AmericansForTaxFairness.org • @4TaxFaimess • www.Facebook.com/Americans4TaxFaimess 
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26499.042

March 30, 2017 

Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman 

Hon. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515 

Re: Transparency of federal grant and contract information 

Dear Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings: 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform on Thursday, March 23, 2017. 1 I appreciated the opportunity to 

commend the Committee's bipartisan efforts - both oversight and legislative -to ensure 

that our government is transparent to Americans, and in particular to support the OPEN 

Government Data Act.2 

We are excited that the OPEN Government Data Act has now been introduced in both 

the House of Representatives and the Senate by leaders of both parties. 

The Data Coalition believes that all federal information, unless important security or 

privacy concerns apply, should be published online as open data- easily downloaded, 

scrutinized, and analyzed. This means federal information should be freely available to 

Americans "with no restrictions on copying, publishing, distributing, transmitting, citing, 

or adapting."3 

In my written and verbal testimony last Thursday, I discussed Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.'s 

proprietary interest in federal grant and contract information because it exemplifies the 

need for the OPEN Government Data Act Federal grant and contract information, as 

published on the government's USASpending.gov portal and elsewhere, is crucial for 

transparency and accountability, is of great interest to American taxpayers, and carries 

no security or privacy concerns. 

However, under Dun & Bradstreet's government-wide contract with the General 

Services Administration (GSA), Dun & Bradstreet owns the identification code- the 

Data Universal Numbering System Number (DUNS Number)- that is universally used 

to identify the awardees receiving grants and contracts. Dun & Bradstreet wields its 

ownership of the DUNS Number to restrict taxpayers from downloading or analyzing this 

1 
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 26499.043

information in a meaningful way, unless they purchase a license to it from Dun & 

Bradstreet. 

At the hearing on Thursday, I pointed out that the government's use of a proprietary 

identification code for grantees and contractors restricts grant and contract information, 

which means such information is not "open" within the meaning of the OPEN 

Government Data Act. By its proprietary nature, the DUNS Number forces Americans to 

pay multiple times to download and analyze information they already have paid for as 

taxpayers. Members of the Committee agreed. 

Dun & Bradstreet has written a letter to the Committee4 that misrepresents taxpayers' 

access to federal grant and contract information, distorts the substance of its contract 

with GSA, and misstates my own testimony before the Committee. Today, I write briefly 

to correct the record. 

Taxpayers must purchase licenses from Dun & Bradstreet in order to download 

and analyze information that includes the DUNS Number. 

Taxpayers can browse through information identifying federal grantees and contractors 

on two federal portals, USASpending.gov and SAM.gov. However, under the contract 

between GSA and Dun & Bradstreet, they cannot download or analyze it without 

purchasing an additional license. 

At the top of the front page of USASpending.gov, a prominent disclaimer warns users: 

"You must click here for very important D&B information." The disclaimer links to a legal 

notice explaining that users of the portal are prohibited from "[s]ystematic access 

(electronic harvesting) or extraction" of information that includes the crucial DUNS 

Number,5 i.e., downloading it. A similar legal notice is linked from the front page of 

SAM.gov. 

Dun & Bradstreet contends that "[t]axpayers are not required to pay in order to access, 

or use, Dun & Bradstreet-sourced data used to identify an awardee."6 These words skirt 

the real issue. 

Offering taxpayers the opportunity to browse through data that identifies awardees, but 

not to download or analyze for themselves, does not provide true transparency. Such 

restrictions contravene the definition of open data, expressed by the OPEN Government 

Data Act and commonly by the public-interest community. 

Until taxpayers are permitted to freely "copy[], publish [ ], distribut[e], transmit[], cit[e], 

and adapt[ ]"7 grant and contract information however they see fit, they can only use the 

native search and display functions of the government's portals. They cannot perform 

their own, independent analyses of grant and contract information -which would require 

full downloads. 

2 
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 26499.044

Dun & Bradstreet and GSA's 2016 contract modification did not remove the 

crucial restrictions on information that includes DUNS Number. 

In 2016, Dun & Bradstreet and the GSA modified their contract. The GSA paid Dun & 

Bradstreet over $20 million. In exchange, Dun & Bradstreet expanded the ways in which 

the public can use some ancillary data fields - primarily company name and address -

but did not lift all restrictions on these data fields. 

The USASpending.gov and SAM.gov legal notices show the impact of this modification. 

Both legal notices inform users that they may now download these ancillary data fields, 

but not "in bulk," and must credit Dun & Bradstreet wherever they use such data. 8 

However, the contract modification did not give users the right to download information 

that contains the DUNS Number. Without the DUNS Number itself, grant and contract 

information is difficult to use. For example, a USASpending.gov search for "Lockheed" 

reveals dozens of different affiliates and subsidiaries of Lockheed Martin, with minor 

various between many of their names. Without the DUNS Number, it is impossible to tell 

whether spelling variants signify a different legal entity or not. 

Without the DUNS Number, it is also impossible to match grant and contract information 

together with agency-specific data sources, or non-governmental ones. Dun & 

Bradstreet holds the only key to any entity matching that involves federal grantees and 

contractors. 

The ancillary data fields, though they are now somewhat less restricted, still do not 

qualify as open data the contract modification. By continuing to restrict "bulk" downloads 

of even these fields, the contract modification prevents taxpayers from creating their 

own data sets covering all federal spending. Taxpayers must continue to purchase 

licenses if they want completeness. Moreover, ty requiring a citation to Dun & 

Bradstreet, the modification imposes a manual step every time the information is 

reused. 

Both restrictions contradict the principles of open data, even though the 

USASpending.gov and SAM.gov legal notices both now use the term "open data" to 

describe the ancillary data fields. 

The OPEN Government Data Act will set a presumption in favor of unrestricted, 

open data. It will challenge, but not directly ban, Dun & Bradstreet's unique 

monopoly over grant and contract information. 

The OPEN Government Data Act does not restrict the government's ability to purchase 

information from commercial sources. Instead, it provides that if the government 

chooses to publish that information, or any information, it should not impose restrictions 

on taxpayers' reuse, to the extent practicable. 9 But Dun & Bradstreet's letter conflates 

these two very different issues. 

3 
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 26499.045

In my testimony, I pointed out that the OPEN Government Data Act sets a presumption 

that government information should be freely "available under open licenses," 10 and 

because of Dun & Bradstreet's proprietary interest in the DUNS Number, grant and 

contract information is not. Because the bill sets this presumption only "to the extent 

practicable,"11 it will not invalidate the contract between Dun & Bradstreet and GSA. 

Instead, it will require GSA to consider whether it is practicable to renegotiate the 

contract to lift the restrictions on grant and contract information, so that it can be freely 

available as open data. 

A monopoly is established if there is a single source of a good or service with virtually 

total control of a sector. Under its contract with GSA, Dun & Bradstreet is the only 

source for information about federal grants and contracts, because (1) federal agencies 

exclusively use the DUNS Number to track their grants and contracts and (2) the DUNS 

Number is owned by Dun & Bradstreet. Nobody can download procurement and grant 

information and translate the DUNS Numbers into some other code without purchasing 

a Dun & Bradstreet license. 

Even though other identification codes exist, grant and contract information is not 

tracked using these other codes, and has to be sourced from Dun & Bradstreet, under a 

license, before any translation can be done. Even though other information vendors 

exist, GSA has given Dun & Bradstreet sole control over grant and contract information. 

As far as I am aware, Dun & Bradstreet's protected and profitable monopoly is unique 

across all federal management, spending, and performance. I know of no other 

circumstance where information about the operations of the federal government, all 

funded by taxpayers, is owned by a private-sector vendor, restricting taxpayers' ability 

to reuse the information. If such other circumstances existed, the Data Coalition would 

advocate for similar changes. 

Dun & Bradstreet contends that I interpret the OPEN Government Data Act to limit the 

government's ability to procure commercial data. 12 This is incorrect. I see no impact on 

commercial data procurement, unless vendors seek to impose restrictions that follow 

the data all the way through to eventual publication. I do see a challenge to restricted 

data publication- and a challenge to Dun & Bradstreet's unique monopoly. 

The Committee should take additional steps to make grant and contract 

information freely open for unrestricted reuse. 

The Data Coalition believes that grant and contract information should be freely 

available as open data, not restricted by a proprietary identifier the way it is today. Of 

our thirty-six members, a few provide business information services to federal agencies, 

just as Dun & Bradstreet does. However, none of these companies, nor any other Data 

Coalition member, is seeking to provide a proprietary identification number to track 

federal grantees and contractors and then charge taxpayers for licenses to download or 

analyze the information. In that sense, no Data Coalition member competes with Dun & 

Bradstreet's current arrangement, or wants to. 

4 
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 26499.046

Should our vision of fully transparent, unrestricted grant and contract information be 

realized, Dun & Bradstreet and its peer companies can compete to synthesize public 

information to create marketable insights. 

We appreciate the Committee's attention to this issue, both through its consideration of 

the OPEN Government Data Act and through future oversight and legislation. 

Congressional oversight of the use of proprietary identifiers is having an impact already. 

For example, GSA has begun a review of its contract with Dun & Bradstreet that could 

result in a decision to replace the DUNS Number with a nonproprietary identifier, so that 

grant and contract information will be freely available without restrictions. 13 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Hudson Hollister 

Hudson Hollister 

Executive Director, Data Coalition 

datacoalition.org 

CC: Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

1 See https://oversight.house.gov/hcaring/legislative-proposals-fostering-transparency/ (accessed March 30, 2017) 2 OPEN Government Data Act, H.R. 1770, S. 760, available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/ll5thcongress/house-bil1/1770 

3 OPEN Government Data Act at sec. 3561(11). 4 Letter from Joshua L. Peirez, President and Chief Operating Officer, Dun & Bradstreet, to Reps. Jason Cha!Tetz 

and Elijah Cummings, March 29,2017 ("Dun & Bradstreet Letter"). 5 See https://www.usaspending.gov/pagesfdb.aspx (accessed March 30, 2017). 6 Dun & Bradstreet Letter at 2. 7 OPEN Government Data Act at sec. 3561(11). 8 See, e.g., https://www.usaspending.gov/pages/db.aspx (accessed March 30, 2017). 9 OPEN Government Data Act at sec. 3652(b ). 10 !d. 

1l /d. 

12 Dun & Bradstreet letter at 1-2. 13 See 

https:/ /www .lbo.gov /indcx?s=opporttmity &mode=form&tab=core&id=46419b596deed9dd7 57b2d6729c3 a 765 

(accessed March 30, 2017). 

5 
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 26499.047

D21tu Coalitl on 

1003 K Street NW 

\, 312A93./533 

'I @DataCoalition 

COALITION Suite 200 liiD info@datacoalition.org 

Washington, DC 20001 A datacoalition.org 

April20, 2017 

Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman 

Hon. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

2157 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515 

Re: Responses to Questions for the Record from March 23, 2017, Committee 

Hearing Titled "Legislative Proposals for Fostering Transparency" 

Dear Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings: 

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to additional questions for the record from the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform following its hearing on 

Thursday, March 23, 2017.' 

The Committee's questions concern Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.'s unique monopoly over 

important federal grant and contract information. The monopoly stems from Dun & 

Bradstreet's proprietary interest in the electronic identification code that is universally 

used to identify the entities that receive grantees and contractors. This proprietary 

interest is affirmed by Dun & Bradstreet's government-wide contract with the General 

Services Administration (GSA). 

The Data Coalition believes that all federal information, unless important security or 

privacy concerns apply, should be published online as open data -easily downloaded, 

scrutinized, and analyzed. This means federal information should be freely available to 

Americans "with no restrictions on copying, publishing, distributing, transmitting, citing, 

or adapting."" Dun & Bradstreet's monopoly prevents the federal government's official 

records of grant and contract spending from being available as open data. 

Under its GSA contract, Dun & Bradstreet administers the system that registers and 

tracks federal grantees and contractors. That alone is not objectionable. 

However, the contract also provides Dun & Bradstreet with a proprietary interest in the 

Digital Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number, the electronic code that identifies 

those entities. Dun & Bradstreet wields its ownership of the DUNS Number to restrict 

taxpayers from downloading or analyzing this information in a meaningful way, unless 

they purchase a license to it from Dun & Bradstreet. 

The Committee's questions, and my answers to them, follow. 
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 26499.048

COALITION 

Data Coalition 

1003 K Street NW 

\.. 312.493./533 

'!I @DataCoalition 

Sllite 200 illll info@datacoalition.org 

Washington, D.C. 20001 A datacoalition.org 

1. In your statement, you state that: 'Taxpayers paid for this information to be 

compiled, and they paid for the grant and contract awards that this information 

describes, and yet they cannot download or analyze this information without 

paying again, every time." 

a. The Committee understands that the Dun & Bradstreet agreement does 

not limit taxpayers' ability to download or to analyze this data, including 

D&B data. What situation are you referring to where taxpayers have to pay 

for this data? 

The Committee is misinformed. Taxpayers can browse through information identifying 

federal grantees and contractors on two federal portals, USASpending.gov and 

SAM.gov. However, under the contract between GSA and Dun & Bradstreet, they 

cannot download or analyze it without purchasing an additional license. 

At the top of the front page of USASpending.gov, a prominent disclaimer warns users: 

"You must click here for very important D&B information." The disclaimer links to a legal 

notice explaining that users of the portal are prohibited from "[s]ystematic access 

(electronic harvesting) or extraction" of information that includes the crucial DUNS 

Number,m i.e., downloading it A similar legal notice is linked from the front page of 

SAM.gov. 

Under this notice, users who wish to download or analyze information that identifies 

federal grantees and contractors using the DUNS Number- without which the 

information is not meaningful - cannot do so without a license. 

b. According to the original selection criteria of the DUNS Number outlined in 

the 1994 report, Streamlining Procurement through Electronic Commerce, 

by the government "most government trading partners already have a 

DUNS Number". Considering Dun & Bradstreet has 250M+ records in its 

database, is it accurate to say that taxpayers paid for this information to be 

compiled? 

Taxpayers did pay for this information to be compiled through their purchase of the 

GSA's government-wide license to it, for which they had already paid over $150 million 

as of the Government Accountability Office's 2012 report on this issuei• It may be true 

that Dun & Bradstreet would compile and maintain company information to sell to 

private-sector customers even if it had no federal business. However, it is also true that 

the GSA's payments to Dun & Bradstreet are consideration for this work. 

Therefore, it is accurate to say that taxpayers who want to use this information are 

forced to pay in multiple ways: first, by funding the grant and contract awards that this 

information describes; second, through the GSA's purchase of a government-wide 

license to it; and third, by purchasing additional licenses if they wish to download or 
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 26499.049

COALITION 

Data CoJliti on 

1 003 K Street NW 

Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

\.. 312.493./533 

'!I @DataCoalition 

liD in-fo@datacoalition.org 

A datacoalition.org 

analyze it. I know of no other goods and services that the government purchases for 

which a similar situation exists. 

2. In your statement, you state that: "The federal government's use of the DUNS 

Number effectively gives Dun & Bradstreet a protected and profitable monopoly 

on public information - at the double expense of the taxpayers" 

a. A "monopoly" established if there is a single source of a good or service 

and has virtually total control of a sector. In the case of the assignment of 

unique identifiers and entity validation services, it seems that the 

government has alternatives, although they may not have chosen them to 

standardize on instead of the DUNS Number. With Tax ID, CAGE Code, 

LEI, and even other competitive numbers like the Austin Tetra number that 

was previously used in CCR.gov alongside the DUNS, isn't this just a case 

of the government having a preferred solution provider? 

Under this definition of "monopoly," Dun & Bradstreet has a monopoly over the federal 

government's official grant and contract information. First, federal agencies exclusively 

use the DUNS Number to track the entities that receive grants and contracts. Second, 

under Dun & Bradstreet's contract with the GSA, Dun & Bradstreet retains a proprietary 

interest the DUNS Number. 

As a result, Dun & Bradstreet is the only source for official and complete information on 

federal grant and contract spending. Nobody can download procurement and grant 

information and translate the DUNS Numbers into some other code without first 

purchasing a Dun & Bradstreet license. 

Even though other identification codes do exist, grant and contract information is not 

tracked using these other codes, and has to be sourced from Dun & Bradstreet, under a 

license, before any translation can be done. Even though other information vendors 

exist, GSA has given Dun & Bradstreet sole control over official federal grant and 

contract information. 

As far as I am aware, Dun & Bradstreet's protected and profitable monopoly is unique 

across all federal management, spending, and performance. I know of no other 

circumstance where information about the operations of the federal government, all 

funded by taxpayers, is owned by a private-sector vendor, restricting taxpayers' ability 

to reuse the information. If such other circumstances did exist, the Data Coalition would 

advocate for change, just as we are advocating for the federal government to stop using 

a proprietary identification code for grantees and contractors. 

b. II is my understanding that under the GSA agreement there is not a cost 

for taxpayers to register in the government systems nor to download or 
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 26499.050

COALITION 

Data Coa!itl on 

1003 K Street NW 

Suite 200 

Washingtol1,. D.C. 20001 

\., 312.493./533 

'II @DataCoalition 

m inio@datacoa!ition.org 

A datacoalition.org 

interact with the data. It is also my understanding that using a solution 

such as the LEI that you have advocated for, carries annual costs for 

businesses, large and small alike. What are those costs? 

It is not correct to claim that "there is not a cost for taxpayers ... to download or interact 

with the data." Under the GSA agreement, taxpayers may browse through information 

that identifies grantees and contractors using the DUNS Number, but they cannot 

download it. This is proved by the text of the legal notice published on 

USASpending.gov and SAM.gov, cited above. 

In 2016, Dun & Bradstreet and the GSA modified their contract. The GSA paid Dun & 

Bradstreet over $20 million. In exchange, Dun & Bradstreet expanded the ways in which 

the public can use some ancillary data fields - primarily company name and address -

but did not lift all restrictions on these data fields. The USASpending.gov and SAM.gov 

legal notices show the impact of this modification. Both legal notices inform users that 

they may now download these ancillary data fields, but not "in bulk," and must credit 

Dun & Bradstreet wherever they use such data. v 

However, the contract modification did not give users the right to download information 

that contains the DUNS Number. Without the DUNS Number itself, grant and contract 

information is difficult to use. For example, a USASpending.gov search for "Lockheed" 

reveals dozens of different affiliates and subsidiaries of Lockheed Martin, with minor 

various between many of their names. Without the DUNS Number, it is impossible to tell 

whether spelling variants signify a different legal entity or not 

Without the DUNS Number, it is also impossible to match grant and contract information 

together with agency-specific data sources, or non-governmental ones. Dun & 

Bradstreet holds the only key to any entity matching that involves federal grantees and 

contractors. 

If the nonproprietary Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) were adopted as the government's 

official identification code for grantees and contractors, then federal grant and contract 

information would be freely downloadable and reusable by taxpayers and others, with 

no need to secure a license. The LEI system is managed by the Global LEI Foundation, 

a nonprofit organization. When a government agency chooses to adopt the LEI for the 

entities it regulates or tracks, it requires them to register for an LEI - either through a 

registration platform it administers itself, or else through a separate registering body. 

The LEI system is funded by fees paid by the entities to their registration platform. 

These fees vary depending on jurisdiction-specific decisions, but are nominal, and 

would represent a very small proportion of the overall cost of complying with federal 

procurement or assistance regulations. 

4 
101 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 26499.051

COALITION 

Data Co.J!itl on 

1 003 K Street NW 

Suite 200 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

\., 312.493.7533 

W @D ataCoalitl on 

liD info@datacoalition.org 

~ datacoalition.org 

3 Isn't it true that Dun & Bradstreet provides a government-specific call center 

service under this contract and that they only collect data elements required for 

SAM registration through that call center? 

I do not know. 

Even if Dun & Bradstreet does provide a government-specific call center service to 

assist in registering federal grantees and contractors under the GSA contract, this does 

not justify providing Dun & Bradstreet with a proprietary interest in the electronic 

identification code that identifies such entity and a resulting monopoly over federal grant 

and contract information. 

4. Are any members of your coalition, Dun & Bradstreet competitors? 

The Data Coalition believes that grant and contract information should be freely 

available as open data, not restricted by a proprietary identifier the way it is today. Of 

our thirty-six members, a few provide business information services to federal agencies, 

just as Dun & Bradstreet does. However, none of these companies, nor any other Data 

Coalition member, is seeking to provide a proprietary identification number to track 

federal grantees and contractors and then charge taxpayers for licenses to download or 

analyze the information. In that sense, no Data Coalition member competes with Dun & 

Bradstreet's current arrangement, nor wants to. 

Should our vision of fully transparent, unrestricted grant and contract information be 

realized, Dun & Bradstreet and its peer companies can compete to synthesize this 

public information to create marketable insights. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to the Committee's questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Hudson Hollister 

Hudson Hollister 

Executive Director, Data Coalition 

'See https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/legislativc-nroposals~fostering·transparency/ (accessed March 30, 2017). 11 OPEN Government Data Act, H.R. 1770, S. 760, available at https://wvvw.con2ress.gov!billil15thcongress/housc-bill/1770, at sec. 3561(11). 

w See, e.g, https://www.usaspcnding.gov/pages/db.aspx (accessed March 30, 2017). 

,v Government Accountability Office, Government is Analy=ing Alternatives for Contractor Identification Numbers, 

June 12.2012. available at http://www.gao.gov/asscts/600/59155l.pdf. 

v See. e.g, https://w\vvv.usaspending.gov/pages/db.a::mx (accessed March 30. 2017).