U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–073 PDF 2006

RESTORING THE PUBLIC TRUST: A REVIEW OF

THE FEDERAL PENSION FORFEITURE ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 1, 2006

Serial No. 109–118

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 1, 2006 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Claybrook, Joan, president, Public Citizen; and Chellie Pingree, president

and chief executive officer, Common Cause ................................................ 27

Claybrook, Joan ......................................................................................... 27

Pingree, Chellie ......................................................................................... 113

Springer, Linda M., Director, Office of Personnel Management .................. 13

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

Claybrook, Joan, president, Public Citizen:

Information concerning a Matter of Trust .............................................. 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 106

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 150

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 3

Pingree, Chellie, president and chief executive officer, Common Cause,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 116

Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ...................................................... 149

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

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 154

Springer, Linda M., Director, Office of Personnel Management, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 16

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 8

(1)

RESTORING THE PUBLIC TRUST: A REVIEW

OF THE FEDERAL PENSION FORFEITURE ACT

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Shays, Souder, Platts,

McHenry, Waxman, Maloney, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, and Norton.

Also Present: Representative Kirk.

Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief

counsel; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel;

Mason Alinger, deputy legislative director; Amy Laudeman, special

assistant; Jack Callender, Howie Denis, and Jim Moore, counsels;

Robert Borden, counsel/parliamentarian; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; John

Brosnan, GAO detailee; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D’Orsie,

deputy clerk; Allyson Blandford, office manager; Leneal Scott and

JR Deng, computer systems managers; Andrew James and Michael

Galindo, staff assistants; Phil Barnett, minority staff director/chief

counsel; Kristin Amerling, minority general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, minority communications director/senior policy advisor; Kim

Trinca, minority counsel; Richard Butcher and Mark Stephenson,

minority professional staff members; Earley Green, minority chief

clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee will come to order.

We meet today to discuss legislation intended to restore public

trust in the Federal Government. The Federal Pension Forfeiture

Act provides an important deterrent by denying Federal retirement

benefits to Federal policymakers convicted of accepting bribes, defrauding the Federal Government, embezzling Federal funds, or

falsifying Federal documents.

The public is rightly concerned about how Government officials

interact with the people who get paid to influence decisions. This

isn’t anything new. Throughout the Nation’s history, we have regularly experienced cycles of scandal and reform. The American people do not care about partisanship and pointing fingers. They want

to know that their Government is working honestly and openly.

The Federal Pension Forfeiture Act will add more teeth to the

penalties for mixing personal gain with Federal policy. A Federal

2

pension is a sweet deal. One reason it is sweet is to make Federal

employees less susceptible to pressure from outside groups.

Under this bill, if you commit a felony that undermines the public trust, you forfeit your Federal pension. American taxpayers

should not be forced to support a person who has violated the public trust. It is a harsh penalty, but so is the damage done by even

one case of undue influence.

Over the last few years, and particularly this Congress, several

Members have offered similar bills. This Congress, several bills

have been introduced that share the same basic principle: Commit

a felony related to your official duties, you lose the biggest perk.

Many of us held town hall meetings over the past few weeks in

our districts. People are angry and disillusioned. The bad acts of

a few have tainted all of us who serve in public office. It is time

to begin restoring the public’s faith in Government.

We welcome three distinguished witnesses who have excellent

credentials in working to promote and create trustworthy Government. First, we will hear from the Honorable Linda Springer, Director of the Office of Personnel Management. Then we will hear

from Chellie Pingree, who is the president and chief executive officer of Common Cause, and Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen.

We want to thank everybody for joining us, and we look forward

to their insights on this proposal.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

3

4

5

6

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I am going to now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are holding

this hearing. The indictments and scandals now gripping Washington have shown that our laws and regulations are not working to

promote honesty and integrity in Government.

Nine years ago, as this committee was launching its ill-fated

campaign finance investigation, I wrote an op-ed in the New York

Times that called for a comprehensive approach to curbing the influence of money and special interests in Washington. I wrote that

‘‘the real scandal is what’s legal and common.’’ And I said that ‘‘our

goal should be to understand how the process functions at every

step, to expose its flaws and to get rid of the loopholes. This approach may not be popular in Congress but leaders of both parties

must realize that the situation must change.’’

I still believe this today, and I feel confident that under Chairman Davis’ leadership the committee can begin to fulfill its fundamental responsibility: to ensure our Nation has honest leadership and open Government.

In the years since I wrote the op-ed, Americans have witnessed

a rising stream of abuses in Congress and across the Federal Government. There have been allegations of bribes on the House floor;

criminal indictments of high-ranking officials, including a Congressman and the Vice President’s most trusted adviser; rigged

Federal contracts; K Street shakedowns; and a burgeoning corruption scandal. Our committee has an essential role to play in restoring public confidence in Government.

We are the committee with the authority to reform the ethics

laws that govern the Federal Government. We are the committee

with the authority to restore the principles of open Government.

And we are the committee with the authority to close the revolving

door between Federal agencies and the private sector, to ban secret

meetings between Government officials and lobbyists, and to halt

procurement abuses.

To meet these challenges, we must do two things: first, we must

use our broad investigative power to investigate abuses and ensure

accountability; and, second, we must take a comprehensive approach to reform. The legislation we are discussing today denying

pensions to political appointees convicted of felonies may win broad

support, but it won’t do much to clean up Washington. In fact, most

political appointees don’t even serve long enough for their pensions

to vest.

We need an approach that stops political appointees from giving

lobbyists and special interests secret access to the halls of Government, that halts or at least slows down the revolving door that

spins between the White House and K Street, and that assures

that the Government’s business is conducted in the sunshine. We

need to restore honesty in Federal contracting, to stop cronyism,

and to rebuild the integrity of our science-based agencies. And we

must encourage whistleblowers to come forward and ban the insidious use of covert propaganda.

This is a large agenda, but it is absolutely vital. Corrupt practices have taken a deep hold in Washington, and it will take comprehensive reforms to restore honesty and accountability.

7

The chairman and I met earlier this week to discuss these issues.

We did not agree on every detail, but we did agree on two fundamental points: reform should be comprehensive and far-reaching,

and now is the time to act. And we pledged to work together to see

if a true bipartisanship can be achieved.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working with you on these matters.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Let me say we

did agree there needs to be a comprehensive approach, and this is

just a small piece, and hopefully we can. Unfortunately, we may

not have jurisdiction over everything we would like to do, but we

have a lot of jurisdiction, and let’s try to use it. We have a window

of opportunity, and hopefully we can work together on these issues.

Any other Members wish to make statements?

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, one, thank you for holding this hearing. Thank

you for working with Mr. Waxman during the past year and a half.

It has been very important that we work together to deal with this

issue, and admittedly, it seems like a small part of what is truly

a very big problem. But after having 20 community meetings in my

district, this issue right here is a no-brainer. And after having 20

community meetings in my district, the biggest message I got was

that they want us to act, as we should, as an independent branch

of Government and not as a parliament that somehow is closely

tied with this administration.

The administration has its sole and complete responsibilities. We

have our sole and complete responsibilities. And I am grateful we

are dealing with this issue, and I hope that we will be dealing with

a number of other issues in the weeks and months to come.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. We are at another critical crossroads in

America, and based on what we have seen in some of our fellow

Members of Congress, including some in our own party’s leadership, we need to really—we cannot ignore the present crisis. We

need to move ahead. Quite frankly, we should have moved last fall.

Some of those proposals were blocked inside of our own leadership,

including one applying to congressional pensions by Congressman

Shadegg. But I am glad to see that we are starting right out this

year in a first hearing with this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts to bring some changes to

Government in our first week back. As everyone knows, we have

lately been faced with corruption, malfeasance, and abuse of the

public trust. It is high time that public officials are held accountable for their actions. We cannot allow individuals to line their

pockets by taking advantage of their position in Government. I believe the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act sends a message to any

would-be lawmaker that your punishment will be more than a jail

sentence. It will impact the rest of your life. We must root out corruption wherever it may be found.

I strongly support Chairman Davis’ bill. The bill, as it has been

drafted, covers only Members of Congress, congressional staff, and

political appointees in the executive branch. As we move forward,

I believe this bill should be expanded to cover all Federal employees. The most important part is for the elected officials and our appointees to be held accountable, and I understand that. And I realize that the high-profile nature of recent scandals make legislation

dealing specifically with those scandals a very immediate priority.

But I also believe that we need to take this opportunity to make

complete reform of Government as well as send a message to all

13

Federal employees that corruption will not be tolerated at any level

of Government.

In the late 1990’s, a theft ring involving collaboration between

outside contractors and the Department of Education employees operated for at least 3 years, stealing more than $300,000 worth of

electronic equipment—computers, televisions, VCRs, etc.—and collecting more than $700,000 in false overtime pay. The scheme involved a Department of Education employee charged with overseeing an outside contract. The employee ordered equipment

through the contract paid for by the Education Department and

had it delivered by a complicit contract employee to her house or

the homes of friends and relatives. The complicit contract employees also did personal errands for her, such as driving to Baltimore

to bring crab cakes for her to eat lunch in Washington. In return,

she signed off on false weekend and holiday hours that they never

worked, paid for by the Department of Education. Eleven individuals, including four Education Department employees, have been

charged in a 19-count indictment. Another theft ring was exposed in 2000, in which $1.9 million in

Federal impact aid funds intended for two school districts in South

Dakota were fraudulently wired to several bank accounts in Maryland. The funds were used to buy $135,000 worth of real estate, a

$50,000 Lincoln Navigator, and a $47,000 Cadillac Escalade. This

theft was only uncovered when a car salesman alerted the FBI

after thieves tried to use false credit information to purchase a Corvette.

These instances show that non-elected and the supposedly nonpolitical employees also abuse the public trust. As much as we

should be concerned about Members, staff, and political appointees

abusing the public trust, we should also punish rank-and-file bureaucrats who line their pockets with taxpayer money. They are

also abusing the public trust, albeit it not in the high-profile manner that gets flashed across the news. That said, I applaud the

chairman for his leadership and fast action on this legislation. First

we must clean our own house. We must clean our own party, and

we need to be aggressive in this, or the public will do it for us.

They are angry. They are justifiably angry, and this important

piece of legislation must be moved immediately.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Souder.

Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements.

We are now going to hear from our first witness, the Honorable

Linda Springer, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. Linda, thank you for being here today. You know it is our

policy we swear you in before your testimony, so if you would rise

and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Go ahead and proceed.

STATEMENT OF LINDA M. SPRINGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Ms. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I

am pleased to be here today to discuss the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act. The bill would expand the list of offenses in current law

that trigger a loss of Federal retirement rights. It would add to the

14

current list of violations a wide range of offenses, from accepting

a bribe to making false statements on a Federal benefit application.

The expanded list would apply to violations committed while in office, if punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, by a

Member of Congress, a congressional employee, or a Presidential

appointee. As drafted, it would apply to a number of clerical and

administrative employees at very modest salary levels as well as to

individuals occupying positions at the highest levels of Government. The administration is supportive of the concepts outlined in

this draft bill and looks forward to working with Congress on the

details of the legislation.

With one exception, under both current law and the bill’s expanded list of offenses, survivor annuities for the widow or widower

and children of an offender are barred. Payment of spousal benefits

is permitted only in forfeiture cases when the Attorney General determines that the spouse cooperated with Federal authorities in the

conduct of a criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution of

the individual which resulted in such forfeiture. This exception

would be applicable to the offenses that would be added under this

act.

The Office of Personnel Management wholeheartedly endorses

merit principles, with a strong emphasis on honesty and integrity

in Government service. We would like to take this opportunity to

briefly discuss the history of the forfeiture provisions.

The Hiss Act, approved in 1954, contained a list of job-related

Federal felonies, the conviction of which would bar retirement benefits that would be payable to Federal employees and their families. Most of the convictions under which annuities were denied

were for violations of postal law and other felony convictions that

did not involve national security.

Controversy over the Hiss Act arose in cases where the courts

had imposed minimal penalties, such as suspended sentences,

small fines, or probation, yet the offenders and their families suffered the additional penalty of losing all annuity benefits, sometimes based on decades of service. In some cases, individuals were

re-employed by the Federal Government subsequent to their convictions and were denied annuity benefits based on that employment

as well. Due to these effects and other concerns, Congress made

major changes in the Hiss Act in 1961. The amendments strengthened the provisions dealing with national security offenses and

eliminated provisions applicable to non-security offenses. The

amendments also provided for retroactive annuity benefits for individuals who had lost them based on the commission of offenses unrelated to national security.

Now, the bill being considered today, while expanding the types

of violations that would result in forfeiture of annuity, would apply

only if the offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1

year. And that is punishable, whether the sentence was for that

amount or not. Even if the actual sentence imposed was suspended

or there was probation, the annuity would be forfeited.

Under certain circumstances, all of the offenses listed in the bill

may be punished by imprisonment for more than 1 year.

In 1972, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia forbade application of the forfeiture law to the very individual, Mr.

15

Hiss, whose malfeasance led to its passage. This bill would apply

to acts committed after enactment. And by so providing, the effective date provision avoids that problem.

Under the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act, the functions of the

Office of Personnel Management would be limited. As with any

other organization administering a covered pension system, OPM

would be responsible for ensuring that the act is applied in accordance with its provisions, and that is something we are able to do.

It would, in effect, be an expansion of what we do under existing

regulations applicable to offenses upon which annuity forfeiture

can be based, and under those circumstances, obviously, OPM affords the individual full due process, including the right to an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge.

So, to summarize, OPM is testifying in two dimensions here: one,

that, yes, we can administer the law should it be enacted; and, second, on behalf of the administration that we are supportive of the

proposed bill. So I hope that is helpful information, and I would be

glad to take your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Springer follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. I am going to start

the questioning with Mr. Waxman, who is going to have to leave

the hearing to go to a Democratic conference, which accounts for

some of the Members not being here. He will ask his questions

first, go there and vote, and then try to get back.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There is a

vote going on in the Democratic Caucus, and there will be a second

ballot, so I am going to have to leave in a minute.

Ms. Springer, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we have

witnessed in the past few years a series of serious incidents involving conflicts of interest, lobbying abuses, and public corruption.

Some of these episodes involved Congress itself, Members of Congress, and it is clear that we must clean our own house on Capitol

Hill.

Yet equally serious and disturbing, we have seen a number of incidents at the executive branch of Government: the indictment of

the Vice President’s chief of staff, his actions relating to outing a

CIA agent, fraud and other abuses in Iraq reconstruction contracts,

a top senior HHS official negotiating future employment while

working on major health care changes, politically connected individuals appointed to senior positions with little or no relevant experience. It was disappointing to me that the President barely mentioned these issues in his address last night.

The first step, it seems to me, is to recognize the problem that

exists. So my first question for you is: Does the administration believe that there are problems concerning the ethical conduct of the

executive branch? And what is the administration proposing to do

to clean up the executive branch?

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, I think that the first step, as it relates to

OPM and within our purview, is to work with you on things like

this bill. For our part in the administration, which is the oversight

of the Federal civilian workforce, we are very concerned that high

ethical standards and standards of integrity are met. Certainly as

a political appointee, I have to hold to those standards, but those

are things that should apply to everyone.

This particular act is one that, as I said, we have a responsibility

for administering as well as supporting, and the administration

does support it. I would view this as just one piece. As you have

noted, there is a need for a more comprehensive approach, and I

think that we would be willing to work with you and the chairman

and the committee on that.

Mr. WAXMAN. I also think there ought to be a comprehensive approach. This issue alone, taking away pensions, is, I do not believe,

going to solve the problem. I don’t think you believe that either. We

have to do more. Isn’t that right?

Ms. SPRINGER. You know, one could question the deterrent value,

if you will, and I think that is part of what you may be suggesting.

But, clearly, it is an important penalty. Beyond just the pension,

there are other things that would flow from this, for example,

elimination of health benefits; the FEHB benefits would be forfeited as well, as a derivative of this. So it is pretty far-reaching

as a penalty. Whether it has deterrent value would be a question.

21

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, one major means of shedding light on the access of special interests is to require meaningful disclosure of lobbying contacts. Current law requires self-reporting by the lobbyists,

and there is no requirement that specific contacts or the subject

matter of the meetings be disclosed. As a result, there has been little accountability in executive branch lobbying.

For example, the White House has refused to disclose information about Mr. Abramoff’s contacts with the White House or the

subjects on which he lobbied the White House officials. We even

had the Vice President of the United States chair a task force on

energy, and he went to court, even to the U.S. Supreme Court, so

he would not have to disclose who came in and lobbied him.

Does the administration support strengthening lobbying disclosure laws such that a reporting must include a description of the

subject matter and the Government official contacted or such that

the executive branch officials have a duty to disclose as well as the

lobbyists?

Ms. SPRINGER. I have not been a part of any administration deliberations on that topic, so I am not in a position to comment on

that.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the administration have a proposal for

strengthening lobbying disclosure laws?

Ms. SPRINGER. That does not fall within the purview of my OPM

responsibility, so I would not be able to answer that for you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Another area where reform is necessary involves

the revolving door between the executive branch and lobbyists and

special interests, and a striking example of an existing loophole in

these revolving door rules is Tom Scully. He is the former head of

the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services who negotiated a

job with firms representing pharmaceutical interests at the same

time he was leading the administration’s efforts to develop the

Medicare Prescription Drug Act.

Does the administration believe that it is necessary to take steps

to tighten the revolving door?

Ms. SPRINGER. I don’t know about the Scully case, you know, the

details, and I couldn’t comment there. But I do know that in my

own case, because I was just a year ago planning to leave another

position I held in the administration, that I was held to some pretty high level of scrutiny and standard of any kind of contact. And

the way I interpreted it, I decided not to do any kind of contact

with potential future employers until I left entirely and severed.

So I think that, by and large, most individuals are able to function with integrity under the current standards. You know, there

may be some outliers here and there, but I think, by and large, it

works.

Mr. WAXMAN. One of the main means of deterring and rooting

out Government abuse is to ensure appropriate public access to

public information. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has

systematically undermined our laws that promote sunshine in Government, so we are facing a situation where there are deep-rooted

ethical problems with little accountability. I believe it is time to

take comprehensive action. I hope we can move forward expeditiously with a package that includes strengthening lobbying disclosure, closing these revolving doors, restoring open Government, adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:39 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26073.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
22

dressing the widespread waste, fraud, and abuse. We have witnesses in Federal contracting in recent years, ensuring political appointees for positions of public safety have qualifications other than

simply being politically well connected, and preventing political interference in science-based policymaking, protecting whistleblowers

who shine light on Government abuses, and preventing the use of

taxpayer dollars for political propaganda.

These are the positions that I have taken, and I have introduced

legislation on each one of those, and I would urge the administration to support such a comprehensive reform so that we can address public corruption at its very roots.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Waxman, thank you very much. I look

forward to working with you on a number of these issues.

Let me ask you, Ms. Springer, if an individual’s retirement benefits are forfeited, what happens to the health benefits and life insurance coverage?

Ms. SPRINGER. They are generally, by and large, also forfeited.

There are a few small exceptions. There are opportunities for the

Government equivalent of COBRA to kick in. But, in effect, they

are forfeited, by and large.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. This is not a cure-all, obviously, for public

corruption, but you would hope that somebody in a decisionmaking

mode, when they are looking at perhaps breaking the law, understands the downside just from going to jail, that they jeopardize

their family and everything else. That is really the purpose of

doing this.

We have tried to tailor—there are a number of pieces of legislation that are looking at different aspects of what crimes would

apply and at what level of Civil Service this applies to. It obviously

applies to Members of Congress and staffs, some who are here

apply to Schedule Cs in the case of my bill, some of them go all

the way down and across the bureaucracy. Does OPM have any

thoughts on where it ought to apply at this point, or you are just

more concerned about the implementation?

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, our focus certainly is on implementation,

but as we have reviewed this bill, we think it certainly goes to a

level that includes public officials that I think the American citizens have a direct line to elected officials and to political appointees. So we think that there is a special standard, a high

standard to which this group that you have included in your bill

need to adhere, and that there is a special relationship with the

American public that we need to be the tone setters, if you will. So

I think that your group is very appropriate.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You know, the crimes right now, there are

already some crimes that cover Federal workers, mostly in the espionage-sabotage-treason route, as you noted before. This takes it

a step further.

Under existing law, which I think now is tailored to treason and

those issues—sabotage—how many cases of pension forfeiture have

there been?

Ms. SPRINGER. There have been four cases in the past 35 or so

years since the last major change to that Hiss Act, and that is

what we are operating under currently.

23

In one of those cases, the spouse was found to have cooperated

to the satisfaction of the Justice authorities, and the pension was

restored to the spouse at its reduced level under the normal formula. But in the other three cases, it was a complete forfeiture.

Certain people availed themselves of the appeal right, but they did

not prevail. So four cases.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Under the legislation as we have it, if the

spouse were to cooperate with the government, the pension then

could be saved, I would gather.

Ms. SPRINGER. It could be, yes. There would be a determination

made by the Attorney General, the Justice Department, that would

determine that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If nothing else, it is a great prosecutorial

tool when you are sitting there trying to break a corruption ring,

you have somebody who has obviously been caught with their hand

in the cookie jar, but their pension is at stake.

Ms. SPRINGER. I think that is true.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Their family is at stake. They want to cut

their losses, or a spouse wants to—look, what is going to happen

if my husband goes away to jail, and this way we—I mean, it just

seems to me from a prosecutorial point of view, this is a great way

to break the logjam sometimes.

Ms. SPRINGER. I think that is very true. I also think that to have

the fullest effect will require OPM and other officials and organizations to make this known to the covered population, as opposed to

finding out after the fact. But I think making this known will just

add to its strength.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. Thank you very much.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I think this is a pretty straightforward

issue, but I look at it on two sides of the equation. One is I don’t

think someone deserves a pension if they have committed fraud

and have been found guilty. The other side of the equation would

be does this represent in any way a deterrent to fraud, and I am

not sure it does. I am just curious to know if there have been any

studies that you have done, your agency has done that would enlighten us on this issue?

Ms. SPRINGER. I am sorry. Enlighten as to?

Mr. SHAYS. Whether taking away someone’s pension is a

deterrent——

Ms. SPRINGER. Oh, a deterrent, yes. I am sorry. I have not seen

any studies to that effect in the course of our review here. Again,

I think to the extent that the bill is known and its penalties are

known—there are very few people, for example, today who are as

familiar with the Hiss Act because it was a very narrow scope. But

in this case, making this known I think could have some effect, but

if you think about it, these are acts that are already subject to

some pretty severe criminal penalties. So this would just be one

added factor.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. One other thing is from a prosecutorial

point of view, having that tool with the prosecutor to hang that

over. To get somebody either to talk or to compromise or get their

24

spouse I think could be helpful sometimes in breaking—when you

have a conspiracy or something like that.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Let me just ask, in terms of when employees come into the Federal Government, are they given—I mean, obviously they know

fraud is wrong, but is there a specific course or orientation that

deals with fraud and would in this case let them know—I mean,

I would think conceptually it would wake them up to say, you

know, if you have committed fraud and you are found guilty, you

would lose your pension and you could have many years. I would

think that would also have an impact. But do we have courses on

ethics that are required or are they voluntary?

Ms. SPRINGER. There are several ways that information is given.

I am trying to think of my own experience. I don’t think that I personally had a course, but I was directed to certain Web site material that is maintained that covers that material, which is obviously read and there are obviously certain statements and representations that you make generally when you come into the political appointee positions.

But I think you are absolutely right that making this known—

and that would be something that OPM, for example, for the Federal civilian work force, the Presidential appointees, would be

happy to explore.

Mr. SHAYS. I would just observe, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me

that those employees, Members of Congress, whoever, who are

playing on the edge and have been employed for a long time would

probably have to think twice—it might make them think if they

had been close to the edge that they might need to pull back a bit

because of the risk of actually losing the one thing that they would

probably count on to provide for——

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, I would say that if their spouse knew about

it, that might add some pressure, too.

Mr. SHAYS. Good point.

I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have first a couple of technical questions. In the Hiss v. Hampton case, are you saying that, for example, in the case of Duke

Cunningham, we cannot do something retroactively on his pension?

Ms. SPRINGER. I believe that is correct, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. So the longer we wait, we may have a number of

cases that could conceivably—that is interesting. I understand the

legal concept, but it shows what is in front of us in our failure to

act earlier and the need for fast action.

Second, because I am just seeing the legislation and trying to absorb this, too, if an offense is only punishable by—it has to be imprisonment for a year or more. How do plea bargains affect this?

In other words, does it have to be a conviction where the penalty

is, if it is a plea bargain and the plea bargain isn’t for a year or

more?

Ms. SPRINGER. That wouldn’t change it. If you are convicted for

a crime that carries with it a penalty that could be imposed—could

be, doesn’t have to be. So even if it is less than a year, for some

25

reason, or even if it was suspended or something like that, if that

conviction of that particular crime carried with it potentially the

opportunity to impose a sentence of more than a year, then it

would apply. The pension would be forfeited.

Mr. SOUDER. So the negotiated plea bargain would have to carry

the offense of a year or more, not the original crime——

Ms. SPRINGER. No, the crime itself for which you were convicted.

Mr. SOUDER. Another question I have, I was concerned about

your statement where you separated that you believe clerical or administrative employees at a very modest salary should not be covered. Is that the administration’s——

Ms. SPRINGER. No. Actually, what I said was that this would

apply. If they are in any of the groups that are——

Mr. SOUDER. No, what I mean is the implication is you don’t

think they should be covered. Is that the——

Ms. SPRINGER. No, no. No, I am just saying that—to just show

that it is not just at the high levels, that it would include all levels

of the pay range.

Mr. SOUDER. Does the administration support this being broader

than the bill is or——

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, we have financed a study to review the proposed act as it has been presented here, and we support it as it

has been presented with this group.

Mr. SOUDER. In the private sector—the spousal and family questions are interesting here. In the private sector, if someone—do you

know of models in the private sector of how pension law works if

somebody forfeits or does something, how it works with their family? Do they forfeit all their pension? Half their pension? What

about if they leave the company?

Ms. SPRINGER. I don’t know the answer to that, and there may

be some precedent out there that we could study and find out for

you. I don’t know right off the top of my head the answer.

Mr. SOUDER. In the current law as it relates to bribes, false

statements, and espionage, do you know if that covers narcotics?

Ms. SPRINGER. No, it does not.

Mr. SOUDER. So, for example, in Colombia, where we had the

spouse of an embassy employee, we had certain people in our Government who were actually working with the cocaine traffickers,

they wouldn’t lose their pensions if convicted?

Ms. SPRINGER. I do not believe that the current law would cover

that.

OK. It is possible that if it involved something that is on that

list, it may, but——

Mr. SOUDER. But you are not sure whether narcotics—it would

depend whether narcotics——

Ms. SPRINGER. Not narcotics in and of themselves, but if it is in

connection with one of the security type of offenses that are listed

under the current act, then it could be swept in just, you know, on

that basis.

Mr. SOUDER. In the US-VISIT program, where we had clear deals

being made to accelerate people getting in outside—many from

Saudi Arabia, which is one of the more flagrant violations, if they

were on a terrorist watchlist, would that classify as a security risk,

or do they have to actually have committed a terrorist act? And

26

what about illegal immigration where it is not—where the link is

difficult here? Because the penalty, I mean, if it has to be convicted

of a crime where the penalty is more than 1 year, you could be basically letting people in on a watchlist who we have not been able

to convict under US-VISIT, be convicted of that, but that may not

be national security, so it would not impact your pension.

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, this particular bill that we are studying

here does—you know, it obviously adds on to the Hiss bill. It

doesn’t, you know, take away anything in the Hiss bill. This bill

talks about the actual conviction, as you say, carrying with it the

penalty, potential penalty of a year or more. And that is the way

this has been written, and beyond that scope, it might be something else that you would need to consider separately.

Mr. SOUDER. Where I disagree with the implications of my friend

and colleague from California, he implied that suddenly corruption

came under this administration, which is laughable. We did not

even raise the question here of Presidential pardons. But even so,

we had multiple people in the last administration who clearly were

lining up jobs while they were Government employees for Monica

Lewinsky to silence a sex scandal, that the last administration had

many of these problems, too. The question of corruption is broad,

crosses parties, and needs to be addressed.

One of the other problems we had in the last administration was

Citizenship USA where there were many people brought in before

the campaign, we had multiple hearings in the subcommittee that

was then chaired by now-Speaker Dennis Hastert, where I was vice

chairman, where they would take in 7,000 forms at a time and you

saw the same writing on the citizenship forms, and they were

rushed through before the election. But under that criteria, right

now that would not be a national security violation because citizenship questions wouldn’t not be covered under current law unless we

passed legislation like this that would apply.

My understanding of what you said is that wouldn’t be covered

under current law, immigration fraud, or would it?

Ms. SPRINGER. No, it would not.

Mr. SOUDER. Let me ask one other thing, because this is important as we look whether this needs to be broadened beyond elected

officials. At our Southwest border, as we deal with difficult questions of narcotics, of coyotes who are running large groups of people, and people inside the Border Patrol, whether it be terrorist

watchlists, whether it be narcotics, whether it be large groups of

illegal immigrants, it is clear that occasionally they are penetrating

our system. They are penetrating it at border crossings where there

may be a cooperation when an agent comes on. There may be no

look. I do not believe it is high in our Government, but it is fairly

consistent. But under current law, these people could keep their

pensions even if convicted.

Ms. SPRINGER. That is correct.

Mr. SOUDER. This is a big problem. I am not sure how much of

a deterrent it will be. I think it will be some deterrent. I am willing

to look at some of the variations of this. But quite frankly, it is a

justice question, as Congressman Shays said. Whether you are

elected—it is especially egregious if you are an elected official, and

we should be the first accountable. But anybody who is a public ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:39 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26073.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
27

ficial who is put in trust of our borders, of our narcotics efforts, of

the very citizenship of the United States, that you have an obligation not to take private deals to cooperate with people who are

around that, and at the very least the taxpayers should not have

to pay you a pension for the rest of your life if you are convicted.

I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Any other comments?

Ms. SPRINGER. No, we just look forward to continuing to work

with the committee on this.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Souder for

your questions.

We will call our second panel now. We have Ms. Chellie Pingree,

who is the president and chief executive officer of Common Cause,

and Ms. Joan Claybrook, the president of Public Citizen. I want to

thank you both for being here. Thanks for your patience.

It is our policy that we swear witnesses before you testify, so if

you would rise with me and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Claybrook, we will start with you. We have a light in front—

your entire statements are part of the record. We have a light in

front that turns green when you go on, orange after 4, red after 5.

Try to stick as close to that as you can, but we want to make sure

you get to make your salient points, too. So, Ms. Claybrook, we will

start with you, and thank you for being with us.

STATEMENTS OF JOAN CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC CITIZEN; AND CHELLIE PINGREE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMON CAUSE

STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am

pleased to be here to testify this morning on behalf of Public Citizen and our 150,000 members nationwide.

The lobbying reform debate has largely focused on the lobbying

and ethics as it applies to Congress. It is my understanding that

the committee’s discussion today really grew out of the Randy

Cunningham case. We strongly welcome your initiative to deny

pension benefits to Members of Congress, congressional employees,

and executive branch political appointees guilty of crimes related

to public corruption.

But the debate on lobbying and ethics reform must go beyond

that legislative proposal and beyond Congress. It must also include

the ethical behavior of executive branch officials who become lobbyists and officers of companies they previously oversaw or regulated,

and it should also address strengthening and monitoring the enforcement of the Ethics Reform Act for the executive branch.

A few months ago, a report by 15 civic organizations, including

Public Citizen, prepared a report called the Revolving Door Working Group, and here it is, and I would like to submit it for the

record, if I could do so at your pleasure. I would like to submit this

for the record. It is quite a comprehensive report.

28

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, we will submit that for

the record.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. It is called ‘‘A Matter of Trust,’’ and I think it

could help the committee.

[The information referred to follows:]

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

Ms. CLAYBROOK. It shows at least two significant lobbying and

ethics problems in the executive branch. One is the pervasive problem of the revolving door, by which executive branch officials rotate

between public service and the private sector, typically working for

the same companies that they previously regulated, granted contracts to, or considered the effects of legislation on.

The second is the loose patchwork of enforcement responsibilities

spread among many executive branch agencies and vesting in one

agency—the Office of Government Ethics—as the primary police

watchdog of ethics in the executive branch, OGE has been created

more as an advisory partner to individual Government agencies in

implementing the ethics standards.

So first I would like to address the revolving door. In order to

establish a sense of trust that Government officials are not trading

Government contracts or regulations for lucrative private sector

jobs, Federal law requires a 1-year ‘‘cooling-off’’ period in which retiring public officials are not supposed to lobby their former colleagues in Government. Additional conflict-of-interest laws and regulations have extended similar cooling-off periods to retiring procurement officers to prevent them from immediately taking jobs

with companies that have received Government contracts that the

procurement officer had authority over.

Specifically, ‘‘very senior’’ executive branch officials, those in Executive Schedules I and II salary ranges, are prohibited from appearing as a paid lobbyist before any political employee in the executive branch for 1 year. And ‘‘senior’’ executive branch staff, those

in Executive Schedule V and up, are prohibited for 1 year from appearing as lobbyists before their former agency or representing or

advising a foreign government or foreign political party in lobbying

matters.

Unfortunately, the revolving door policy has two very significant

weaknesses. First, it prohibits former Government officials from

making direct lobbying contacts with their former colleagues. But

it permits them to engage in other lobbying activity. Former officials are not prohibited from developing lobbying strategy, organizing the lobbying team, supervising lobbying efforts during the cooling-off period. In fact, retiring former officials frequently become

registered lobbyists immediately on leaving the Government. They

simply cannot pick up the telephone. That is all.

Second, the scope of the cooling-off period that applies to Government contracting is so narrow that former procurement officers

may now immediately accept employment with the same companies

to whom they had issued contracts while in public service. Only

employment within a specific division of a company is prohibited if

that division was under the official’s contracting authority, but not

employment for the company itself. And this loophole, as we remember, allowed Darleen Druyun to land a well-paid position at

Boeing after overseeing the company’s bids on weapons programs

for many years in her capacity as a Pentagon procurement official.

The Center for Public Integrity surveyed how the revolving door

has turned for the top 100 officers in the executive branch at the

end of the Clinton administration and concluded that about a quarter of the senior-level administrators left public service for lobbying

104

careers. Another quarter of the administrators accepted positions

as directors of private businesses they had once regulated.

For these issues we recommend the following: Expand the scope

of the revolving door restrictions so that former officials are prohibited not only from conducting paid lobbying activity during the

cooling-off period but the development and supervising of lobbying

efforts.

Two, expand the time period for the cooling-off period to 2 years.

Three, extend the cooling-off period to senior executive branch

staff of Level V or higher policymakers involving contracts that

now apply primarily to procurement officers.

Four, close the loophole allowing former Government procurement employees to work for a different department or division of

a contractor from the division that they oversaw as a Government

employee, and the cooling-off period should apply governmentwide.

And, five, when public officials discuss future employment that

may pose a conflict of interest, the fact that the discussion is underway should be public information. If there is any potential conflict of interest, recusal from public officials affecting the potential

employer should be mandatory unless a waiver from the conflictof-interest rules is absolutely necessary. This relates, for example,

to the Thomas Scully scandal.

And then, second, with regard to the operation of the Office of

Government Ethics, it operates more as an advisory partner in the

executive branch rather than an enforcement watchdog. Responsibility for implementation of executive branch ethics laws and regulations is widely dispersed among executive agencies. And OGE

has not served as an effective central clearinghouse for making

public records on ethics matters readily available to Congress and

the public.

Although it is professionally staffed and independent from political operatives, OGE is far from an ideal agency. Its primary weakness is that it lacks enforcement authority. Its rules are not binding within the executive branch, but are subject to interpretation

by ethics officers in each separate executive branch agency. While

it has developed guidelines for granting waivers for employees from

conflict-of-interest laws governing future employment, these are

only guidelines. Each executive branch agency also promulgates its

own waiver procedures, which are then interpreted and enforced by

the specific ethics officer appointed within that office. As a result,

there is not one set of procedures for seeking and receiving waivers

from conflict-of-interest laws, and each set of waivers is interpreted

differently by different officers.

One of the granted waivers dealt with Thomas Scully, and my

testimony details that.

The resulting embarrassment prompted the White House in 2004

to step in and issue an Executive order requiring that all waivers

be reviewed by White House counsel. But this should be the responsibility of OGE, a more robust OGE, where decisions are more

immune to political considerations.

OGE has neglected to establish itself as an effective public information source as well. Though the agency compiles and scrutinizes

previous Government records for scores of executive branch employees and appointees, it makes little effort to make these records

105

available to the public. There is no OGE Web site that posts public

records of prior employment, financial statements, conflict-of-interest waivers, or even enforcement actions. And when it comes to

ethics records in the Federal Government, this type of information

is not centralized and is exceedingly hard to secure.

For the most part, OGE appears to be serving the interests of the

executive branch, not the public and the Ethics in Government Act.

Ironically, OGE has recently sought to weaken public disclosure of

personal financial records of political employees. At the prodding of

the White House and some congressional leaders, the OGE has

been considering capping the reporting of personal wealth of senior

executive branch officials at $2.5 million for disclosure, rather than

the $50 million cap that exists today, and allowing officials to omit

the dates of major stock transactions from financial reports, which

would make it difficult to tie Government actions to an employee’s

choices. Reducing disclosure is not the way to go.

Thus, we recommend three things, and I will conclude with this,

and I am sorry I took a little bit longer than your 5 minutes.

Given strong enforcement authority for OGE with the ability to

promulgate rules and regulations that are binding on all executive

branch agencies, conduct investigations, subpoena witnesses, and

issue civil penalties for violations.

Two, empowered as a central agency for implementing and monitoring its responsibilities.

Three, be required to serve as the central clearing house for all

public records relevant to ethics in the executive branch and place

this information on its Web site.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Claybrook follows:]

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Pingree, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF CHELLIE PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much.

Chairman Davis, members of the committee, and particularly

Representative Shays, who has worked very closely with Common

Cause in the past, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before

you and address some of the recent scandals that have been challenging Congress and the executive branch and give our suggestions about restoring the public’s trust in Government.

As you know, Common Cause has been active for 35 years on a

nonpartisan basis, commenting on the issues of ethics and the influence of money in politics, and we find this a very critical time.

As both Congressman Davis and Congressman Waxman mentioned

in their earlier remarks, this is an enormous opportunity as the

public reacts with great criticism toward the scandals that are evident every day and more and more Members of Congress are interested in finding ways to change the perspective and enforce real reform.

We believe that vigorous enforcement of existing laws is critical

to restoring trust, and legislation that makes clear that wrongdoing

will not go unpunished is an important part of the solution to this

problem. For this reason, Common Cause supports the Federal

Pension Forfeiture Act. We believe this legislation that would deny

Federal retirement benefits to Federal policy holders, including

Members of Congress and their staffs, and political appointees in

the executive branch who are convicted of crimes related to public

corruption, crimes such as accepting bribes or defrauding the Federal Government, embezzling Federal property or falsifying Federal

documents.

Losing a pension to us appears as if it will be a deterrent to officials who may be considering action that betray the public trust.

The retirement benefits that Members of Congress and high-level

Federal employees are entitled to receive after they retire often are

more than the average American earns annually from a full-time

job. The fact that public servants who have seriously violated their

duties to the public would be rewarded by a lifetime pension seems

grossly unfair to average citizens. It seems particularly unfair

when the majority of Americans can expect no pension when they

retire and when corporations like Enron implode and deny millions

of innocent workers their retirement savings.

Passage of the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act is a good step in

a multi-pronged effort to restore the public’s faith in Government.

While we do support this legislation, we believe that much more

is needed.

Common Cause is currently supporting an expansive reform

agenda, dealing with Congress and lobbying, including such as

issues as disclosure, gifts, travel ban, restrictions on lobbyists and

lobbyists’ fundraising, and tremendous increases in transparency,

accountability, and disclosure.

We also believe that House and Senate leaders of both parties

should agree to establish an independent ethics commission with

the power to accept complaints, investigate them, and make recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:39 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26073.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
114

ommendations to the respective House and Senate Ethics Committees. And restoring, again, that public trust can only happen if the

public has confidence that Congress is committed to cleaning up its

own house.

Within the jurisdiction of this committee, we would like to comment on a couple of other proposals before you, some of which my

colleague, Joan, has already discussed. But we do appreciate the

Chair’s taking this opportunity to expand the jurisdiction of the

committee and looking at as many ways as possible to restore the

public faith.

We agree the problem with the revolving door and the conflicts

of interest when Government officials with serious responsibilities

are looking to advance their careers in the public sector again has

gotten out of control and is an important means of restoring faith

in the public.

We were all familiar, as mentioned earlier, with former Medicare

Administrator Thomas Scully’s effort to conceal the true cost of the

President’s Medicare prescription drug plan from Congress while

negotiating for a job with private sector interests that would be favorably affected by this passage.

Administrator Scully got a waiver from his agency to conduct

these employment discussions, and since then, to its credit, as you

heard, the administration has clamped down on the practice of

granting waivers. However, the time may be ripe for even stricter

rules, perhaps written into the law, that simply do not allow for

waivers, period. Government and legislative employees should not

be negotiating with prospective employers while they have a role

in legislation or regulation that affects those same employers.

Political cronyism is another concern of ours, and the appointment of political cronies is a problem that has infected both Democratic and Republican administrations. But the issue has come into

much sharper focus recently.

When the head of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, turned out to have little prior experience in disaster preparedness, our ability to respond to Hurricane Katrina clearly was

impaired. Unfortunately, Michael Brown’s apparent political appointment is not the exception. Cronyism rears its head in other,

less visible appointments to boards and commissions that affect our

lives. Most recently, two appointees to the Corporation for Public

Broadcasting, whose duty is to protect public television and public

ratio from political interference, were major donors and partisans

with no experience in public broadcasting. These appointees have

helped jeopardize the editorial independence of public broadcasting

at a time when the public needs fact-based investigative journalism

more than ever before.

Both Democratic and Republican administrations have been

guilty of placing political supporters and major donors in Government jobs or on Government commissions.

We support the proposals contained in the Anti-Cronyism and

Public Safety Act that require a political appointee responsible for

public safety to have superior credentials and experience that is

relevant to the position for which he or she is being considered. We

also believe that the candidate should be free of potential conflicts

of interest that might arise from regulating a former employer.

115

Let me mention a couple of others.

All of our proposals, both in front of the issues that regard Congress and in the executive branch, suggest that greater disclosure

is critical but currently insufficient. As we know, every day an

army of lobbyists descends on Congress and various agencies of the

Federal Government. Lobbying the Government has become a billion-dollar industry, but the public knows relatively little about

what lobbyists are working on and almost nothing about who they

are talking to.

As Congress considers new lobbying rules in the wake of the

Abramoff scandal, there are a number of common-sense reforms

that would greatly improve the system and should apply to the executive branch as well.

Another place that disclosure rules need to be tightened is privately funded travel for Federal officials. Federal ethics laws require travel disclosure reports of every executive agency. However,

the Vice President’s office insists that they do not have to inform

the American people about the trips that are taken through them,

the speeches that are made, or the special interests that the Vice

President meets with.

The Vice President contends that his office is not an executive

agency and the disclosure rules don’t apply because he does not

make any trips that are privately funded. But according to the

Center for Public Integrity, the Vice President has made more than

275 speeches and appearances, including 23 speeches to think

tanks and trade groups and 16 colleges. While the Vice President

calls this travel ‘‘official business’’ and puts it on the public tab and

not giving the public any information of whether these trips truly

serve the public interest or were a good use of Government funds.

Avoiding privately financed travel is a good practice in principle,

but not if it is used as a strategy to keep the public in the dark

about the office’s comings and goings.

We also want too talk a little bit about Government contract policies and procedures that have not been up to the task. And since

my time is limited, I will just say that is yet another area of concern particularly raised in the wake of Katrina, relying on no-bid,

sole-source contracts, and feel that there is much more concern

about disclosure and accountability in that area.

We want to thank again the committee for this opportunity to

discuss increasing ethical conduct, the opportunities for transparency and accountability in the Federal Government, and we,

too, look forward to working with you as you craft these legislative

proposals and think about these issues seriously.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pingree follows:]

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much for your thoughtful

testimony.

Mr. Kirk, I am going to start questions with you.

Mr. Kirk has a bill up that does much of the same thing. Really

the differences on the legislation, which is narrowly crafted today,

basically it is who it applies to and what the crimes are. Of course,

reasonable people can disagree, and we are trying to figure it out.

Mark, go ahead.

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for agreeing

to have a member of another committee here for a statement. Last

year, I introduced a bill, H.R. 4535, the Congressional Integrity

and Pension Forfeiture Act, which was cosponsored by 37 Members. It was based almost exclusively on Congressman Randy

Tate’s bill in the 104th Congress, H.R. 4011. That bill had 74 cosponsors. It was taken up and passed by the House of Representatives on September 22, 1996, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote

of 391–32, with 1 present.

I will note that the now-Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert,

voted for that legislation. The now-Minority Leader of the House

Nancy Pelosi also voted for that legislation. For members of this

committee, the vote broke out 16–3.

That bill was patterned after legislation introduced by my predecessor, John Porter, during the 101st Congress in 1990. It was he

who in the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation to deny a

member of the General Assembly convicted of a felony of their Illinois State pension, which is now the law of our State.

I think it is incumbent upon the Congress now to take this action

because the Congress, by its very nature, is largely run by senior

Members. Junior Members do not have the right to a pension. Senior Members have very large pensions. The beauty of this provision

is that the penalties go up with seniority, and since they are the

ones who run both majority and minority parties, the penalties fall

most heavily on them.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mark, the Members do not say that in

their campaign literature.

Mr. KIRK. That is right. [Laughter.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The Members do not say they do not run

the place. It is a rare admission.

Mr. KIRK. I would also just recommend, on crimes that are covered, I am comfortable making the level of penalties on crimes

higher on Members of Congress than anyone else because I think

as lawmakers it is incumbent on us to set a higher standard and

to be judged against a higher standard. And so while there are

other proposals before this committee to deny pensions to all Federal employees that are convicted of a felony or to restrict the number of crimes that would affect a congressional pension, I would

recommend that this committee follow the direction the Congress

took in 1996 and have a very broad range of public crimes apply

only to Members of Congress, denying their pension, because I

think it is up to us to set a higher standard.

Now, unfortunately, despite overwhelming bipartisan support in

1996, this legislation was killed by the Senate leaders of both sides

in 1996. But the Senate leaders of 1996 are all gone now. We have

entirely different leaders, both Republican and Democratic sides.

124

And so my hope is this Congress can send back this common-sense

legislation, which already overwhelmingly passed the House, set a

higher standard for Members of Congress on a broad range of public crimes.

I am very comfortable with that. I don’t think we need to drag

other Federal employees in it, but I think for this body, a higher

standard is something that we should be very comfortable with.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for that, and I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing. Thank you to both our witnesses for being here, and

thank you for your testimony.

I want to just commend the chairman on introducing this piece

of legislation and holding this hearing. But as he himself, I believe,

said earlier—and I think we all acknowledge—the scope of the

problem goes beyond this piece of legislation. I support this bill, but

I think that if we are going to attack this issue of special influence

in Washington and the influence of lobbying over legislation and

the product that passes the Congress, we need to go way beyond

that. You have addressed that, both of you, in your testimony as

well.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I hope this will be the first of a number

of hearings where we begin to take some serious oversight over this

general issue. Let me just mention, for example, many of my constituents who work for the Federal Government have felt that political pressure arising from special interests lobbying the administration has interfered with their ability to pass public policy in the

public interest. And you can think of many examples where pressure has been put on scientists in the administration to change

their judgments or to try and pressure them not to speak out.

We just heard over the weekend—it was widely reported—James

Hansen at NASA said that he was pressured not to speak his mind

on issues of global warming because it was not consistent with the

Bush administration’s policy.

I participated in a forum over the weekend with Susan Wood,

who used to be head of one of the public health divisions, women’s

public health over at FDA, who resigned in protest after an expert

panel was overruled at the political level with respect to emergency

contraceptives and Plan B.

There are numerous examples, especially in the last 5 years, of

people’s independent judgment being overruled as a result of political pressures brought by special interests, and I think it is very important that we look into those issues as a committee.

With respect to lobbying reforms, I think many of the proposals

you have made here are right on target, and I think we should

have a gift ban, and I think we need to be very aggressive about

this. The end result cannot just be window dressing. It cannot be

an attempt here to create the perception among the American people that Congress has done something if, in fact, it has not done

something, because that will just breed more cynicism, and people

will lose even more confidence in the Congress and the administration and how we make public policy.

125

If you could address what I really think is the nub of a lot of this

issue, which is the whole question of the campaign finance system,

and we don’t need at this point to get into different campaign finance reform proposals, which I support many of them and I know

that your organizations have been advocates, and I am a cosponsor

of those. But just the nexus right now between lobbying and lobbyists for special interests and their role in the fundraising process,

and whether or not you have any specific proposals aimed to address that issue.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. We do, and thank you for asking that question.

We do believe that for both the Democratic and Republican—sorry.

Thank you for asking that question, Mr. Van Hollen. We do believe

that is a missing link in both the Democratic and Republican proposals that are now pending in the Congress, and that link, as we

see it, is the link between money, lobbyists, and politics. And we

have advocated—and I would like to submit for the record—while

I realize it is not totally under the jurisdiction of this committee—

the six benchmarks for lobbying reform that Common Cause, Public Citizen, and other groups have supported, and one of the key

elements of that is not to have lobbyists be able to bundle money

from Members of Congress, that is, to go collect it from a lot of

other places and hand over a number of checks from various people; not to be treasurers or campaign officials for a Member of Congress; not to hold fundraising events or events that honor Members

of Congress; not to hold events, for example, at the political conventions that are recognizing Members of Congress.

So we believe that this nexus of the deep involvement, if you

would, of lobbyists in the fundraising process for Members of Congress should be prohibited, and that is one step.

We do support—and I know Chellie does as well because she has

been a leader on this in the State of Maine, where she was a public

official. We do believe that public funding of elections in the end

is really the solution, and we support, of course, reform of the Presidential funding system. And I think that those kinds of proposals

really deserve consideration now, now that we have had so many

scandals and so many difficulties with this nexus between money,

lobbyists, and politicians.

Ms. PINGREE. If I might just make a quick comment, and that

is a very comprehensive look at exactly what both of our organizations are supporting.

Two interesting facts. If you look at the most recent Washington

Post survey, 57 percent of the public believes that all lobbying

fundraising should be banned, so this is a very salient issue. People

see the connection between lobbyists and Members of Congress as

something they have deep concerns about. As Joan said, we are

also enormous supporters of the idea of thinking now about congressional public financing and more and more conversations are

revolving around this. I know Representative Shays just had to

leave the room, but the Connecticut Legislature just passed public

financing with bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats. Maryland has a bill pending. So it is an issue that is being

looked at in many States around the country. The California Legislature passed public financing in the House 2 days ago.

126

So in the wake of all these scandals, while there are very discrete

proposals that we have to deal with in this connection between lobbying and fundraising is important, this conversation will go on for

a while and people will continue to look at their Members and say,

‘‘So what are you doing in the long run to make sure that we break

these ties and that we really change the system of money and its

influence in the political process?’’

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, thank you for those comments, and I

agree with you. And I hope as Congress reviews different proposals

you will continue to hold its feet to the fire and be the judge of

whether or not what comes out of Congress is window dressing or

whether it is something that will make a real difference.

I agree with you with respect to public financing. I am a cosponsor of a piece of legislation that has been introduced here. It did

not get a lot of traction until recently. Now people are, fortunately,

taking another look. But you know as well as I do that it will take

an awful big push from the grass-roots level to pass campaign reform legislation through this body.

When I was in the State legislature, we pushed for it in Maryland, and we still have a ways to go there. Other States, as you

said, have since moved forward, which I think is a good thing. But

I think that is ultimately the solution for ensuring that Members,

elected Members, essentially owe their loyalty to the public and

there is not a question raised in the public mind about whether or

not there are other influences at work beyond just the commitment

of public officials to the public interest. So let’s work on all these

fronts, and thank you for your work.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Mr. Van Hollen, I would just like to say that it

would be the best investment the taxpayer ever made. It is a cost

of one B1 bomber to have public funding of elections for Members

of Congress.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And, Mr. Chairman, just if I could, the key

issue here—because when you poll people and you ask them of

their priorities where does campaign finance reform rank, for example, it usually comes down pretty low. But above that you will

find issues like health care reform and energy policy. The important thing is that the public understand that getting the foundation

of our system right has a direct impact on the policies that we

work on with respect to health care and energy.

It is my view, for example, that the prescription drug bill that

was passed—I think people are finding out, seniors now when they

look at all the complications, that it wasn’t written with them in

mind. And certainly the prohibition on the Federal Government,

you know, being able to negotiate prices on behalf of the taxpayer,

that prohibition was certainly not in the public interest. And I

think you see similar issues arising with the energy bill.

So the public needs to understand the direct connection between

getting our campaign finance system right, getting our foundation

in order, and the impact that has on all these other big policies.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Let me just note that I come from Virginia, which is ‘‘anything

goes’’ in terms of campaign contributions, but transparency—and

we have really no history of corruption or anything else within the

127

State, but we do have complete transparency and you cannot raise

money during legislative sessions and the like. So we could have

a good discussion on this, and I don’t think this is the time to do

that. I will note on some of the lobbying reforms that you have advocated forever, that some Members—like Mr. Kirk had put his bill

forward last year before this became a hot item. We have a short

window of opportunity to act. And Mr. Waxman and I have sat

down, and we would like to take advantage of this. We are not

going to agree on everything, but we can work a lot of things out

and move the ball down the field.

We welcome your comments as we do this, your criticisms and

everything else. We think it adds to it. But the public right now

is beginning to get focused on these issues, and that gives us a rare

opportunity, where generally this may rank 14th or 15th, to move

it to the top.

So let’s try to take advantage of it. We need to have an honest

discussion. We are not going to agree on everything. I am certainly

not going to agree on public financing. But let’s have the—we

ought to be able to talk about it and maybe close some things that

ought to be closed and try to do some common-sense things.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I would certainly commend to you to look at

some recommendations by a number of the same groups that are

working on lobbying reform on the Presidential public funding system. That is a system that already exists. It is quite broken, and

it really needs to be amended. And we would seek your help on

that, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. The big loophole we are getting to now is the court decisions that allow wealthy individuals to

spend unlimited amounts. And if you did not have that, I think we

could—some of these other items might make some sense. But you

are getting into a point where people can spend vast amounts and

there is no other way. But that is a discussion that we can have

and try to deal with.

On the legislation before us, I don’t represent this as a cure-all

at all. We saw this as something within our committee’s jurisdiction that we can move quickly. It may or may not be attached to

something else, but let’s get a piece down, but Mr. Waxman and

I have agreed that this is by a long ways not the end of what this

committee will do and we hope not what the Congress will do. And

he has listed some of the things in his opening statement about

some of the areas that he wants to look at, and we have agreed

to look at them. And I think in some cases, we will come to closure.

Immediately, the legislation before us in the bill that I put forward, we don’t include every Federal employee. We include people

who are in policymaking positions for the most part, Schedule Cs.

Now, some of these people don’t have big pensions because they are

not career, but some of them have gone in and out of Government

over time, and the cumulative effect is fairly significant as well,

and, of course, Congress, who is an elected body on that.

As you heard Mr. Kirk, some would like to expand this across

Government to everybody working for the Federal Government. We

have had some discussions on whether you do that. Career civil

servants, do you put their families out of their pension? Any

thoughts on that?

128

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, I would like to look at his bill more carefully.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I am an attorney, so I want to do that, and I

would like to submit our comments. But, generally, my inclination

would be to support a broader piece of legislation like Mr. Kirk’s.

I worked in the Federal Government for 16 years. I started as a

GS–5, so I know the capacity of individuals in the Federal Government to misbehave and I have seen it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Sure.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. So I think that—I do believe it would be a deterrent if people thought they could lose their pension. Many people go to work for the Government and stay there because it does

have a good pension system, and particularly in these days where

pension systems now are hard to come by, it is probably even more

important.

So I would not be opposed to looking more broadly at what these

penalties should be and who they should cover. I certainly think

they should cover the SES positions. I am not sure whether the bill

does that or not.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That is a good point.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. But I definitely think all political appointees

and the SES positions. But I think probably more broadly.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. All right. If you would like to submit anything else, we may move on this quickly, but we would be happy

to have it.

Ms. Pingree.

Ms. PINGREE. I would concur with Joan and just reinforce again

the public perception from the outside of people who work for the

Federal Government, who are Members of Congress, who basically,

you know, work for all of us, having opportunities to keep their

pension even if they do significant wrongdoing. So I do think it

would be a deterrent effect. I thought your comment that it would

be a prosecutorial tool was important, particularly at a time when

there is a great need for access to information. And we see in the

Abramoff issue where being able to have that information is extremely important to cleaning up what goes on behind the scenes

that we often do not know about. So I thought that was an important point.

And I don’t know exactly what the legal issues are, but, again,

I think perhaps it was Representative Shays who mentioned that

as people come into these jobs, they need to be fully informed about

the fact that there will be significant penalties if they do wrongdoing and attach those to every decision that they are making

when they make those decisions. So I think we would support that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. Thank you.

I just had one other question. Ms. Claybrook, I am just confused

about one thing. You suggested that OGE has sought to weaken

public disclosure at the prodding of the White House. Was that

fair?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, no, it was the White House that took the

initiative.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Right. The White House is prodding OGE

to weaken these things.

129

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But have they been successful in that?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I don’t know. I have not had the capacity to—

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK, because our hope is that OGE has

been immune from political considerations. I mean, that is why it

was created originally, and that is why I think we want to give

them more authority in some of these areas.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That is correct. We very strongly believe that

OGE should have independent authority and that it should be as

immune as possible from political considerations. Obviously, if you

get a directive from the chief of staff at the White House, you are

going to pay attention to it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Of course you are, and there are political

considerations in everything.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That is right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You do not have to be elected to have

them. I would just add one other thing. There are going to be times

when career people come up with a different conclusion than the

elected administration.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That is right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And we have seen some of those issues,

too. My feeling on that, though, is the administration should not

be afraid to come forward and explain their position if it is at variance.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But there is nothing wrong with that,

whether it is voting rights or whether it is on drugs. If it is a policy

position, that is fine. But they should not be timid about sharing

their information with Congress and coming forward and explaining it.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That is correct. That happened to me as actually the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and John Dingell and I had quite a set-to over this

because one of my employees did not like airbags, and we had a

public debate about it. And I supported airbags, and I think in the

end having that public debate was just perfect.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It is never pretty, but it is democracy.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That is right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Again, the elected policymakers can overturn career people, but they should not be afraid of being able to

come forward and explain it. And that is what—well, thank you

very much.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I regret that

I was not here when these very important witnesses testified. I

have had a chance to glance quickly at their testimony. I certainly

wanted to be here when the OPM Director testified.

A Member—and I don’t recall his name—on the other side was

saying as I entered that he thought that Members of Congress

should be held to a higher standard. I must say that I have to

agree. We, of course, passed legislation that said that at the very

least Members ought to be held to the same standard as others.

But, you know, isn’t it amazing that it took us a long time to get

130

to the point of saying that the laws that apply to everybody else,

hey, guess what? They also apply to Members of Congress.

Now that we have said that and now that we have this pervasive

scandal, let’s look to see who a Member of Congress is. And when

it comes to matters of ethics and the fact that there are so few of

us that these positions are so sought after, are the highest public

trust, and particularly in light of the scandals before us, it is very

hard to argue anything but set the example, not only raise the

standard but say, look, they have a higher standard that applies

to them than applies to the average American.

I simply want to say, however that plays out—and we have to

look closely at how that plays out, and indeed I have a question

for you about how that plays out—I do think that is certainly the

place to begin.

I want to congratulate my good friend who has made the first

hearing a hearing dealing with this egregious issue. Now, what he

has done is to choose the most egregious case, the case that is

mind-blowing to anyone who knows anything about it. But if I may

say so, for that reason it is not the most urgent case. In some respects, it is the easiest case because you know you got to do something about that. If the lobbying can result in the consequences

that we now know from the plea, then you certainly have to do

something about that.

I would have preferred—and I know it is early in the session,

and that is why I am grateful that we have started, at least. I

would have preferred—and I think there would have been a greater

understanding, particularly of the public, if we said there are a

whole bunch of things that are wrong, wrong with that Member,

because everybody knows how unusual that is. And if they don’t

know, beware, Congress, because too many think that he is typical.

One way to dispel that is say here is a whole flock of things we

are going to do. So I am going to assume that my good friend, Tom

Davis, who has taken the leadership here, first committee to come

forward in this way, is having the first of a series of important

hearings on this issue.

I believe that the matter ranks so low, as my colleague here from

Maryland said, because we have failed to make the nexus between

the issues that affect the American people and lobbying. So we talk

about lobbying. Who could care less what happens in Washington?

And maybe it is difficult to make that nexus, but not if we begin

to talk more about the issues that we know have been determined

exclusively by lobbying money. And, of course, the best and prime

example is the great hopes of seniors that have been dashed by the

Medicare prescription drug program. Not only is it indefensibly

complicated, but now it is so full of holes that they cannot even

work their way through it because there is yet a whole new set of

problems that have just erupted. We have to do better on that.

I would like to just ask a question. When I look at these things,

I tend to look at them legislatively and more technically. One of the

things I find most difficult, because it is hard for me to see what

difference it has made, is the notion of, you know, 1 year or 2 years

that you do not get to lobby.

Now, in, I guess, the Common Cause testimony, to show just how

difficult this is, in your explanation of the revolving door, you unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:39 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26073.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
131

derstand that people have to have a right to practice an occupation,

so you say slow the revolving door. But to show how hard it is, in

your explanation you say—and here I am quoting from your testimony—‘‘Expanding the definition of lobbying will capture those

Members of Congress who join lobbying/law firms and who do not

register as lobbyists, but who share their invaluable experience

they have had as elected officials with lobbyists in the firm.’’ I find

that a very difficult matter to deal with. You know, on the face of

it, it seems to have free association and free speech implications.

I don’t even know how in the world you would enforce it. And I am

bothered by it.

At the same time, I cannot tell the difference between 1 and 2

years. So it would help me if you have anything further to say, because the rest of the things you say under that I hope we do immediately, like eliminate floor privileges, deal with negotiation for employment contracts, prohibit lobbyists from being the treasurers,

etc., but when it comes to, OK, you can’t even talk to, you can’t

share your experience, I don’t know how that can survive constitutional muster, much as I am attracted to it. I would just like to

hear you, perhaps you have views on why you think that is constitutional or why that would work, or why it would be, for that

matter, enforceable?

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, and I am happy to attempt to answer

that question, and, again, Public Citizen has been doing a lot of

work on this issue of the revolving door.

I would say that for most of the reform groups we have been trying to address, two concerns. One is to extend the period of time—

and you raise a good question, you know, will 1-year be different

from 2-year? We feel that it represents a greater deterrent from

this notion that people serve as Members of Congress, looking forward to an opportunity to both parlay that influence into a highpaying job, and maybe are making decisions based on their time in

Congress that will be affected by the future employment, so I think

we are trying to extend that period, and talking about it in the executive branch as well.

I think the second point that you have raised, that perhaps will

be heard, to actually regulate, is this concern that there are former

Members of Congress or the executive branch who actually go to

work in large lobbying—large law firms that have a significant lobbying presence. So they may have the opportunity to direct lobbying activities, to work on strategies and political thinking, yet they

may never appear on the floor or be seen in these halls. But their

influence and the significance of that influence may be much greater than we are able to assess based on whether or not they are

here in the hallways.

Ms. NORTON. Yes. We may have reached the limit of what we can

prohibit, is my problem with that.

Ms. PINGREE. And you may well be raising an important point,

but it is really one of the most frequently mentioned proposals because I think people are deeply concerned about what is going on

behind—

Ms. NORTON. That same Member could go and teach at Georgetown Law School and say the very same things, and then the lobbyists could simply register for his course. And people do that, they

132

do teach part time. I am just not sure about that, and I am not

sure, as much as I want to do something about this problem, that

I could—because I think it is unconstitutional on its face, not just

as applied, not to mention all kinds of problems about attorney-client problems. The reason I ask it is I am befuddled by the 1 and

2-year, and I see the problem there, and therefore respect your notion of trying to get to something that is more meaningful. To me,

in a real sense, it points up the difficulty of trying to do something

other than the yearly matter.

I am sorry. Ms. Claybrook did want to answer.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Could I comment on that, Mr. Chairman, for

just a second?

First of all, I understand your concern about the constitutional

issues. The reason that we favor this type of proposal is because

the intent of the current law that you not lobby for 1 year after

you leave the Congress has been completely undermined by Members of Congress being paid multi-bucks to go to either a lobby firm

or law firm, and they set up shop as the director of the issue.

Maybe Mr. Tauzin would be a good example, where behind the

scenes, is directing the lobbyists, telling them what to do, which

Members of Congress to contact, what issues that they care about.

And so he is essentially the lobbyist without actually making the

telephone calls.

Everyone knows that Tauzin’s lobbyists are coming to talk to

them, and they are bringing a message from Mr. Tauzin, for example. And he is not the only one. Believe me, I am not picking just

on Mr. Tauzin.

So the question is whether or not Members of Congress can sell

themselves to these entities, these law firms and lobbying shops,

as the director, working on particular issues where they have intimate knowledge and intimate contacts that is essentially selling

the public trust. And it is a balancing act. It is a balancing issue.

I would prefer that they not be able to work for 5 years in these

kind of jobs, if you ask me personally, because there are plenty of

things Members of Congress are talented to do, and they don’t have

to become Washington lobbyists in order to make a living. I think

it has perverted the system and undermined the whole process of

legislation. So I would apply a much tougher standard in terms of

the number of years, and I think that you would admit that there’s

a difference between 1 year and 5 years in terms of whether Members of Congress are still here and their staffs are still here, and

do they have the same relationships?

But in terms of directing and controlling the strategy or laying

out the strategy for other lobbyists to affect legislation on their behalf, hopefully there is some way that we can write that would

pass constitutional muster with you, as a great lawyer, and the

courts, so that there would be some distance, if you would, between

Members of Congress and lobbying on issues that they work on.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I think this issue is pretty straightforward. It is just

something that needs to happen. Though you all in your testimony

have obviously gone beyond this issue, and so I will seize the opportunity to talk about that. Both of you would ban gifts entirely?

133

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Yes.

Ms. PINGREE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. What I wrestle with in terms of trips, tell me what

trips you would allow?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. We would allow?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, that is an interesting issue that I think

our collective judgment has not yet made—sorted out.

Mr. SHAYS. I am not asking you to be collective. I am asking each

of you to talk as independent thinking people. What would you

allow?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. We haven’t had the kind of conversations that

would allow us to sort it out, but I am going to tell you——

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t understand the word ‘‘we.’’ I am asking you.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. We at Public Citizen, we at Public Citizen.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I believe that if a Member of Congress is doing

the public business, the public treasury ought to pay for that trip.

And the one issue that has been raised in the Senate to us has

been whether or not nonprofit organizations, and not the ones that

are front groups for lobbyists, but educational institutions, for example, should be allowed to pay the travel for a Member of Congress to, say, make a graduation speech. And that——

Mr. SHAYS. I am wrestling with these things. I am interrupting

you. I am sorry. But I am not quite sure where you are really coming down.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, I don’t know either on that particular

issue.

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s just ask a question——

Ms. CLAYBROOK. On that narrow issue I would say all other travel that is on the public——

Mr. SHAYS. What I am wondering is, as I wrestle with this, are

we going to do something that ends up being superficial in the

process of trying to look like we are doing something, and really

not getting at the issue. I mean it seems so clear to me. If you go

on a trip to Scotland to play golf at all the best courses, and they

are spending thousands of dollars just for the fees on the golf

course, I mean, that is like a no-brainer, it shouldn’t happen.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. But I am thinking if I am invited to give a speech

to a group from APAC in Miami, should that be allowed? That is

a question.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I am not sure who APAC is, I am sorry.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, any group. I will just use APAC.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Any group that is a business group or a lobby

group, absolutely not. I believe that——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you this: if I going to raise money in

Miami, how do I pay for that if it ends up being the same kind of

group?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Out of your campaign fund.

Mr. SHAYS. But then what is the difference? I mean, with all due

respect, they gave you the money and they put it in your campaign.

There is no way that I think we are going to want to say to someone that the only way they can raise money is in their district. I

134

mean that is easy for me. If everybody in Round Hill Road in

Greenwich, CT gave me a contribution, I could run for President.

But what does someone do in a very poor district? What does someone do when they are the spokesman on a particular group? If my

opponent, for instance, goes to every law firm in the district to

raise money, is she also allowed to go to every law firm outside the

district, and why not? If I am the champion of tort reform, and the

law community doesn’t want to support me at all, but the medical

community does, why wouldn’t I want to, and why wouldn’t it be

logical that a group in Miami or Chicago or somewhere else would

want to contribute to my campaign, and why wouldn’t I go to a

fundraiser?

I particularly think of Senators. Senators go all over the country

doing this and——

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, they can. They just have to pay for it. It

should be paid for out of the campaign fund.

Mr. SHAYS. Then just tell me how is that any different? You got

the campaign dollars from the very group that you went to do the

fundraiser with.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That is right, but——

Mr. SHAYS. What is the difference?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I think that there is a difference, because if you

get it directly from the medical association or whatever it is that

wants to bring you in, and then they are going to raise big bucks

for you, then you are getting it from them and they are paying for

your money, and I know that it counts in terms of your campaign

funds, but I still think that it——

Mr. SHAYS. What happens if that same medical community invited me to give a speech about something I believe in, and only

paid for my travel, only paid for my hotel and maybe paid for the

dinner that night? How is that any different? I don’t see the difference. That is what I wrestle with. What I also wonder about is,

think of the causes you believe in, and I believe in your causes; you

are basically saying to me that I can’t go and speak and rally the

Nation for campaign finance reform, which I believe in, that I am

stuck in my district. The only way I can go outside to rally people

on something like campaign finance reform is if I do a fundraiser.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. No, no, no. I am not saying that. I am saying

that if you are doing the public’s businesses, then the public should

pay for it. It should come out of the Federal treasury, out of——

Mr. SHAYS. So you are saying that if I want to go to San Francisco to talk about campaign finance reform, I have to—and where

do I get the money from? What fund do I get it from here?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I believe there should be a congressional fund

to pay for the travel. I would far rather that you travel every day

and have the public pay for it if that is what the Congress agrees

to, if there is some system for deciding who gets that, the allocation

of those funds, than to have it paid for by private business. I think

that is the harm, because once you say that is OK, then it

extends——

Mr. SHAYS. I think that is a consistent policy. I mean I could

argue that. That is almost like saying that the Government pays

for your campaign. But you would take that same analogy and say,

135

I would take it out of, basically out of my office expenses if I wanted to travel to give a speech.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. But I think there ought to be a larger fund that

is put together, whether it is allocated by Members of Congress, by

a committee, maybe a combination of both, that is who pays for

your travel. And you report it publicly, and you report on what you

did and said. That is publicly available very quickly. Then I think

the public could live with that.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask Common Cause what they think.

Ms. PINGREE. I thought you made an important thought when

you started off this conversation, and I think it does get to the

heart of what is going to be a plethora of conversations about what

is real reform here, because, as everyone has stated, there is going

to be a kind of rush to pass a variety of fixes on what is perceived

as corruption here in Washington. The danger is, I think, going

after things that are too small and aren’t appropriate fixes, and

creating an even more complex system of what you can and can’t

do. So I do think you are addressing an appropriate concern, and

in a way it requires us all to back up.

And of course, that is why organizations like ours—and certainly

you have been a champion of this in the past—talk about until we

end the nexus between money and politics, and until we really talk

about public financing for congressional offices, there will always

be this question: were you at that meeting, or did you go on that

trip, or were you at that lunch, so that someone could have closer

access to you and an unfair advantage?

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just ask this last question because I have run

out. When I was invited to speak to the League of Women Voters

in Florida with Marty Meehan, I want you to tell me how I would

get there?

Ms. PINGREE. Well, I mean, I think Joan makes a perfectly good

point. We have to talk about separating this because it is the whole

issue around travel.

Mr. SHAYS. So just answer the question. So how would I pay?

Ms. PINGREE. We should have a public fund. You should pay for

it. It should be an important part of your job, expanding both who

you are able to speak to and what you are able to view around the

world.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough.

Ms. PINGREE. We have to change the system.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to thank both of you very much for your

presentation to us. I am pleased that you are here because it expands the perspective of this issue from the bill that we have before us, which is to deny pensions to people who are convicted of

crime, certain people if they are convicted.

I think what we need is honesty. We need honest leaders and we

need open Government. An open Government is very important to

keep people honest. I often wonder, when I hear about a colleague

doing something that is so outrageous, taking a bribe, you wonder,

what was this person thinking? Well, most people who commit

crimes think no one will know about it.

136

One of the problems I see is that under current law, only the lobbyists, not the officials they lobby, are required to make disclosure

about the fact that they are lobbying, and a lot of them don’t bother. We don’t enforce that law. I saw somewhere that there was

something like 80 percent of people who lobby don’t bother to live

up to the lobbying laws that are on the books now. It seems to me

that there is a lack of accountability regarding lobbyists in the executive branch. Don’t you think it would make more sense for people who are being lobbied to have to disclose the fact that they

were lobbied and the subject matter? There is nothing wrong with

it, by the way. I think lobbyists serve a very important purpose.

They represent different interest groups, and we don’t want to pass

legislation without getting all the input and views of various

groups.

I think back to the time when Vice President Cheney chaired an

energy task force to come up with a proposal for legislation. He

wouldn’t even hear from people that would tell him what the President said last night, which is our country is addicted to oil and we

need to break that addiction. One of the ways of breaking addiction

is to be more efficient in the use of oil. His view, he stated publicly,

was, it is virtuous, but it is not a good policy.

Well, I hope the President’s views last night will become the policy for this country. Let’s be more efficient in the use of energy.

Let’s make sure we look for alternatives. Let’s wean ourselves off

this addiction.

But if we wanted to look at who the Vice President was hearing

from as he did this official job of trying to develop an energy policy

for the administration, it seems to me a realistic question to ask

is: what groups did you hear from? What did they ask you about?

He took such offense at that question that he went to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that he didn’t have to disclose such information. Do you think there ought to be a requirement that people who

are lobbied in the executive branch have to have a disclosure of the

fact they have been lobbied and what position was being advanced?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I do. As a public official, my calendar was public. I believe that the calendars of public officials ought to be clear

and public. From time to time Public Citizen has seen some problems and we have asked for calendars and we have been turned

down. In other cases we have gotten them. But I think there ought

to be a clear rule, that is, that the calendar of public officials

should be a public calendar.

Mr. WAXMAN. Is that subject to FOIA, Freedom of Information

Act?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. It is, but there have been different rulings. At

this moment I can’t remember them all, but in some case I know

we have gotten the calendars and in others we haven’t. I would be

glad to submit a memo to you on our understanding that the current law, under the Freedom of Information Act, is one of our specialties at Public Citizen, and I will be happy to give that to you.

But I do believe that the law ought to be clear, and that when public officials have meetings, they ought to be public, not that everyone ought to be able to join them and come—surely they can have

private meetings, but I think that who was at the meeting and

what the subject matter of the meeting was about should be public.

137

We also have this fight with the Office of Management and

Budget. It’s been from time to time, every time we raise a big stink

about it, then every once in a while they say, John Graham said,

‘‘Oh, we’re going to have a public process,’’ and then of course it

wasn’t a public process after the hullabaloo died down. I would like

to have a clear rule in the law.

Mr. WAXMAN. I think open Government is very important, and

one of the problems that I am seeing is that this administration is

restricting the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act. They sent out mandates to agencies to stretch FOIA

exemptions to withhold, ‘‘sensitive’’ information. Now, there is noting in the law that says you can withhold information that is sensitive. They even came up with some pseudo classification designations such as, ‘‘sensitive but unclassified.’’ Now, if it is classified

and you are revealing national security matters, well, I think all

of us would agree that shouldn’t be disclosed to the public. But if

it is classified as ‘‘sensitive but unclassified’’ to avoid disclosure, it

seems to me this administration is going out of its way to figure

out how to undermine openness in Government.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I agree with that, Mr. Waxman. I would like to

mention one other thing though.

Mr. WAXMAN. Just because I see my yellow light, I am just going

to suggest to you that I would appreciate if you look at the law that

I propose called the Restore Open Government Act, H.R. 2331. I

would be interested in having your opinions on that legislation.

And then I just quickly want to touch one other thing.

I think that when we have people like Tom Scully, who was representing the administration—he got a waiver to go out and negotiate a job with companies that represented the pharmaceutical industry while he was negotiating the Medicare Prescription Drug

Bill. You mentioned Billy Tauzin. It wasn’t that he went to work

as a lobbyist for the drug companies. What offended me was that

while he was negotiating the bill relating to Medicare, he was in

obvious conflict of interest because he was working on the legislation and doing things that benefited the pharmaceutical industry.

Now, I just think that sort of thing has to be tightened up. We

shouldn’t allow people to be in a conflict of interest situation. Part

of it is to have openness, but I don’t think the administration ought

to give waivers to a guy like Tom Scully, and I think that we can’t

even reach—this is a violation of the ethics for Congressman Tauzin, but there is nothing we can do to him because he is gone. Now

he is making $2 million a year at the chief person at the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association [PhRMA].

So I just raise these issues. Appreciate your input on them, and

I think that we need to do more than this piece of legislation. We

need to look at it in a broader way.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. We certainly agree that the ethics—that the

waivers for conflicts of interest ought to be very narrow and very

unusual.

I just want to comment on the Freedom of Information Act. One

of the things that is undermining the Freedom of Information Act

today, and I believe it is within the jurisdiction of this committee,

is the issue of attorneys fees. When the law was originally amended in 1974, it included attorneys fees. Now, under some very unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:39 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26073.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
138

usual court decisions, you can only get attorneys fees if you get a

clear win in the case. But if you are like 90 percent through the

case and the Government comes in and negotiates and says, ‘‘We

are going to give you all the documents now,’’ because they realize

they are going to lose, you don’t get attorneys fees. I think that

perversion of the original intent of the law really has undermined

the likelihood that people will bring these cases. We would love to

have a small amendment in whatever bills that you do in terms of

public disclosure, to rather encourage people to raise issues. You

don’t always win, and you don’t always get your attorneys fees, but

you are much more likely to if the Government concedes, whether

they concede because the court made it the final ruling or whether

the Government conceded because it gave in.

Mr. WAXMAN. We ought to reward people who try to get information, and not punish whistleblowers who try to disclose information. I think those two concepts should both fit within legislation

that is in the jurisdiction of this committee.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. McHenry, you have any questions?

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question I have for both of you is that we are imperfect in

the laws that we have in this Nation, and no matter the set of laws

that we put out governing lobbying and ethics in Government,

there will always be a criminal element that will try to find a way

around those laws.

For instance, in the matter of Duke Cunningham. The disclosure

forms that we as Members of Congress fill out, there is one exemption, and that is your home mortgage. Now, it is very unique that

you have to disclose whether or not you have a savings account

that has $4 in it, you have to disclose the institution it is in. You

have to disclose the amount of interest you derive from that $4

through the course of a year. But you can have a mortgage for a

home, or no mortgage at all, and an enormously expensive home.

So the question I have for you, are you coming forward with a sunshine proposal, rather than simple restrictions to just provide the

public with more information?

Ms. PINGREE. Well, I would address that in two ways. I think

you’re correct that just providing a variety of new rules won’t necessarily stop first criminal behavior, and then maybe behavior

that’s of questionable ethics.

I mean two of the things that we’ve focused on, particularly in

the broader perspective of Congress, but also in some ways affecting the executive branch, are a tremendous amount more disclosure and information available to the public about the people who

in fact work for them, so that the information is more readily available, and people can make those judgments on their own.

But the second part, that I think would have a significant effect,

again, when people are intent on breaking the law—you know,

whatever system you’re working in, you can’t stop someone from

breaking the law—but it’s been very clear in terms of the ethics

process here in Congress, there’s been very lax enforcement, and in

many of these cases, as was mentioned earlier, many of those who

were already regulated aren’t bothering to fill out travel discloVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:39 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26073.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
139

sures, gift disclosures, all the things that should have been done,

and it’s obviously gone to a much deeper level.

We propose an independent ethics commission, which is employed in over 30 States around the country, to have a level of outside complaints, to have a level of higher disclosure and enforcement, and we just think it’s an important juncture here. While people are looking at their deep concerns about whether there is, you

know, outrageous amounts of corruption here in Washington, but

on the other hand, is the fox guarding the hen house, and is the

job being well done? So we think, again, to restore confidence, there

has to be an independent ethics commission and it has to have very

strict guidelines about how it brings these concerns to light.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. If I were you, I would, if you were pushing this,

I would cite James Madison in the Federalist Paper No. 57, because what he says is that the purpose of every constitution is not

only to have the best rulers, but, he says, in the next place take

the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous while

they continue to hold the public trust.

And I think that’s the issue really that we have raised with regard to the Office of Government Ethics here in this hearing today,

and also with the lobbying——

Mr. MCHENRY. I have two other questions, so I want to keep

moving forward if we could. Is the timing of a contribution an evil?

Ms. PINGREE. Well, it certainly can be associated with an evil, as

some of the people who are currently under indictment would suggest. And I think that it raises, again, public perception and questions about whether the timing of a contribution was related to a

decision that a policymaker made. And no one can be free of those

questions, and the more opportunities you have to either regulate

that process, allow more disclosure of that process, or prohibit it,

the better off lawmakers will be.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK. Ms. Claybrook.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That’s a very difficult question, but, yes, there

are times when you can say a Member of Congress got a contribution just before or after they introduced a bill, they voted on a particular piece of legislation that’s very controversial, yes, you could

say that.

I don’t think that it’s the most important issue. I think that the

most important issue to me is that there be very clear rules about

how you can behave. Obviously, today you can accept campaign

contributions. We believe the public funding of elections would end

a lot of this. Even free TV would cut down the burden on Members

to have to do the money machine fundraising constantly, and would

help to solve this problem.

Mr. MCHENRY. It is interesting, the inconsistency here, because

also lobbying. You say that a 1-year addition to the 1-year ban on

Members going and lobbying would cut down on corruption, yet you

say you have to fully ban money in politics, so why not fully ban

lobbying?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, the Constitution won’t allow that, and

you’re not going to ban money. What you’re going to do is you’re

going to give Members of Congress an opportunity, under the public funding bills, to opt in, to take public funding so they don’t have

140

to take private money. There will have to be some kind of an initial

screening device, small contributions or petitions or something to

qualify for public funding, but it’s an option for the Member of Congress, it’s not mandated.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK. Because there are many of us that believe

that both lobbying and money in politics have the element of free

speech, and that full disclosure is what we should be all about,

rather than simple limitations, because when you put those arbitrary limitations, you create other problems that are unintended,

and I think we are dealing with some of those here in Washington,

just as we were 20 years before with similar public corruption

issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Ms. Watson, any questions?

Ms. WATSON. I will pass.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Clay, any questions?

Mr. CLAY. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

Let me ask both of the witnesses. We have heard a lot of proposals come forward about reform. However, I have not heard anyone

mention the practice—I guess it is a little-known practice—of lobbyists giving to, say, the DCCC and the RNCC in the name of a

Member, and giving that Member credit for, say, a $5,000, $10,000

contribution. Don’t you think that practice also kind of allows for

a cozy relationship, allows for favoritism? I would like to hear both

of your thoughts about that. Has anyone looked at that and suggested any kind of reform to that practice?

Ms. PINGREE. Again, I think it’s why we’re such staunch supporters of changing to a system of public financing of elections, because

one of the things, as you’ve rightly observed, is in spite of a tremendous amount of reform to the system of soft money and in

terms of more disclosure, there are always those who will find a

way around the back door and another way to make sure that

you’re allowed to use a certain amount of money to influence a

Member and a Member’s decision. And at its very core, that’s what

we’re trying to get it.

In effect, although I know that people often feel we’re placing a

burden on elected officials, in a sense we’re trying to relieve this

burden of any of these questions. You know, did you get the contribution the day before you took the vote? Did the money go to the

party instead of you, but they called you up and said, ‘‘Oh, by the

way, I put some money in the party?’’ I mean these are things that,

frankly, you shouldn’t have questioned about the behavior and the

decisions that any of you make. The fact that there is so much resistance about this sometimes shocks me because the ability to be

an elected official and never have to wonder whether people will

suspect that you got the money because some organization feels

that you’re a good supporter of theirs, or you got the money because they were counting on you doing something after you got the

money. I just think is something we should eliminate the process,

and there is no better time than now.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Ditto.

Mr. CLAY. Has anyone brought that subject up in the form of legislation? Has anyone proposed eliminating that practice?

141

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, as far as I know it’s not an authorized

practice. It’s a back door, you know, wink and nod informal communication, so it’s kind of hard to prohibit that. So I believe it’s a very

informal thing because it’s not, as far as I know, something that’s

a matter of record. I know it happens.

Mr. CLAY. Perhaps you all should look again because you will

find that both congressional campaign committees give credit to

Members, because they direct a lobbyist to put money into those

committees, and the Member gets credit for it. So I mean that is

just—I think it is an oversight that all of your groups have missed

and you may want to take a look at it.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. OK.

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you for that.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of

my time.

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Thank the gentleman.

Ms. Watson, I think you are next.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. I would like to tell the two panelists

that we appreciate you coming because you represent the public

trust. I found myself being elected into a culture of corruption, and

I have been very agitated by it throughout my term. Have the two

of you looked at the ethics laws already on the books? And what

I feel is that we as a Congress have abdicated our responsibility,

because we have very few oversight hearings. We have very few

whistleblowers to come in and testify. And it seems like we have

bypassed what I feel are offenses that should be brought to the

public’s attention. For instance, we have not held an ethics hearing

since both parties sat down and negotiated its composition.

So can you respond to this question: are there not adequate provisions already in law that will cover whatever offense that might

come about by Members, or do we need new legislation? I know we

are talking about the forfeiture of public pensions. That is certainly

a new area. But are there not enough provisions, but they lack

compliance? Can you respond?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I will speak first. I know Chellie has some very

strong thoughts on this as well.

First of all, in the Senate, an outside party is allowed to file a

complaint with the Ethics Committee. In the House that’s been

prohibited. We used to be able to. We now cannot. And as a result,

the two parties find themselves in a position where if a Member

of Congress files an ethics complaint against a Member of the other

party—rarely do they do it to a Member of their own party—then

it becomes a game of warfare, and then they’re filing complaints

against the other party. And so what happened was, that after all

of the hullabaloo over—in the late 1990’s, what happened was that

they came to a deal, we won’t file a complaint against you, you

don’t file a complaint against us, because it’s like nuclear war.

And I think that’s been a terrible result. And so a major thing

that we think is that outside parties should be able to file complaints in the Ethics Committee.

But more importantly, or as importantly as that, we see the Ethics Committee as totally disabled and unable to enforce the law,

and we think there ought to be an outside independent office of

public integrity or commission that is not staffed by Members of

142

Congress or their staff, that can do the independent prosecutorial

work when a complaint is filed, and either clear it or pursue it.

And until that happens, there will never be a clear ethics process

because there’s not a clear ethics enforcement process.

Today we testified that we also believe that the office of public

integrity, or Office of Government Ethics, rather, in the executive

branch, which does not have enforcement authority, should have

enforcement authority, and that’s one of the reasons that we were

asked to testify today, and that they ought to be staffed to do that,

and that this should not be delegated as it is now within each individual Government agency setting its own ethics rules, essentially,

and doing its own enforcement or not, which is mostly what happens.

Ms. PINGREE. And I would just followup, a little bit of a yes and

no. Yes, there are quite a few rules that were never enforced, and

Joan’s made that very clear, and why we think there should be

some outside level of enforcement and enhanced enforcement, and

there are some areas where we’ve suggested more rules, in the

areas of disclosure and restrictions of lobbyists. And whether it’s

complicated or not, Congress has to look at the gift and travel ban.

You know, the Washington Post said 90 percent of the American

public wants to eliminate all gifts. People are—these have become

high profile issues, and while they’re sticky to understand at the

very bottom level of what’s appropriate travel and what’s not, this

has to be delved into.

But I want to just enforce again this issue of who—is the fox

guarding the hen house? Has there been a good job done? And

when you lose the confidence of the public, you have to consider a

different system to restore that confidence.

Again, we have talked to many executive directors and agencies

in the States where they have independent ethics commissions,

they have ways to deal with frivolous complaints, they have ways

to make sure that the Members have final authority, but that there

is outside complaints and outside investigations. It seems to me,

again, in the end, that Members do themselves a disservice not

having a way to have these things enforced, so that when something isn’t a problem, people are immediately cleared, and when

something is a problem, that person doesn’t continue to bring

shame on the body.

Ms. WATSON. My staff and I have been quite concerned, and so

we have looked at the ethics process, and we are drawing up some

provisions, and we will discuss them once we get them drawn up.

But one would be that any complaint that is filed must be heard

within a given amount of time. So that all complaints are heard.

Now, they might not need to be heard in a full committee, but I

would think the chair and the ranking member ought to decide

which are frivolous and which should go forward, and that we need

to put a time limit on it.

I am looking at starting at that point, using the provisions that

are already in law, and so I am in a quandary right now because

I don’t know, but I like this idea of an outside commission, because

I represent Los Angeles. I am on the West Coast. It takes 5 hours

to get there by plane. So most often people don’t have the details

regarding the processes here in Congress. They look at the polls,

143

and say, ‘‘Well, you’re no better than they are.’’ We all get tainted

and painted with a brush when we have Members selling their

homes and reaping the profit, and living on yachts, and going together to play golf, and representing that private interest back

here. We all get tainted because they don’t feel any better about

Congress than they do about other divisions of Government.

So what is the best way to do it? I think an independent outside

commission needs to come there because it is going to be like this

as long as we have a two-party system, we are going to find—yes,

I will just finish my sentence—as long as we have a two-party system there is going to be resistance to bringing your own up to ethics.

So thank you for that recommendation.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I would just like to clarify that because the Constitution requires the House to judge itself, or each body to judge

itself, the Ethics Committee would not be abolished, but rather,

you would have the outside commission would process all of the

complaints and whatever, do the investigation and recommend penalties. It would have to go back to the Ethic Committee in the end,

but they wouldn’t do that nitty-gritty everyday work.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [presiding]. OK. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome our two panelists and thank them for

their hard work for the public trust and for good Government, and

we appreciate all that you do.

Clearly, taking trips to play golf is an outrageous abuse of position and power and lobbying, and it should absolutely be stopped.

But in my own life I have worked as a lobbyist, as a volunteer for

Common Cause, a former State issues chair for New York State,

and professionally for the New York City Board of Education, and

I truly believed in what I was lobbying for, and felt that I played

an important role in educating legislators who are really spread too

thin. You have to really be an expert on so many things that you

are voting on, and I think it is important that you can explain education, you can explain good Government laws, and they need that

help.

Now, I would like to ask a specific question about educational

travel, and I think my colleague, Chris Shays, started down this

thing. There is an institute. It is a nonprofit bipartisan institute

called the Aspen Institute. I have never been on one of their trips.

But my colleagues tell me that they have learned a great deal.

What they do is they will go a certain site, and they have a theme.

It is either health care or education or the environment or energy,

and they bring in a panel of experts in a nonpartisan way to explain the depth of understanding. They have had them on many,

many different areas. My colleagues have told me that the trips

have helped them understand complex issues. And every issue, you

can look at it and say, this is right, that is wrong. You start looking

at it, there is always complexities. There are nuances, that you

may vote a certain way and it has ramifications that you didn’t realize on various areas of our economy and of our constituency.

And they think that these trips are very, very helpful for their

understanding and coming up with good policy.

144

I think that we need to have a good balance. We want to take

out anything that is not working for the good understanding. I

think, obviously, some of the abuses that have come out are just

sickening. I can’t imagine why any Member of Congress would even

want to go on these trips, first of all. Second, how in the world do

they have enough time with all of the pressures that we have on

us?

So I wanted to ask a question specifically about the Aspen Institute. I would like to crack down on abuses of lobbying, but I do not

want to crack down on the ability of Congress Members to learn

and understand and make better judgments, and I would like both

panelists to respond to that.

Ms. PINGREE. I think you’ve, again, brought up a very important

consideration. The value of both this committee having this hearing

and what I imagine will be a variety of other conversations that

will continue to go on, is it gives us the opportunity the dig in a

little deeper about how you regulate travel in the case of golf trips

to Scotland that don’t pass the straight-face test and look bad in

the eyes of the public, and how you make sure that this very important role of educating a Member of Congress on the things that

they would like to and need to know more about is still allowed to

continue, and whether it becomes, you know, strictly a public fund

that Member has to spend, or if there is some middle ground, I

think is a conversation that we’re happy to be a part of.

Now, some people have proposed that in the case of the Aspen

Institute—and I’m very familiar with the work that they do—that

travel be allowed by organizations that are educational in purpose

or 501(c)(3)’s by their IRS designation, which would include the

Aspen Institute. But in fact, some of the money that Jack Abramoff

funneled for travel was to 501(c)(3) organizations, in theory doing

educational purposes. So the question becomes, how do we decide

how to regulate this in a way that’s appropriate and not overly restrictive, but that doesn’t allow for these tremendous loopholes.

I want to add one other quick point—and I’ve mentioned this

story before—I was formerly a State legislator myself, and had the

opportunity to do a certain amount of travel on trips sponsored by

501(c)(3) organizations. And on the one hand, they can have a great

stated purpose, and many times they did—they had educational

seminars and they had interesting places that we were visiting

where there were things that we were learning, but I must say at

the same time, half of the people in the room were working as commercial lobbyists. They were working for Verizon, or Citibank or a

variety of other interests, and we spent 3 days together, not only

learning a few things, but attending the symphony and perhaps

going golfing or whatever was provided on the trip. And it gave a

somewhat unreasonable amount of access to Members of the legislature, and perhaps got back to this question that we’ve asked before about were there future campaign contributions tied to relationships? Were they able to lobby us in ways that the general public or other advocacy lobbyists like Public Citizen or Common

Cause aren’t able to do?

So there have been proposals that say that maybe it’s about how

these are done by 501(c)(3). Maybe you can’t have trips where lobbyists are arranging them or attending the trip. I think there’s a

145

lot of questions to be asked, and I don’t think we have a definitive

answer today, but we appreciate the dialog.

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I would just like to say that I believe there

ought to be a public fund. This is something that’s important for

Members of Congress to go to. They’re going to add expertise from

their own experience. They’re going to learn from others. And I

think that there is a public fund—there should be a public fund

that pays for this. This is something that Members of Congress

should have paid for.

If you are an employee of the executive branch, as I was for

many years, and you believe that there is an important trip that

you have to take, you have a process that you clear it through and

then it’s paid for by the public. You have to be compensated based

on certain schedules for how much you can pay for a hotel and how

much you can pay for the airfare and so on. And I think that’s the

way that it ought to work.

Poor people don’t have luxurious conferences at the Aspen Institute. I’ve been at some of them. I think that they’re wonderful. But,

you know, I don’t think that—if you start making that exception,

then you’re going to have, you know, other exceptions, and you’re

going to have these front group 501(c)(3)’s that have popped up all

over the place by business, and I just think that for fairness for the

public, that it ought to be a public fund. You decide how you want

to spend that public fund as a Member of Congress. You disclose

it and you justify it.

Mrs. MALONEY. May I followup with a question, Mr. Chairman?

My time is up, but——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Sure.

Mrs. MALONEY. Quite frankly, I would support public funding of

elections, and I supported it when we had a surplus, but there is

no way we are going to have public funding of elections with the

economy that we have and the deficit that we have. I don’t think

that there is any way we would be able to create a public fund for

educational purposes.

Now there is official travel, but there is usually an official purpose, Iraq, Afghanistan, trade agreements in Australia, the Davos

Economic Conference. There are official duties of Members of Congress where I think if you don’t go to the country you don’t really

understand it, and you are voting on huge matters. So I support

travel. But there is a difference between official travel that you are

there for a specific purpose, and second, educational travel, where

you are just going to learn more about an issue. And I personally

do not think that in our budget situation, they would ever create

a special fund for travel.

I just read in the paper today that Coretta Scott King received

60 honorary doctorates, and I would like to followup on the question of my colleague, who has been a great leader of reform in this

body, Christopher Shays, who worked tirelessly for years for campaign finance reform. And he was asking about educational institutions. Say, for example, if some university wanted to give our chairman, Tom Davis, a honorary degree, and they wanted to pay for

him to come and get the honorary degree. And he has a tough election, so he’s not going to pay for it out of—you can’t pay for it out

of your campaign.

146

If you were doing official business or something related to your

job, you cannot use campaign funds. There is a very strict division.

You cannot use campaign funds except for campaigns. People contribute to have you reelected. You can’t use it to go to an educational conference or to go to get an honorary degree, because they

did not give you that money for that purpose, that was for campaigns.

So there are some situations—and I am all for knocking down on

influence of abuse of power on elected bodies, but there are some

situations where that legislator may be a better legislator because

of having attended a conference that they understood the energy

policies and the complexities, or the education or the health care

in a deeper form. And I would like to throw that question back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Will the gentlelady yield for just a second?

I also note the problem is if Government pays for everything, you

get what Government wants you to see. You are never going to get

a trip to the ANWR, given the current line-up, to go up and look

at the negative side, if you don’t get an environmental group to pay

for it. You will get the Government coming up there showing you

what they want to show you. If you want to go to Mexico or Central

America and see the effects of free trade, the AFL–CIO ought to

be entitled to take you down there and give you their perspective.

If you want the Government perspective, you get the Government

line.

I think there is some utility here, and I just throw that out. I

don’t know how we are going to deal with it, because, clearly, the

trips got out of hand, but those are the kinds of issues I think Mrs.

Maloney is trying to get at.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I thought you were

going to make a joke about getting the honorary doctorate. [Laughter.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, I don’t think Amherst is going to

give me—I earned it the first time, but I don’t meet the litmus test.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to followup on the chairman’s comments because I am in several disagreements with the current administration on ANWR, on United Nations family planning, and

other areas where we have votes literally on the floor on these

issues. And in terms of the United Nations Population Fund, I attended a conference in South America that was paid by a not-forprofit on international family planning. In other words, that would

have been—you understand what I am saying—ANWR would have

been cutoff. So when you are taking a position in opposition to the

ruling Government, there would be no way for you to learn the

other side. Quite frankly, I was invited to several conferences in

Canada on campaign finance reform, that was at one time in opposition to the administration.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, let’s get this—you want to react to

that?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I would just like to say that I’m not suggesting

that the executive branch decide where you’re supposed to go, nor

do I suggest that the leaders in Congress decide where you should

go. I think that the fund should be one that’s allocated to the Member of Congress to make that decision. And they can’t do everyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:39 Apr 26, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\26073.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
147

thing, so they’re going to have to make certain decisions. And if

your preference is to go to South America or up to ANWR or to the

Mexican border, then that would be your decision, and that’s the

way I think the fund ought to be allocated. Plus there already are

some committee funds that are allocated to Members of Congress

to take trips. And so that’s the way I would see it.

I think that having a public fund frees you from all of these other

problems that you are experiencing now, and really hurts the public trust. While I understand the need for education institutions

and organizations like the Aspen Institute, perhaps we ought to

have you—I still think that’s something that’s a part of your job,

and you’re a public official. I think it ought to be paid for by the

public purse, and I think it’s the best investment that the taxpayer

would ever make. And by the way, it’s one B–1 bomber for public

funding for the U.S. Congress every other year, and I think that’s

a pretty cheap price, and I would do it any day of the week, rather

than have—we wouldn’t have the deficit that we have now because

Members of Congress wouldn’t be able to waste the money that

they do.

Ms. PINGREE. I’ll just add a couple of quick thoughts, because,

again, as I said, this is an important part of the dialog between understanding what’s appropriate and what could be financed. I appreciate the concerns that you raised, and I, again, just want to reinforce that I do think travel is important for Members, and I think

expanding your horizons is important.

But the other sort of bigger picture question, which I think is the

reason that you’re all here today and there’s so much attention, is

what is it going to take to restore public trust in Congress? I,

again, don’t think we’re done here. I think this is going to go on

because it’s a campaign cycle, and because there’s going to be more

indictments.

And so the question becomes, I think of all of you, what will you

be willing to do to restore that faith again? It’s not as if anybody

wanted to be in this situation or somehow we think a gift ban will

bring it all back together again. But it may in fact be worth the

investment of taxpayer dollars to spend on a travel fund or to have

public financing.

I just want to say, I know we’re all quick to discount how hard

it is to use public money for these things, but the Connecticut Legislature, with a Republican Governor and Democrats, just passed

public financing. The House in California just passed public financing. And these things are going to keep happening. So when the

States and the public is ahead of the rest of the elected officials,

I think sometimes you have to look behind and say, wait a minute,

they might be more ready than we think, and we shouldn’t discount that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mrs. MALONEY. My last comment. Congressmen Meehan and

Pelosi have really developed a bill, and they are introducing it

today, and I would like very much to hear your comments, and I

am sure the committee would on those two pieces of legislation.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

148

I apologize with coming in late, and also to run off to another

commitment, but I do want to first thank you for your leadership

on this issue as we work to promote greater confidence and trust

in Congress, in the Federal Government in general, and specifically

with your legislation of the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act. I know

that our colleague, Congressman Kirk, was here earlier, and I have

been working with Mark on the legislation that is similar in some

ways to your legislation, different in some ways, and specifically

different about the specific crimes that would be included, and we

certainly look forward to working with you as you move this legislation forward to address the breadth of individuals who should be

held accountable for wrongful conduct, Members of Congress, as

well as executive political appointees, but also the crimes that are

relevant to their forfeiture of their pensions.

On the broader issue, I certainly appreciate both of our witnesses

here. Your efforts and your organizations’ efforts focusing on good

Government, and your input today, appreciate the written testimony. I think this is an issue that is integral to everything we do

in Washington. As I say, having the public’s trust is critical to us

being able to address serious issues facing our Nation and people

believing that the actions we took were truly in their best interest

and not in the interest of a special interest. So restoring trust cuts

across all issues out there, and the efforts of your organizations

and the chairman’s leadership hopefully will have success and

move very favorably in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Any other questions? If not, anything else

you would like to add?

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, we very much appreciate it. We

want to, at least this committee, keep you a part of the dialog as

we move forward. If you have any additional thoughts you would

like to share with us, I will be happy to make it part of the hearing.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Todd Russell Platts, Elijah E.

Cummings, and Hon. Jon C. Porter follow:]

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

Æ