[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 23, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-211
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
32-968 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
TOM DAVIS, Virginia MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DARRELL E. ISSA, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Ex Officio
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Ron Martinson, Staff Director
Shannon Meade, Professional Staff Member
Alex Cooper, Legislative Assistant
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 23, 2006..................................... 1
Statement of:
Glynn, Marilyn, Acting Director, Office of Government Ethics. 6
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Glynn, Marilyn, Acting Director, Office of Government Ethics,
prepared statement of...................................... 10
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 3
Schmidt, Hon. Jean, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 33
THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency
Organization,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Porter, Schmidt, Davis of
Illinois, Norton, and Van Hollen.
Staff present: Ronald Martinson, staff director; Chad
Bungard, deputy staff director/chief counsel; Shannon Meade,
professional staff member; Patrick Jennings, OPM detailee/
senior counsel; Chad Christofferson and Alex Cooper,
legislative assistants; Mark Stephenson and Tania Shand,
minority professional staff members; and Teresa Coufal,
minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Porter. I would like to bring the meeting to order, I
appreciate you all being here today. This is a hearing
entitled, ``Reauthorization of the Office of Government
Ethics.'' A quorum being present, I would like to begin the
meeting.
Ethics in government has been an issue of considerable
prominence not only in Washington but across this country and
in the media recently. I believe that Congress must take every
step possible to protect and sustain public confidence that
Federal officials are honest and trustworthy. Today's hearing
affords us such an opportunity by allowing this subcommittee to
examine the role of the Office of Government Ethics [OGE], and
to consider extending its authorization for appropriations
which expires at the end of this fiscal year.
Undoubtedly, OGE performs critically essential ethics
functions throughout the executive branch, such as reviewing
disclosure statements to resolve potential conflicts of
interest for nominees and appointees to the Senate confirmed
positions, conducting oversight and evaluations of ethics
programs throughout the executive branch, issuing ethics
regulations and guidance pertaining to the executive branch
employees, providing ethics counseling to agency officials,
developing ethics training programs, and providing ethics
training for Presidential appointees and other employees
throughout the executive branch.
The ultimate question to be asked is whether these
important functions should be handled by OGE as an independent
agency or as a separate office within an existing agency or
department.
Within the next couple of weeks, I will be introducing the
Ethics in Government Reauthorization Act. This bill will extend
the authorization of appropriations for the Office of
Government Ethics, through fiscal year 2009, will require the
Comptroller General of the United States to study by the end of
fiscal year 2008 the functions of OGE and the need for the
permanent authorization of OGE as a stand-alone agency or the
transfer of the office's functions to another agency or
department.
This GAO study will greatly assist the subcommittee in
reaching the right determination on OGE's permanent
reauthorization. OGE's functions are critical and it is vital
that when a permanent decision is made it is made with a
complete understanding of the functions and the role of OGE so
that the public has the highest confidence that the
government's business is conducted with impartiality and
integrity.
OGE is a small agency within the executive branch. It was
created by the Ethics in Government Act in 1978, originally
part of the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. OGE became a
separate agency in 1989 as a part of the Office of Government
Ethics Reauthorization Act of 1988. The rationale supporting
OGE's independence was to not only promote its visibility and
heighten awareness of ethics but to also promote administrative
efficiency.
A recent proposal submitted by the Republican Study
Committee [RSC], in its fiscal year 2007 budget recommends the
elimination of all budget authority for OGE. According to the
RSC, the job now performed by OGE can be performed by the
Department of Justice and does not need a separate agency.
By eliminating OGE, the estimated savings in 2007 would be
$11 million. In terms of cost savings another option is to
transfer OGE's functions back to OPM. OGE, however, has
indicated to the subcommittee staff that having its functions
embedded within a large department or even OPM would be adverse
to effective performance of its duties because of the added
layer of bureaucracy. Additionally, OGE pointed out to the
staff that having it as a stand-alone agency highlights the
importance of its functions and gives needed visibility to an
ethics program in the executive branch.
The American people expect government to be open,
transparent and accountable. As such, it should be the practice
of Federal Government to maintain a high standard of ethics in
order to build and maintain the public's trust. The Office of
Government Ethics has been an important executive branch agency
that helps ensure accountability and openness.
With that, I would like to thank Ms. Glynn, the Acting
Director for being here, and I look forward to the discussion.
I would like to now recognize my colleague and friend
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, Mr. Danny Davis.
Mr. Davis.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.002
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank you for calling this hearing. And I guess there couldn't
be a better time in which to talk about and discuss ethics in
all facets of government. It has been 2 years since the
subcommittee has held an oversight hearing on the Office of
Government Ethics, and it is prudent that we establish a record
of how the agency is operating.
OGE's mission is not only to prevent and to resolve
conflicts of interest and to foster high ethical standards for
Federal employees, it is also to strengthen the public's
confidence that the government's business is conducted with
impartiality and integrity.
OGE does this in the following ways: By reviewing and
certifying the financial disclosure forms filed by Presidential
nominees who require Senate confirmation; by serving as the
primary source of advice and counseling on conduct and
financial disclosure issues; and by providing information on
and promoting understanding of ethical standards in executive
agencies.
OGE plays a critical role in preventing conflicts of
interest on the part of officials and employees of the
executive branch. Given the ethical lapse by Federal officials
that have been reported in the media, we need OGE now more than
ever.
I look forward to hearing from Ms. Glynn regarding OGE's
reauthorization, the work that it has been doing, and the work
that it needs to continue to do.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this
hearing and I look forward to hearing from our witness, and I
yield back.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Davis, and I appreciate your
comments and we concur someone now more than ever needs to be
in this oversight position and we do appreciate your comments.
Also to my immediate left is my colleague, Jean Schmidt. Do
you have opening comments?
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing on the reauthorization of the Office of
Government Ethics.
It is imperative that we carefully consider the issues
related to this reauthorization, and I am looking forward to
hearing from Mrs. Glynn, the Acting Director of OGE.
OGE was established in 1978 by the Ethics in Government Act
to provide leadership and guidance to the executive branch on
ethics matters.
OGE educates executive branch employees on ethics matters,
issues regulations and opinions, provides oversight, attempts
to prevents ethics conflicts and resolves conflicts that do
occur.
Fostering the highest ethical standards is of the utmost
importance in our democratic system of government. We must do
all that we can to ensure that our citizens have confidence in
our government and our leaders. OGE's leadership is an
important part of that process.
H.R. 4071, legislation introduced by my colleague from
Cincinnati, Representative Steve Chabot, would extend the
authorization of the Office of Government Ethics through fiscal
year 2011. It appears that this is indeed a prudent use of our
taxpayer dollars.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
and I look forward to Mrs. Glynn's testimony.
Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. I would like to note for
the record I have mentioned looking at the Office of Government
Ethics with a study through the fiscal year 2008. I would like
to correct that to 2007; 2008 was a mistype.
At this time I would like to do some procedural matters and
ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days
to submit written statements and questions for the hearing
record, and any answers to written records provided by the
witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and
materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be
included in the hearing record, that all Members be permitted
to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, so
ordered.
It is also the practice of the subcommittee to administer
the oath to all witnesses, so today if you would please stand,
raise your right hand.
Thank you.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Porter. Let the record reflect that the witness has
answered in the affirmative. Please be seated.
Note that as far as testimony today we originally said
approximately 5 minutes, but you may take a little longer if
you would like. We appreciate you being here today and, again
as it was mentioned in our opening comments, it is very
critical now more than ever in the ethics of government and
government employees. So we appreciate what you have done in
the past and we look forward to working with you in the future.
And today we are going to hear from our Director, Marilyn
Glynn, the Acting Director of the Office of Government Ethics.
Again, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF MARILYN GLYNN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
GOVERNMENT ETHICS
Ms. Glynn. I definitely appreciate the opportunity for
speaking today. Chairman Porter, Ranking Member Davis and
Representative Schmidt, I appreciate the opportunity of
speaking today. I appreciate your statements and honestly, I
can't say that I disagree with any of them. There might be a
few things here and there, but the sentiments I think are
shared by people throughout the executive branch.
I am the Acting Director of OGE, but I am also the General
Counsel. I have worked there for quite a large number of years
so I have a little bit of a memory, institutional memory of the
office.
As you mentioned, our current authorization ends at the end
of this fiscal year. We are seeking a 5-year reauthorization
along the approach of H.R. 4701 that Representative Schmidt
referenced, and in a minute I'll tell you why that timing is
important to us.
I have prepared a written statement that sets out in detail
the history of the office, and so on, so I would like to try to
keep my comments as brief as possible today and try to stay
within the 5 minutes.
We are a small agency, but we have a unique and crucial
mission. Our organic act states it succinctly that we are
created with the intention of providing the overall direction
for the prevention of conflicts of interest in the executive
branch.
We were created as part of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978, along with the IG cadre, and you know the reform efforts
that took place at that time. And Congress stated at the time
that they were looking for a central expert ethics unit in the
executive branch to provide consistency, credibility, and
oversight for preventing conflicts of interest.
As you noted, we were originally part of OPM. In 1988,
however, Congress felt that being buried in a bigger
organization of that type was not as efficient as it should
have been and they made the decision to make us a separate
agency. We have since been reauthorized four times, most
recently in 2002.
We continue to perform the important prevention functions
for which we were created. Other agencies, like the Department
of Justice and components of agencies such as the Inspectors
General, focus on enforcement of ethics rules and laws. Only
OGE has as its central function the prevention of conflicts of
interest and the promotion of high ethical standards.
And our ethics program, as you also eloquently noted, is
more than simply just another government activity. It is an
essential element in the fabric of our government. Few would
argue with the notion that the success of a democracy depends
on public confidence in the integrity of government operations,
and that is why OGE was created, to set in place policies and
programs to enhance our citizens' understanding that government
is working for them and not for special interests.
Now, let me just mention a few of our most important
functions and a couple of examples of some what I would call
recent accomplishments.
First, we play an integral role in the Presidential
appointments process. I don't want to underestimate this
because we spend a lot of time on this function. We review the
financial statements of all Presidential appointees requiring
Senate confirmation and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue
people rely on us quite heavily to determine whether incoming
appointees are going to be free from conflicts of interest.
We draft what we call ethics agreements. These are actual
written documents that incoming appointees must promise to
adhere to during their time in government, and we track their
compliance with those promises. So in a Presidential transition
year, as you can imagine, this is a major activity. But even in
a nontransition year this is a key function and we do spend a
lot of time on this activity.
For example in 2005, we reviewed and certified 1,500 forms
submitted by Presidential appointees. That includes nominees
and folks who are filing forms on an annual basis and
termination forms.
Another important aspect of our prevention program involves
the oversight of executive agencies. We conduct periodic audits
of the ethics programs at agencies to make sure they are
working well. For example, a recent audit of NIH resulted in
the issuance of new, stricter standards for NIH scientists who
were engaged in consulting activities.
A central OGE function is developing ethics policies. This
is done primarily through regulations on a wide range of
subjects that includes standards of conduct, financial
disclosure, financial conflicts of interest, post employment,
and ethics training.
Just this month, for example, we issued two rules, a final
rule streamlining and improving the confidential financial
disclosure system and then another rule, a proposed rule,
describing the standards of conduct that would apply to folks
who are coming into the government from the private sector
under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act as detailees.
In recent years--well, I should go back and say we also
provide a large body of written guidance, and we do that
through opinions to individuals who have questions. But we also
sort of proactively write memos and things of that type to
agency ethics officials to help them understand how to
interpret the ethics rules.
In recent years we have published a pretty big compendium
on post-employment rules, for example, and we also published a
book length document called a reviewer's reference. This
provides detailed guidance to agencies who are reviewing
financial disclosure forms. This kind of high quality written
guidance helps ensure consistency across the agencies on how
they interpret and enforce ethics rules.
We maintain an active outreach program to agency ethics
officials, including a desk officer system that assigns
designated OGE employees to provide prompt assistance to
specific agencies.
Training is an important part of our prevention efforts.
Our regulations require that agencies provide ethics training
to their employees. But to promote high quality training, we
develop aids ourself, such as Videos and training programs that
agencies can use.
We also conduct our own training, both for ethics officials
and sometimes for employees. This year, for example, we expect
to train approximately 2,300 ethics officials over the course
of about 70 sessions on various topics.
In addition to these additional programmatic functions, we
are uniquely positioned to focus on emerging ethics issues. For
example, we recently issued reports on the effectiveness of the
criminal conflict of interest laws and on the financial
disclosure law, including recommendations for improvement, and
to draw attention to new ethics issues that may emerge from the
government's increasing use of contract personal OGE testified
before the Services Acquisition Advisory Panel and participated
in a working group of the National Academy of Public
Administration.
Another emerging issue involves the ethics issues that
arise during a response to emergencies. So earlier this year we
organized a conference of ethics officials to develop best
practices and how they address the ethics issues that come up
during an event such as a Hurricane Katrina.
Finally, I want to note that OGE works hard to maintain an
effective relationship with the enforcement community,
including agency Inspectors General and the Department of
Justice.
As an example, we advise IGs on the ethics laws and rules
and how they might apply in specific investigations. We
maintain a close liaison with the Public Integrity Section of
the Criminal Division at DOJ and the Office of Legal Counsel.
This helps ensure consistent guidance on the application of the
conflict of interest laws.
Now I think what I have just described gives you a good
idea of who we are at OGE and what we do. I urge you to
consider the importance of our mission, which I think I have
already demonstrated that we do, and the significant activities
we carry out with a relatively small budget.
As the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure, and OGE has been very successful, I think, in
delivering that ounce of prevention.
Now I would be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Glynn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.012
Mr. Porter. Thank you for your testimony. Before we go on
to the questions section, I would like to know, Mr. Van Hollen,
any opening statement you would like to make at this time?
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to get to
the questions as soon as possible. Just to underline my support
for your work at OGE and instead of even considering any
weakening of OGE and the resources we provide to OGE, I think
the current climate and recent events throughout Washington are
testimony to the fact that we need to make sure we strengthen
our ethics laws and our ethics oversight. And I have a number
of questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
I guess just a couple of things before we get into the
questions, more of a comment. I think we need to strengthen our
ethics rules and regulations and enforcement. I understand you
are not in the enforcement end, but could you maybe walk us
through the process? Let's say I am an applicant or I am going
to have to go before an appointment hearing in the Senate or
considering an appointment. Can you walk us through how that
process works?
Ms. Glynn. Sure. If you are talking about senior officials,
Presidential appointees, obviously they are selected by the
White House. The first thing after they fill out those mounds
of paper that everyone complains about they come to our office,
not physically but via their financial disclosure statement.
That statement is really important because what it does, it
gives us the opportunity to kind of set the stage to get them
off on the right foot in government. We go through these
statements literally with a fine tooth comb, line by line, and
we communicate either with the appointee or the nominee
directly or their attorney or an accountant or the agency where
this person would go, and we highlight all the things that
create problems, conflicts of interest or impartiality
concerns.
We are not that popular, frankly, with this group because
we require a lot of divestitures, a lot of recusal, and
resignations from positions. So people tend to have to turn
their lives upside down when they come into the executive
branch in government, and we are the body that is in place to
make sure that it happens.
As I say, they, all this is sort of consolidated into a
written document called the ethics agreement, which they sign
or the agency signs in a letter to our office, and then we
transmit that entire package to the Senate committee that is
considering the nomination and they take that into account in
deciding whether to confirm the person.
Once they are in the position, they have 90 days to comply
with all these promises they made in this ethics agreement, and
we track each person carefully. They need to get actual written
extensions of time if they have some reason why they can't
comply, but the overwhelming majority comply promptly if not
sooner than the 90 days.
Then after they are in their position I would say a lot of
the responsibility for this nominee shifts over to the agency
ethics official, who is the person designated for spearheading
that ethics effort at that agency. And that person presumably
works with the appointee on a frequent basis to advise them.
They only come back to our office after that, once again as
a form, because they file financial disclosure forms every
year. And then when they leave government we do carefully once
again review those forms and we are required to certify them.
If we are not satisfied we don't certify them. And once again
we make people take steps to make changes if there are
problems.
So that is kind of the life cycle of a nominee. They are
also required to have annual ethics training, but their agency
does that training for them. We see our job more as training
the trainers. In other words, I think I mentioned in my oral
statement that we are training 2,300 ethics officials this year
at 70 sessions. So our job is to make sure that this army of
ethics officials understands the advice that they need to be
giving to their appointees.
Now for an average employee, a person that is not a
Presidential appointee, the majority of those do not file
financial disclosure forms although, honestly, 260,000 Federal,
mid-level Federal employees file financial forms that are
confidential. They are not made available to the public. And
those folks get an initial ethics orientation when they come
into government, and then they are on the receiving end of
ethics training. But I would say that they probably don't get
the same hands-on attention that the top level people would get
for obvious reasons. I think that the top level people who are
more in the public's eye are those that are most likely to be
scrutinized carefully by the media and others. So those are the
ones we are most concerned that don't take any missteps.
Mr. Porter. Are there any things that you would suggest
that would give more teeth to the process, to give you more
authority? And by the way, I don't hear complaints and I
appreciate the job that you do, and you should be commended.
But are there some things that you would suggest as we look
to the future that would improve your ability to be a larger
part of this process?
Ms. Glynn. I honestly believe that the process is working
pretty well right now. I don't believe that there are many
unresolved conflicts of interest or instances of unethical
conduct in the executive branch that go unpunished.
We do have currently so-called corrective action authority
that allows us to actually hold a hearing if an agency or an
individual at an agency refuses to comply on an ongoing basis
with some direction in effect that we have given them, and we
have never had to use it. I think we have a little bit of the
power of the bully pulpit. We can call very high level folks at
the agency, all the way up to a Secretary's office or an
Administrator's office, and say, so and so on your staff is
doing thus and such and it needs to stop. And it stops
immediately. We do not find pushback from agencies. So I am not
sure that there is a need to particularly strengthen our role.
Since every agency has an Inspector General, there is a
body in place already to investigate allegations of actual
misconduct, and I am not sure that having us duplicate that
function would really make sense. So we are----
Mr. Porter. If you find something then you turn it over to
the IG. Then the next time if you find a problem----
Ms. Glynn. Yes.
Mr. Porter [continuing]. That is not correctable, I assume?
Ms. Glynn. Yes, that is true. Well, let me put it this way.
If it is something that rises to the level of potential
criminal violation we would refer it to the Department of
Justice, to the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal
Division.
If it is not something of that type, if it is more in the
sort of fuzzy, gray ethical area, we would then talk to the
Inspector General. And if it is a really fuzzy area we just go
directly to the agency ethics official. I would say, for
example, in any given week I make about three phone calls to
agencies based on articles I read in the paper about certain
things that may have happened. And of course as we all know,
the papers are not necessarily always right on target.
But it is a common practice for us to call agencies and
say, can you look into this and report back to us? And they
always do. I can't think of a case where they haven't responded
appropriately.
Mr. Porter. Maybe you can check into some of the papers,
too, at the same time to make sure that they are saying
everything properly. I am saying that in jest.
Ms. Glynn. I know you are, but just as an aside I can't
tell you how many times we have written to the Washington Post
asking them to correct certain things that they have written
and they never do.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Glynn, do you know how many Presidential appointees
require financial confirmation?
Ms. Glynn. 1,100. 1,100, thereabouts. That is a rough----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Roughly 1,100 of those.
The chairman mentioned in his opening statement some
question relative to the possibility--or some people believe or
think that it might make sense to rejoin the function with
another agency. Of course there are others who think that its
independent status is absolutely essential.
Do you have a position?
Ms. Glynn. Yes, I do. I don't favor folding us into another
agency for some of the reasons that we spelled out in our
written testimony.
Honestly, I think history shows that being buried in a
bigger organization really diminishes the importance of the
function and it sort of suggests that it is just another
government program.
I also think that I would be a little concerned about
hampering with the independence of the Director of the office.
I think our agency, while small but mighty, has a good
reputation for independence. In the time that I have been
there, which is about 15 years, I don't recall us ever being
accused of acting on the basis of partisan, any kind of
political partisanship, and I think that is a very, very
important quality that needs to be recognized.
Honestly, I think if this agency ever were to become
politicized then I would have to agree, I think it should be
abolished because I think it wouldn't be performing a useful
function.
But having it independent--although it is not truly
independent of course, the Director reports to the President--
but having it independent of another agency I think ensures
somewhat that we wouldn't fall into any kind of partisan
political squabbles and, in particular, I think if we were to
be merged into an enforcement oriented agency such as the
Department of Justice, I would be very concerned that the kind
of preventive activities that we consider important would be
sort of lost in that sexier and more glamorous activity of
prosecution. I would think it would be a mistake to do that.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. There are always those who attempt
to make cases on the basis of cost efficiency and
effectiveness. Do you think that the preventive nature of the
agency is such that it really diminishes the notion? Because it
seems to me that if you prevent something from happening, then
you don't have to go through all of the other processes of what
to do about it, and it would actually be more cost effective in
the long run to keep the agency independent than to be able to
make the case that if it was some place else you might save a
bit of money.
Ms. Glynn. I wish I could prove that with statistics, but I
do believe that, as I said, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. I would think that a single criminal prosecution
would be vastly more expensive than some kind of a training
effort directed at thousands of employees, and hopefully we
could keep the vast majority of those thousands of employees
out of trouble through a training effort.
As far as the cost effectiveness of rolling us into another
agency, I have to question whether $11 million truly would be
saved. Our budget for fiscal year 2007 is $11.4 I think, and
unless we were to truly abolish all the functions all that
money couldn't be saved. I guess I would have to concede, and I
certainly don't want to quibble, that we would probably be able
to save on some administrative costs because we wouldn't need
to have our own IT people, let's say, or our own administrative
officer. But I am not sure that if we wanted to continue these
preventive activities whether we would really truly save that
much.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Can you think of one instance,
without divulging any information, where you could pretty
concretely suggest that a preventive action had occurred that
probably saved the government some money?
Ms. Glynn. Honestly, I could probably name hundreds of
them. Particularly when a top level official gets in trouble
for some kind of misconduct, we all know what happens in
Washington. The media descends like herpes essentially on this
person, and the agency's Public Affairs Program and Office of
General Counsel spends essentially all their time in trying to
explain why this happened, and so on. Really very good people
who come into government with good motivation and a lot of
talent sometimes get sidetracked by some small ethical misstep,
and then the attention of the entire agency is devoted to
explaining why this misstep wasn't as bad as it really seems.
As far as a concrete example is concerned, I can think of a
case--we see a lot of the issues come up on financial
disclosure forms, of course, because people have outside
activities and outside associations that need to be dealt with
and addressed.
I can think of a situation where a person was--once again
this was a Presidential appointee--was very reluctant to sell
certain stock and to get out of a certain company and divest
interest in that company, and we insisted that this person do
that. And that company turned out to be Enron, and that person
turned out to be in a position that had some governmental
involvement with Enron. So I think that is a concrete example.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much and thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I know I went a bit over but
I appreciate it.
Ms. Schmidt. Yes, thank you. First off, reaction to the
$11.4 million in your budget. Even if you were to be placed
into another department or agency, you would still have to have
an operating budget to process all of the volumes of activity,
so the savings would not be in moving it over just in one or
two positions, am I correct?
Ms. Glynn. Oh, absolutely. As I say, if we want to really
continue these functions focused on prevention, really, I think
all we would lose is our administrative staff, which is--there
would be a savings there but I think we would be talking more
in the realm of----
Ms. Schmidt. Pennies compared to when you are talking $11
million, your savings would be far less?
Ms. Glynn. Yes, I agree.
Ms. Schmidt. I guess what I would like to hear, what have
been the major accomplishments of OGE since its independence
from OPM?
Ms. Glynn. Once it was made independent from OPM, the then
President Bush signed an Executive order which more or less
vastly increased our responsibilities. He charged us with
drafting a comprehensive code of conduct for the entire
executive branch which there had never really been anything of
that type before. That was a very big project and we did that
in a timely way, and it has been, I think, a good exercise.
He also charged us in an Executive order with drafting
regulations interpreting criminal conflict of interest laws,
post-employment laws, and we have done all that. Those are all
major accomplishments of the office.
It has been really a very useful exercise because finally
the various agencies are all kind of on the same page to the
extent possible in interpreting these laws.
What I think is another big accomplishment is that we
established this agency audit function. This means we go into
agencies, we do right now, with our current staffing, about 35
a year, and we actually examine how well their ethics programs
are operating. As I mentioned in my oral testimony, a good
example of that is the NIH and involving the problems of NIH a
couple of years ago. There was a certain preventive effect in
having those audits because when the agency knows we are coming
in then they all rush around and that is when they start
putting resources toward the programs.
So it is actually quite a useful thing. I think we have
done a very good job with those agency audits. I think we have
done a decent job with our training program as well.
But we are now moving into a new era, and I wanted to
emphasize something that I mentioned in my oral testimony and I
think is in my statement, too, and that is that we are seeing,
as we all know, an increasing use of contractors as more or
less substitutes for government employees, and I think this is
really the big issue that we need to address next. I think
there is going to be concern raised that contractor personnel
who function more or less as employees sitting in government
agency buildings side by side with real--when I say real
government employees, you know what I mean--and yet they are
not held to the same level of accountability as employees are.
And I think we need to get on top of this question. And I am
not suggesting that I know the answer, and I am not suggesting
that I think they need to be subject to the whole panoply of
rules that regular employees are subject to, but I think we
ought to start addressing the question and deciding for
purposes of ensuring confidence in government that our
contractor employees are also held to high ethical standards.
So that is our next--on my watch anyway--our next big
project.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you. And one final question, how would
you describe the current state of ethics in the executive
branch, and what is your basis for this assessment?
Ms. Glynn. I think it is pretty good. We do a survey of
agencies every year and ask them how many disciplinary actions
they take against employees for violation of ethics rules. Now
I wish I could swear to the accuracy of this, but this is
information reported by the agencies, so you know I can't. But
what we found is that consistently the overwhelming majority of
violations occur with misuse of property and time. You know the
kind that, I don't want to say penny ante things but the
smaller things, sort of taking a piece of paper home, small
things, wasting time on government time. As far as significant
violations of things like criminal laws and having conflicting
financial interests, those kinds of violations reported to us
are barely in the hundreds every year. And we do a prosecution
survey every year. We go to the Department of Justice and all
the individual U.S. Attorney's offices and ask them to report
to us the prosecutions that they have each year. And I would
say it is usually in the 15 to 25 range. So considering there
are almost 3 million executive branch employees, I think we are
doing pretty well.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you.
Mr. Porter. When working with the GAO study I would like to
include the contract portion and your recommendation.
Ms. Glynn. I would welcome that.
Mr. Porter. I think it is critical that they be held to as
high a standard, if not higher in some cases, but I certainly
would appreciate as we work together on that to include that in
the GAO report.
Ms. Glynn. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that would
be very helpful because there is a lack of data right now on
exactly how many contractors there are and what they are doing
and if GAO could assist us in gathering data of that type I
think that would be extremely useful.
Mr. Porter. Thank you. Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms.
Glynn, for your testimony. I agree with respect to the
contractors because you said you have Federal employees sitting
right next to Federal contractors doing in many cases similar
work, and it makes no sense to have different sets of ethics
rules applying to them both. They should both be held to the
high standard. So I would encourage all of us to work together
toward that end.
The full committee, the full Government Reform Committee,
back in February had a hearing on various ethics issues in the
government and the result of that was actually a piece of
legislation that was introduced by the chairman of the full
committee, Tom Davis. Mr. Waxman and I was the cosponsor which
later I believe unanimously passed the full committee, and part
of that gave additional responsibility actually to the OGE.
Have you had a chance to look at that bill?
Ms. Glynn. I have, I am familiar with it. I have some
concerns about that bill. As far as the additional
responsibilities for OGE, I think it is evident that we
couldn't do it with our current staffing and budget, so we
would be begging for more money. That goes without saying. But
beyond that aspect of it, which I know seems a little
parochial, I have concerns with two major things or maybe
three.
One is there is some overlap in that bill with existing
provisions in criminal law, and I think there is a potential
for some confusion among employees, were the bill to be passed,
about which law applies in which situation.
The second thing I am somewhat concerned about is the fact
that it would call for current employees to keep a record of
all contacts made to them by folks outside the government and I
honestly----
Mr. Van Hollen. By employees covered by the bill I believe
not every, but certain, depending on their level of
responsibility.
Ms. Glynn. Of responsibility, that is right. But I think
some thought needs to be given to how practical that really
would be and whether changes, exceptions need to be made for
common sense situations.
I understand that it is addressed at lobbying type
communications made to government officials. But as drafted, it
is considerably broader than that.
And finally, this is my own major concern with the bill,
and that is the cooling, I guess what I would call a reverse
cooling off period that would require folks who come from
certain industries for, I think it is 2 years, from
participating in government matters, affecting or involving
that industry.
I think that would be very difficult. I think we would have
trouble getting the experts that we need in certain agencies,
scientists and securities experts and things of that type.
So honestly I think it needs a little massaging.
Mr. Van Hollen. I appreciate the comments and maybe it
would be helpful for all of us if you could put some of these
suggestions in writing if you have the opportunity to do that.
Ms. Glynn. Yes. If I can get clearance from the Office of
Management and Budget, I will.
Mr. Van Hollen. You don't have any objection to the other
cooling off period; in other words, if you are a Federal
employee and you are doing business with somebody and part of
your responsibilities involved overseeing someone in the
private sector, that you would have a 2-year cooling off period
before you left government service and----
Ms. Glynn. We issued----
Mr. Van Hollen [continuing]. Started lobbying the same
government agency that you were----
Ms. Glynn. Right. It is the extension of. There is a
current 1-year cooling off period. This would extend to 2
years. We have a report on the criminal conflict of interest
laws that we just issued January of this year in which we do
not endorse that provision. We think that the current
restrictions are sufficient, but I can't say that it
particularly troubles me if that bill were to pass.
Mr. Van Hollen. And who is it that made that
recommendation?
Ms. Glynn. Our office.
Mr. Van Hollen. Against the 2 years. OK, let me ask you
with respect to waiver authority, because as I understand the
situation now, if you wanted to get a waiver from, for example,
the 1-year cooling off period, you don't come through your
office, you go through the office--or the provisions that
prevents you from negotiating, outside employment----
Ms. Glynn. It is that. It is that. It is that.
Mr. Van Holland. Outside employment at the same time you
are in a job. Those are important provisions, wouldn't you
agree?
Ms. Glynn. Yes.
Mr. Van Hollen. But the waiver right now as I understand it
your office has no oversight--you provide guidance but you
don't provide direct, you don't have the sign-off?
Ms. Glynn. We don't have the sign-off authority. By
Executive order agencies are supposed to consult with us as
practicable.
Mr. Van Hollen. One of the provisions in this bill that
this committee passed would give you some centralized sign-off
authority to provide uniformity. Do you have any objection to
that?
Ms. Glynn. Honestly I am not sure if we are in the best
position to make the decisions, but it may be a tempest in a
teapot because these waivers for negotiating employment are
extremely rare. And I know which ones, I know which waiver
prompted this provision to be put into the bill. But honestly
very few agencies issue waivers. It may have been a kind of
unique situation. So while I am not sure that it is a necessary
provision, I don't think that the workload for OGE would be
that great because these waivers are hardly ever issued anyway.
Mr. Van Hollen. If I could, Mr. Chairman, and again this is
testimony that was given before the full committee at the time
that we were considering these issues back in February from
Public Citizen, who pointed out that at the Department of
Health and Human Services in a period of time from January 2000
to 2004 there were 37 requests for waivers, all 37 were
granted. That is in one agency.
And as you point out, there was one that was particularly
controversial because Tom Scully, who at the time was the head
of CMS, as you know, was given the authority by the then
Secretary of the Department, Secretary Thompson, to negotiate
an employment contract with a number of entities at the same
time that had an interest in the prescription drug bill, the
pharmaceutical bill before the Congress and before the
administration. And at the same time he was the head of CMS
which, as you know, is an agency with a direct interest as
well.
Ms. Glynn. Hmm-hmm.
Mr. Van Hollen. It seems to me, and I don't know why,
assuming you had the resources to do it, why it doesn't make
sense to have one entity make decisions with respect to
granting waivers so this is not done on a political basis, so
it is done in a uniform manner, and that everybody knows what
the rules are and everyone is playing by one set of rules.
Ms. Glynn. I mean, the argument against having it come to
OGE is that we are not really close to the facts. So using Mr.
Scully as an example, we would have to kind of do a little mini
investigation to figure out exactly what is he involved in,
what are the hot issues in the Medicare program. Those are
things we would not normally know.
I am not saying we can't do it. I am not sure that it needs
to come to us because of the rarity of these waivers to begin
with. And in that particular case I have to say that I think
the government, the executive branch as a whole, took very
swift and decisive action in response to it. Our office put out
a memo right after that explaining why we think these waivers
are a bad idea and reminding agencies that they are supposed to
consult with us on them, which they did not in that case by the
way, as well as the White House put out a memo saying that for
Presidential appointees any such waiver also had to be cleared
through the White House Counsel's Office.
Mr. Van Hollen. That is now administration policy and that
could change. I thought you made a good argument about the need
for the independence for OGE and not folding it into another
agency, and so I find it a little bit contradictory to say,
well, in cases of waivers it is OK if those are made within an
agency when I think it probably would make sense from an ethics
point of view to have an independent agency, such as yourself,
make that review for the same reasons you said it was important
to maintain the independence of the agency. Otherwise you have
people within an agency making decisions about waivers for
other individuals within that same agency and, looking at the
data, and maybe all 37 cases were good but 37 out of 37,
especially since Scully was one of them, everybody recognizes
this was a case that should not have been granted. It seems to
me an independent review on a centralized uniform basis makes
sense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Porter. Thank you. I am going to have another round of
questions here in a moment, but Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton is
here and would like to make an opening comment.
Ms. Norton. I am sorry I wasn't here to hear your entire
testimony. Just following my colleague's concern, I heard you,
and I can understand what you are talking about, we are not--
the notion of independence for me is really not to have
somebody do a--how would we say it in the law--a de novo
review. It is much more like appellate, it is much more like
fresh eyes to break it down.
I am concerned about notification of somebody who can ask
questions. They may not have the background, as you I think
quite rightly say, to do the review because knowledge of the
underlying issues are important here. And I am not sure I would
want you to go through that so long as the staff knew the
kind--and here one doesn't have to know a thing about the
agency, not a thing, in order to ask questions that could rise,
that could bring issues to the top, which might otherwise not
be flagged. But that of course requires that every time there
is a waiver there is a mandatory opportunity for your office to
give that kind of fresh eyed look and that you are given the
opportunity to raise those questions and that it is required of
the agency to respond to those questions within a period of
time before the waiver is granted.
I am not certain whether that is in the legislation, I mean
whether those steps are specifically included in the
legislation, but, Mr. Chairman, that would be my concern. Could
you indicate to me whether those are in the legislation or if
you have any difficulty with any of that?
Ms. Glynn. I think the point you made is very well taken
about the benefit of our office being involved is that we can
point out things that others haven't thought of. And in
particular one of the things that we stress now on these waiver
consultations is that we tell agencies what other agencies are
doing. They are not uniform at all. Some agencies are very free
with waivers. Others are not. And I am not talking about
waivers for negotiating for employment. I am just talking about
waivers generally.
We try to not impose a sense of uniformity here, but we try
to get agencies to understand the kinds of things that other
agencies are taking into account so that they can sort of
improve their thinking on the process.
Now, if what you believe needs to be done is that after
that whole consultation is done that we still need to be the
issuing entity, as I say, for waivers for negotiating an
employment, that wouldn't concern me terribly. I think it would
be a little bit of a workload, but not so much that it would be
debilitating because there aren't many of those waivers. If we
were talking about waivers from the criminal conflict of
interest law generally, then we would have a huge problem,
because the criminal conflict of interest law is extremely
broad and very prophylactic and waivers for stock holdings and
things of that sort are issued by some agencies routinely and
if we had to be sign-off authority on every single one of those
we would be in trouble.
Ms. Norton. I am also less concerned about the bureaucracy.
I understand the piling on of regulations. I believe in, I
believe that government should regulate things and I believe
that we do a disservice if we just make it so hard to regulate
and people say what the hell in the first place. I am really, I
am looking for what concerns me, and frankly, the issuance is
of less concern to me.
And I don't speak for anyone but myself. What is of concern
to me, though, is that the fresh eyes again speak in, I think,
terms that I think everybody can understand, that the concerns
that were raised, the questions were raised be written down
somewhere, that the answers be written down somewhere. And here
I am not talking about a transcript, and that we have a written
understanding that these issues were ever raised.
Now, if somebody wants to go ahead, after you have raised
the flag, you know, at their own peril, I really wonder if
they'd do that. Let me tell you what my overall concern is. My
concern is less for straight out violations of the kind we
seldom see. It's the extent to which we have lost our way on
appearance. When you're a first year law student, you learn
that violations of the law are rare, but lawyers are held to a
higher standard. Government officials are held to a higher
standard than whether or not you've done something crooked.
Because you have the public trust in your hands, the
standard is how does this appear. Because if it does not appear
to be straight, then, of course, confidence in that, not only
you, but in government, is lost. So for me, this is, an agency
might well not see the appearances problem. The agency knows
exactly what this person is going to be doing and they know
good and well it doesn't involve any conflict, and that may be
quite beside the point. When you raise issues, I take it that
appearances are as important as violations.
Ms. Glynn. Well, we've certainly raised the appearance
question. I think that everyone commonly calls that the
``Washington Post Test,'' that if it's something that you
wouldn't want seen written in the paper about you the next day,
then you better think twice about doing it. We actually have a
rule that narrows that test quite a bit, and what we say is if
a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would
question your impartiality, then you shouldn't do it. We always
raise those issues with people. We might say, legally you can
do this, but do you really want to? Is this a good idea? So I
think your point is well taken.
Ms. Norton. I like your Washington Post rule. I think that
somehow gets the point across. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Porter. You know, I mentioned earlier about the GAO
being involved over a period of time and a short window of
time. But also, I am convinced that we must reauthorize it as
soon as possible. And I certainly have an open mind as to the
changes. It appears to me, from the short time I have had to
look at this, that things are working quite well. And again, I
applaud you for that.
Under the assumption of the reauthorization, I would like
to work closer in the reauthorization bill on the contract
issue, which means there is a shorter window of time. I would
like to work with you soon so we can and provide some language
to at least start that process. I think it's critical.
Ms. Glynn. Sir, I would beg you not to make the
reauthorization go to 2009, because that is the first year
after a Presidential election, and honestly, we're a madhouse
that year.
Mr. Porter. Well, we would like to help you and not hurt
you, because by helping you, it helps the government, and helps
our country. So I would like to work with you on those issues.
Also, if there is anything we should or could be doing to help
streamline the process, I know we have talked about maybe
expanding your role within some of your suggestions, if there
are certain areas. But also we would like to streamline, there
are some processes that you think that we could do to help you
do your job better. I think now is a good time for that also.
Are there a few things that you would suggest?
Ms. Glynn. We issued a report March 2005 with a long
laundry list of recommendations for streamlining financial
disclosure. It is a difficult issue because the financial
disclosure law, of course, applies to all three branches of
government, and then the question naturally comes up, should
these streamlining measures apply to all three branches or only
to the executive branch. The administration's position is that
they should apply to all three branches, but our
recommendations would significantly, we think, improve the
information required to be reported by fewer categories and so
on. That would be something we would be very focused on.
We are also trying to work with the Department of the Army
on developing an electronic financial disclosure system, both
for our public forums and our confidential forums. They're the
ones with the money, so they're the ones that can develop the
system for the executive branch, and we are moving along quite
well with them. They've got it as a pilot project right now
within the Army, and they are expanding it to other parts of
DOD. Those are the two areas that we have identified as
needing, particularly in need of streamlining. The actual
information required to be disclosed on financial disclosure,
as well as the method of reporting it, electronic versus paper.
Mr. Porter. I understand we have spent some time on the
financial reporting, and I would like to spend a moment on the
training the trainer and the ethics training. Is there
consistency throughout the government, or does everyone do
something a little bit different?
Ms. Glynn. Everybody does something a little bit
differently as far as format. Some people use on-line training
have computers essentially. Some people like to use the video
because it's cute and it's entertaining. Some people like only
the stand-up presentation where you can answer questions
directly from the audience at that time. So each agency does
their training a little bit differently and actually, within
agencies they vary it.
But the content, of course, hopefully is going to all be
the same because the rules are essentially all the same for all
agencies. We feel that we can assist agencies by providing some
sort of templates in training that they can use. Typically
agencies though want to add on with examples of situations that
might come up at that agency to make it seem more real to the
employees hearing the training. So we focus more of our efforts
on training the trainers and trying to get the right
information to them so that when they develop their own
training, they're delivering the right information.
Mr. Porter. Your ethics training is not limited to just
financial training, correct?
Ms. Glynn. Oh, no, no, no, no. Gifts, misuse of position,
financial interest post employment, any one of the areas that
our laws and rules cover.
Mr. Porter. Thank you. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Glynn, I know it pretty much hurts you to even think this
way, but if you had an additional million dollars, I mean, you
have a budget of $11 million, if you had an additional $1
million, how would you use it? What would you do with it?
Ms. Glynn. If it were up to me, I don't think the
additional million would be enough to work out this electronic
filing issue. And as I say, we are using, partnering with the
Army to do that. So I would put it into training. I would use
more money to get sort of higher quality training, more
interesting on-line stuff. You know, today's employee
population grew up on TV and video games and things of that
type. And it's an ever increasing problem to keep people's
attention. And so we need expert help in developing training
that's cute and glitzy to get people's attention. That's where
I would use the million dollars.
Mr. Davis. You know, I was thinking pretty much along the
same lines as I tried to think of what one could actually do
with that amount of resources, so I would certainly be in
agreement with you.
The things that we mostly see, are many of them criminal in
nature? Or are they really oversight kinds of things or
sometimes the lack of understanding or a lack of recognition? I
mean, is there much criminality, have you seen?
Ms. Glynn. No. I would say the kinds of missteps that we
see are overwhelmingly technical, first of all, and certainly
not criminal, but more in that grayer ethics area. The vast
majority of government employees are folks who want to do the
best job that they can do and are devoted to upholding high
ethical standards. And I am talking about people in the highest
level to the lowest level in government. I am talking about
political appointees, career appointees.
Most people, the vast majority of people want to do the
right thing, but some of our rules and laws are complicated and
not all of them are entirely intuitive and they need a little
help to understand what to do. So the mistakes we see are often
merely technical mistakes, no venality at all.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. You know, I am so pleased to
actually hear that, because I think there is becoming such a
high level of cynicism on the part of many people in the
general public who continue to lose confidence in government
overall, and just don't believe that government is moving in
the direction of honesty of integrity, of fairness, of fair
play, and there is this mythical feeling that underneath it
all, there is the wheeling and the dealing and the
manipulation, and so it really warms my heart to hear you say
that it is not criminality or criminal intent that we often
see, but it is, in fact, technical oversight, it is mistakes
that people make or it is not knowing, and training certainly
could go a long ways toward that. So I thank you very much for
your appearance. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Porter. I think that Mr. Davis would do a good job with
some of your training.
Ms. Glynn. He would.
Mr. Porter. Adding some glitz.
Ms. Glynn. I think he's very dynamic.
Mr. Porter. Actually, the words he said, I'd like to
reiterate. We are very fortunate in the Federal Government to
have some of the best, the brightest, most honest work force in
the country, and it's really refreshing to hear what you've had
to say. Congresswoman.
Ms. Norton. No questions.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Just to followup a little bit on the
legislation we were talking about earlier. I just want to make
it clear that the provisions that are in the bill with respect
to providing OGE with the oversight responsibility on
negotiations relates to the area where we're talking about,
which is people negotiating outside employment. It does not
apply to the other areas, which I agree that would be a huge
workload. And we've already talked about the fact that you have
fairly limited resources and we need to work on that.
Let me ask you a question with regard to the disclosure of
lobbying activities. We talked very briefly, referred to the
provision in the bill on that. But under current law, as I
understand it, if someone's lobbying, at least certain
individuals in the executive branch on a certain level, they do
file disclosure requirements, but they do that, I believe, with
the House and the Senate; is that right?
Ms. Glynn. That's right. Although I don't even want to talk
about it because I am not an expert in that. I'm afraid I'll
make a misstatement. We don't really get involved in lobbying
disclosure at all, so I'm not even sure how often the reports
have to be filed.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. Well one question that's been raised is
No. 1, whether lobbyists really understand that, they have that
responsibility, No. 1. No. 2, whether it makes better sense
with respect to people who are lobbying the executive branch
that they file that kind of information with your office. And I
understand the resource limitations. I'm not asking you to
accept a lot of work without, on the existing budget. But it
just seems to me in terms of coordinating this information and
making, you know, available to the public and encouraging more
disclosure and more sunshine on activities, it might make sense
to have that low lobbying disclosure requirement be filed in
the executive branch instead of with Members of Congress.
You said that you were, or I guess the OGE had made certain
recommendations with respect to the legislation that was
introduced. I thought you did. I wasn't clear. What group was
it that made--you said you looked at these recommendations.
Ms. Glynn. We looked at them, but we have not made--the
administration has not made official recommendations, no.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. That's what I was going to ask you. I
mean, the administration, for example, is not, let me just make
sure I understand correctly, I don't want to mischaracterize
your testimony. They are not opposed to a 2-year ban on
people's future, people who are within the administration, on
their ability to leave the administration and come back and
lobby.
Ms. Glynn. I cannot speak for the administration on that.
As I say, our own view in OGE has been in the past that we
don't particularly favor that, although personally, it doesn't,
you know, it doesn't trouble me personally, Marilyn Glynn. But
I can't speak for the administration on that. We have not
submitted an official comment yet on that bill.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. OGE, is one of its responsibilities to
review legislation and provide comment on it?
Ms. Glynn. That's right.
Mr. Van Hollen. In other words, will the Congress be
receiving official comment from OGE?
Ms. Glynn. That's up to OMB.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. That's their decision. All right. Well,
I encourage you to look, I think it's an important piece of
legislation, obviously, as with every piece of legislation, you
know, changes can be made, and it's important for us to get
your input on that. But I do think that, especially in the
current climate, which I think we have seen the results of, I
think a lobbying sort of culture that's gotten out of control,
and the failure of Members of Congress and Congress to hold
itself accountable, that your organization is critical.
I think its independence is critical. And I think it needs
to be strengthened in a number of ways, as do I think the
oversight of Congress and its own oversight with respect to
these also. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Porter. Again, I appreciate your being here today Ms.
Glynn. You have done a very good job answering our questions.
Ms. Glynn. Thank you for asking me.
Mr. Porter. Just in summary, we would like to work with you
very soon on the reauthorization portion regarding the
contractors, what you think we should do, maybe some
streamlining to help you process and maybe additional
technology, if necessary. And the training portion, if there's
things that we can do, first, we will get Mr. Davis as part of
your training film.
Ms. Glynn. Yeah. To be on our team.
Mr. Porter. But again, I think my colleague has said it
well. You have a very important role, a critical role, and I
believe that the independence is important. I would like to
take a look at GAO perspective, any additional suggestions, but
I would like to compliment you on work you have done and we are
counting on you, because it is a very important part of the
process.
Ms. Glynn. Thank you. I appreciate your kind comments.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Porter. The meeting's adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jean Schmidt and additional
information submitted for the hearing record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2968.039