[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8738-S8740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 429, H.R. 3235.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3235) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978, to extend the authorization of appropriations for the 
     Office of Government Ethics for three years, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass H.R. 3235, the 
Office of Government Ethics [OGE] Authorization Act of 1996. OGE was 
created by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide overall 
direction to the executive branch in developing policies to prevent 
conflicts of interest and ensure ethical conduct by executive branch 
officers and employees.
  Senator Levin and I have long been proponents of strong ethics laws. 
We serve as the chairman and the ranking minority member on the 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the District of 
Columbia

[[Page S8739]]

which has jurisdiction over ethics matters within the executive branch. 
Senator Levin and I have made many changes to strengthen the ethics 
laws since OGE was created. We authored the Independent Counsel 
provisions of the Ethics in Government Act which provides for the 
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate allegations of 
criminal wrongdoing by top level executive branch officials, and we 
worked together to strengthen the revolving door and lobbying 
disclosure laws.
  Last year, I, along with Senator Levin, introduced S. 699, a bill to 
reauthorize OGE. The bill was reported out of the subcommittee with no 
amendments and approved by the full Committee on Governmental Affairs 
last August. It is nearly identical to legislation which passed the 
Senate last Congress.
  The legislation makes a number of technical changes to the ethics 
laws and, for the first time, grants OGE gift acceptance authority to 
address the problem that arises when Federal Government facilities are 
not adequate either in terms of size or equipment resources to 
accommodate OGE's ethics education and training programs which are held 
around the country. This authority is intended to enable OGE to accept 
the use of certain non-Federal facilities, such as an auditorium that 
might be offered by a State or local government or a university, which 
may be better suited for OGE's needs.
  Federal agencies are not permitted to accept gifts unless they have 
specific statutory authority to do so. While OGE has not had this 
authority in the past, 23 agencies and departments do have some type of 
gift acceptance authority. The bill requires the Director of OGE to 
establish written rules to govern the exercise of this authority to 
safeguard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts 
in the acceptance of gifts.
  Currently, other agencies that have gift acceptance authority do not 
have to prescribe regulations governing its use. While other agencies 
would not be required to follow the example of OGE's regulations in 
making their own determinations about their gift authority, OGE's 
regulations would provide useful guidance to other agencies.

  OGE has been without an authorization since September 30, 1994, when 
the previous authorization expired. In April, Congressman Canady, 
Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, introduced a bill very 
similar to the legislation Senator Levin and I introduced. In an effort 
to complete action on this measure as quickly as possible, my staff has 
been working with Congressman Canady's staff. I am pleased to say that 
Senator Levin and I support H.R. 3235, the reauthorization bill which 
has come over from the House.
  There are a few differences between the bill that is before us today 
and the bill Senator Levin and I introduced last year. I would like to 
take a few minutes to outline these differences for my colleagues. 
First, the House bill reauthorizes OGE for 3 years opposed to the 7 
years proposed in the Senate bill. While OGE has been reauthorized for 
5 or 6 years in previous years, the House felt this was too long. The 3 
year authorization continues to ensure that reauthorization does not 
occur during the first year of a Presidential term when a large portion 
of OGE's resources are devoted to the nominee clearance process. I 
continue to support a longer reauthorization than what has been 
proposed by the House, and while I will not be here when OGE needs to 
be reauthorized again, I hope that the Congress will once again move 
toward a long reauthorization.
  Second, the House bill includes a provision to correct an unintended 
effect of the 1989 Ethics Reform Act with respect to the post 
employment or revolving door rules applicable to high level executive 
and legislative branch employees who leave Government to work on 
political campaigns. Under current law, senior executive and 
legislative branch employees are subject to a 1-year cooling-off period 
during which they cannot contact their former offices on behalf of 
another party. There are some exceptions to the current ban, for 
example, if a Federal employee leaves to work for a State or local 
government or for an international organization like the U.N. However, 
there is no exception for employees who leave to go work for a 
political campaign. So, if an administrative assistant or legislative 
director takes a leave of absence from a Senator's staff to work on the 
Senator's reelection campaign, the former staffer is prohibited from 
contacting the Senator or his or her staffers with the intent to 
influence official action.
  There is a consensus that the current post-employment law doesn't 
make sense as it applies to campaign work. In drafting the post-
employment rules, no one had the campaign example in mind. Moreover, 
leaving Government service to work on a campaign doesn't involve the 
kind of abuse the revolving door rules are intended to address, that 
is, individuals trading on Government information and access for 
private gain.
  In 1991, there was an effort to fix this problem by adding a new 
exception to the post employment law for staff who leave Government to 
work on campaigns. The Bush administration supported this legislation, 
and it passed the House as part of the honoraria reform bill. A 
companion amendment was circulated in the Senate, but the provision 
never became law because honoraria reform stalled in the Senate.

  The language contained in the House bill is identical to an amendment 
Senator Levin offered to the OGE bill last Congress which was passed by 
the Senate. It provides that executive and legislative branch employees 
who would otherwise be subject to the 1-year cooling-off period are not 
barred from communications with their former offices on behalf of a 
candidate, political committee, or political party. To guard against 
potential abuse of the exception or the appearance of impropriety when 
former employees represent multiple clients, such as when someone works 
for a consulting firm rather than directly for a campaign, the 
exception would apply only to individuals who work, No. 1, solely for 
candidates, campaigns, or political parties, or No. 2, for entities 
whose only clients are candidates, campaigns, or political parties. The 
exemption would not apply to FEC employees because of their duties in 
overseeing the campaign process and would go into effect when the bill 
becomes law. Therefore, an employee who left Government within the last 
year, and is still subject to the 1-year cooling off period, can take 
advantage of this exception.
  Finally, the bill addresses another unintended problem with the post 
employment restrictions. The 1-year cooling-off provisions apply to 
senior employees of the executive branch. Senior officials are defined 
as those serving in positions listed on the executive schedule, 
positions in the uniformed services ranked 07 or above, particular 
positions within the White House Office, or a position which the pay is 
equal to or greater than executive level V. This has included SES 
employees at levels five and six.
  Congress has frozen the executive level pay levels for a number of 
years. However, the pay levels for SES employees are set by the 
President through Executive order and have continued to increase. As a 
result, the pay level for SES level four employees has increased above 
the pay level of executive level V. What this means is that these SES 
level four employees will now be treated as senior executive branch 
employees and be subject to the 1-year cooling off restrictions even 
though they have not taken on any additional duties or 
responsibilities. It was not Congress' intent to have SES level four 
employees subject to these post employment restrictions. H.R. 3235 
fixes this problem by amending the statute to read that these 
restrictions will apply to SES levels five and above not executive 
level V and above.
  In closing, OGE is a small office with large responsibilities. Over 
the years, we have imposed more responsibilities on OGE and we have not 
always provided the necessary staff or resources to carry out those 
responsibilities. Specifically, I would note the additional functions 
OGE had to perform when it became an independent agency in 1989 and in 
complying with the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. Congress moved to make 
OGE a separate agency because it was believed that OGE was not 
independent enough. In addition, Congress wanted to enhance the 
agency's prestige and authority within the executive branch given its 
important and sensitive responsibilities.

[[Page S8740]]

  While OGE's budget has increased rather significantly since we last 
reauthorized the agency in 1988, OGE still has a lean budget with which 
to operate when you consider the critically important responsibilities 
of the agency. That said, in light of looming budget deficits, OGE, 
like all agencies will be called upon to meet its responsibilities in 
the most cost-effective manner possible.
  Mr. President, OGE's mission is critically important in ensuring 
strict ethical standards in Government. I hope my colleagues will move 
expeditiously to pass this important measure reauthorizing OGE. 
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Levin for his 
efforts on this legislation and his many years of service on Government 
ethics issues.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased we are considering today, H.R. 
3235, the Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1996. This 
is the same as S.699, the bill sponsored by Senator Cohen and myself 
and reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee. H.R. 3235 would 
authorize the appropriation of funds necessary for the Office of 
Government Ethics to carry out its mission from fiscal years 1997 
through 1999.
  The Office was first established under the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978. Since then, it has been the centerpiece for implementing laws 
and policies governing the executive branch to ensure that Federal 
agency officers and employees operate free from conflicts of interest.
  Unfortunately, this bill would reauthorize the office for only 3 
years. I would have preferred 7 years, but we were told by the House 
that they wouldn't accept a longer reauthorization. Given the fact that 
the office has been without a reauthorization since September 30, 1994, 
and that its work is of fundamental importance to the operations of the 
executive branch, I think the position of the House is unfortunate. 
Such a short reauthorization will require more of the valuable time of 
the OGE staff directed to the legislative process and away from the 
important work of managing their ethics responsibilities. Because it is 
so short, it is also likely to result in an authorization gap similar 
to the one we are experiencing now.
  The bill contains a provision which would solve an unintended problem 
with respect to congressional and Presidential staff leaving office to 
work on reelection campaigns. In 1989, when we strengthened the post 
employment restrictions, we prohibited all senior executive branch and 
congressional staff from contacting their former offices on behalf of 
someone else for 1 year from the time they left office. What we 
overlooked at the time was the situation where congressional staff and 
top executive department officials may leave their Government positions 
to work on the reelection campaigns of the persons for whom they worked 
while in the Government. For example, the administrative assistant of 
one of our colleagues may take a leave of absence and work on the 
reelection campaign for that same Member. If that happens, that 
administrative assistant should not be barred from contacting the 
Member or his staff on behalf of the campaign, since the interests of 
the campaign and the Member are really the same. Such a bar, which was 
never intended, would basically make such employment impossible.
  The bill would correct this error and permit contacts by a former 
staff person working for a Member's campaign with the Member and the 
office of the Member if such contacts are on behalf of the campaign. 
Such contacts would not be permitted if they were made on behalf of 
someone or some entity other than the campaign. Should the former staff 
person work, for example, part time for the campaign and part time as a 
lobbyist, this bill would not permit that former staff person to 
contact his or her former office during the 1 year cooling off period 
on behalf of a client for whom he is serving as a lobbyist. The 
exception this bill makes is only for contacts by former staff on 
behalf of the campaign organizations of the Member or President-Vice 
President for whom the staff person previously worked. This limitation 
avoids giving an otherwise reasonable exception an unintended 
consequence.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Cohen, Chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Oversight Subcommittee, for his support on this 
issue; and my colleagues for their support in getting this bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that bill be deemed read the 
third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and that any statements be placed in the appropriate place in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 3235) was deemed read the third time, and passed.

                          ____________________