[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7836-S7837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SENATE RESOLUTION 665--TO REQUIRE A WITNESS BEFORE A COMMITTEE HEARING 
 TO FILE A DISCLOSURE FORM IDENTIFYING SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL INTERESTS 
OR COMPENSATION FROM AN ORGANIZATION OR COMPANY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE 
                          SUBJECT OF A HEARING

  Mr. GRASSLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

                              S. Res. 665

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This resolution may be cited as the ``Witness Sunshine 
     Resolution''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE STANDING RULES.

       Paragraph 4(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
       (2) inserting at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Each committee (including the Committee on 
     Appropriations) shall require each witness who is to appear 
     before the committee in any hearing to file with the clerk of 
     the committee, at least 1 day before the date of the 
     appearance of that witness, a disclosure form identifying any 
     arrangement, affiliation, relationship, or substantial 
     financial interest the witness has with any organization, 
     company, private, or government entity directly related to 
     the subject of the hearing as well as the nature of the 
     relationship disclosed, unless the committee chairman and the 
     ranking minority member determine that there is good cause 
     for noncompliance.
       ``(B) For any witness who at the time of the hearing is 
     employed by the Federal Government, submission of his or her 
     Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report 
     may fulfill the requirements of this clause at the discretion 
     of the Chairman and the Ranking Member so long as the 
     completed form is up to date and discloses all relevant 
     arrangements, affiliations, relationships, and substantial 
     financial interests.
       ``(C) If so requested by the committee, the staff of the 
     committee shall prepare for the use of the members of the 
     committee before each day of hearing before the committee a 
     digest of the disclosure forms which have been filed under 
     this clause by witnesses who are to appear before the 
     committee on that day. In addition, the disclosure forms 
     shall be made part of the committee record.''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, so far during the 111th Congress, the 
Finance Committee, of which I serve as the ranking Republican member, 
has held over 50 hearings. At those hearings, around 200 witnesses 
offered their testimony and answered members' questions. The witnesses 
who testify at our hearings are considered to be some of the most 
qualified experts in their field and their participation is critical to 
the legislative process. Because of their influence on legislation, it 
is important that Congress knows to what extent the witness' testimony 
is objective and if the witness has any significant interest in the 
outcome of potential legislation.
  Three of the hearings held by the Finance Committee this Congress 
were roundtable discussions on health care reform. These discussions 
brought 41 witnesses, including industry stakeholders and academic 
leaders, before the committee to share their expert knowledge on policy 
options for health reform.
  At one of these roundtables, Dr. Jonathan Gruber, a health care 
economist and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
testified before the committee on health care reform. I thought he was 
an unbiased expert, but was later disappointed to hear that he had been 
paid over $400,000 by the administration to help advance the 
president's health care proposals. At the very least, he should have 
been straightforward with the committee and disclosed this financial 
interest.
  In addition to his testimony before the Finance Committee, Dr. Gruber 
testified in front of the HELP Committee and was also a high-profile 
supporter of the administration's health care reform effort in the 
media. In only a handful of his many articles on health care reform did 
he disclose his financial conflict of interest.
  While the propriety of Dr. Gruber advocating for administration 
positions in the media and other venues while failing to disclose his 
financial ties to the administration has been called into question, I 
am especially concerned about his advocacy before the U.S. Congress. 
When an academic leader comes before Congress to advocate a position, 
Congress should have confidence that the witness is both independent 
and objective and not being paid to assist the administration, or any 
other organization, in its efforts.
  Equally troubling is the Department of Health and Human Services, 
which has been unresponsive to efforts by Senator Enzi and myself to 
learn more about their practice of hiring consultants to advance the 
President's agenda.
  The fact that this expert was paid by the administration--and hid 
that fact from Congress--really taints everything this particular 
advocate told the committees. If Congress had been aware of his 
arrangement with HHS prior to his testimony, we would have had the 
opportunity to clarify that relationship with Dr. Gruber before 
considering his opinions and ideas. Unfortunately, when we learn about 
it after the fact, it completely discredits the information he 
presented.
  To follow up on this alarming news, Senator Enzi and I sent a letter 
to Dr. Gruber on January 26, 2010, asking him for details of any other 
government contracts he might have or might have had over the last 5 
years and for details on whether he disclosed his government ties 
during media interviews, speaking engagements and written works on 
health care reform.
  Dr. Gruber's response failed to answer any of the questions posed in 
the letter. Instead, the response barely exceeded one page in length, 
was dismissive of any concern about the lack of disclosure and 
attempted to excuse his failure to disclose and to explain away the 
need for any detailed response. Furthermore, Dr. Gruber did not even 
commit to providing any such disclosure of the financial relationship 
with the Administration in the future.
  Unfortunately, Dr. Gruber's failure to answer our questions came as 
no surprise. In my 30 years serving in the United States Congress, I 
have found that chasing answers on the back end is much more difficult 
than requiring clarity and transparency from the start. And many of my 
colleagues might be surprised to find out that although many witnesses 
voluntarily disclose their affiliations or relationships so that they 
can explain them, no Senate committee currently requires witnesses to 
disclose potential conflicts of interest.
  Dr. Gruber even highlighted this point when he said in his February 
23 letter that, ``to the best of my recollection, during the course of 
my health care reform work with Congress, no Member or staffer ever 
asked me whether I held any government contracts.''
  In retrospect, if we were to have asked Dr. Gruber to disclose his 
agreements with the administration up front, we would have had the 
ability to ask him questions in-person, and he would have been given a 
chance to explain the relationship before testifying, so that his 
testimony could be given its proper weight. Our failure as an 
institution to ask for transparency in testimony is a problem that has 
a simple

[[Page S7837]]

solution, a solution that most other institutions that rely on the work 
of academic experts have already implemented. The solution is to simply 
ask witnesses who come before the Senate to disclose any potential 
conflicts of interest up front.
  Our colleagues in the House of Representatives are already requiring 
witnesses to do this and there is no reason why we shouldn't require 
the same level of transparency from witnesses who come before the 
Senate.
  That is why today I am submitting the Witness Sunshine resolution. 
This resolution will make the Senate committee hearings more 
transparent and thus more credible and valuable to the legislative 
process. It achieves this goal by requiring each witness that appears 
before any Senate committee to submit a form disclosing outside 
affiliations and financial interests in any organizations, including 
government entities, that are directly related to the topic of the 
committee hearing.
  In August, I was happy to learn that the administration is supportive 
of this idea. In an August 4 letter, Secretary Sebelius wrote me 
saying, ``Should the Senate Finance Committee or any other 
Congressional Committee choose to [require witnesses to submit 
financial disclosure forms in advance of an appearance before the 
Committee], I would certainly encourage HHS contractors to fully comply 
with [that requirement].''
  So adopting this rule should be an easy decision for the Senate. Our 
colleagues in the House of Representatives have been requiring this 
level of transparency for over a decade and now we know that the 
administration supports the idea as well. The House tells me that their 
witnesses are not overburdened or discouraged to offer testimony 
because of this requirement. I have carefully drafted this resolution 
so that the requirement for transparency similarly does not burden 
Senate witnesses.
  It is time for this body to meet the standards for transparency set 
by the House and followed in so many other institutions across the 
country. Supporting my resolution will help ensure that future 
testimony can be given its proper weight, and end the uncertainty of 
unknown interests influencing testimony. I urge my colleagues to 
support my resolution.

                          ____________________