NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 1120 G Street, NW. Suite 540. Washington, DC 20005-3893 SUMMARY The "revolving door" issue involves important considerations relating to the public trust, effective public and private sector management of defense programs, and the protection of individual freedoms. Congress has attempted over the years to deal with the issue. Despite these efforts, due to occasional "horror stories" there is a public perception that the problem continues. Any effective solution must deal not only with perception but with the operational reality of the problem. which thus far has escaped definition. In view of the cost of implementating H.R. 2554, The Academy recommends that the Committee ask the GAO to study the issue and define the problem, including the effectiveness of administration of current applicable law and regulation, and then decide just what appropriate action by the Congress is required. The Academy recommends that the numerous existing laws and regulations on the subject be combined into a single, consolidated legislative framework. The Academy can bring its unique resources to bear on any aspect of this issue. Ray Kline January 29, 1986 STATEMENT OF RAY KLINE PRESIDENT NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 2554, THE "DEFENSE PROCUREMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT" January 29, 1986 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: It is my pleasure to respond to your invitation to the National Academy of Public Administration to comment on H.R. 2554, the Defense Procurement Conflict of Interest Act. The Academy, chartered by the Congress in 1984, is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization of elected membership created in 1967 to conduct studies and provide advice on the problems of government. This statement represents the views of a select panel of Academy members who have had long and distinguished careers in the field of federal procurement. The "revolving door" issue is a significant one involving important considerations relating to the public trust, effective public and private sector management of defense programs, and the protection of individual freedoms. The Congress and the Executive have long recognized the significance of the issue and through the years have attempted to deal with it directly and indirectly through numerous laws, executive orders and regulations addressed to both the procurement process and conflict of interest requirements. Despite these efforts, occasional "horror stories" involving post-Federal employment with contractors continue to be heard, and fuel a negative public perception of the integrity of the defense contracting process. These perceptions of wrongdoing not only erode citizens' confidence in government but temper their willingness to support defense programs. The continuing concern gave rise during the last session of Congress to the passage of P.L.99-145 which places certain post-Federal employment restrictions on presidential appointees, and provides the backdrop for today's consideration of H.R.2554. The central question to be addressed concerning the efficacy of H.R.2554 is whether it effectively addresses a real problem endemic to DOD procurement management. In view of the potential scope and cost of the proposed bill, it is important to define with some specificity just what is the post-federal employment problem in defense contracting. The Academy panel has been unable to find a clear articulation in either the Executive or Legislative branch the fundamental problem and therefore agrees with the following statement made by the GAO to the Congress in a 1978 report, and repeated in a second report dated June 10, 1985: - of The extent to which a post-Federal employment In the absence of information as to the extent to which post-employment problems exist, it is the Academy panel's view that the Congress ask the GAO to undertake a comprehensive review of post-employment problems in defense contracting. The results of such a study could affirm that H.R. 2554 is right on target. On the other hand, it could reveal that the area is adequately covered by current law and regulation that the problem is not one of the need for new law as it is the need for improved administration of current law. Or there could be a need for both new legislation and improved administration Defense establishment but in civilian agencies as well. - not only in the There is some evidence that the administration of current law and regulation as related to "revolving door" and general conflict of interest may be in need of some improvement. For example, the GAO in its June 1985 report on DOD defense-related post-government employment found great variations among DOD agencies in meeting reporting requirements of Section 2397. For another example, a brief examination of ethics program administration by Common Cause in 1984 found great variations among the agencies and observed that in certain cases post-employment restrictions tended to be limited or nonexistent. To our knowledge, no comprehensive review of the implementation and administration of relevant statutes and regulations has been made, and we believe such a review should be part of the GAO study. One hindrance to effective administration could be the very proliferation of laws and regulations themselves, leading to the question as to whether it is time to combine existing law into a single consolidated, legislative framework. A consistent, comprehensive approach would ease both Executive administration and Legislative oversight of the process. The Academy panel recommends that Congress undertake such a consolidation effort. If the Committee decides to move ahead on the bill, despite the above considerations, the Academy panel would emphasize that, as currently drafted, - the bill would entail enormous costs for its administration involving information and tracking on thousands of DOD employees and large volumes of paper from the DOD and contractors alike: this at the same time that other Congressional initiatives are being pursued to cut the costs of government and streamline its processes. In consideration of the objectives of both H.R. 2554 and government efficiency, the Committee may want to reexamine the thresholds for coverage in the bill. For example, should contracts covered by the bill remain at $100,000 or be raised to, say, $1,000,000? For example, should employee coverage be defined solely by procurement function or should an arbitrary cut-off be established at an appropriate management level, say, GS-14 for civilian employees and the equivalent rank for military personnel? There is a strong possibility that the objectives of the bill could be met at much lower cost by a careful, rigorous examination and determination of appropriate thresholds. But, again, setting thresholds presupposes an understanding of the problem. The Academy panel notes the provision for waiver of selected positions under certain conditions from requirements of the bill. Such features underline the importance of effective administration of the bill upon passage, as the exercise of such waivers are important not only to the management of Defense programs but to the "revolving door" perceptions of the average citizen and the DOD workforce. Another Academy panel, in its report on the Presidential Appointee Project which reviewed Presidential appointments during the past five Presidential administrations, recommended that a legislative ban be placed on the solicitation or discussion of future employment in the private sector by any Presidential appointee during the time of his or her appointment. Your committee |